It has been the scourge of many an SNP activist and Nationalist candidate alike during Westminster elections – ‘A vote for the SNP is a vote to let the Tories in’.
Despite there being a perfectly logical (if long-winded) response to such a taunt, I am sure many a frustrated political combatant has been left hamstrung and dumbfounded by the barb. Indeed, the above is the main reason why I believed the SNP should have made an unequivocal statement before last year’s election that a vote for the party would be a vote for Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, as if Angus Robertson and his colleagues could ever have brought themselves to vote in favour or even abstain in the face of a Conservative Prime Minister being voted in.
Scottish voters could have been free to vote for the SNP or Labour, safe in the knowledge that whoever won out of them, the chances of David Cameron getting in were unchanged. The ‘Tweedledee and Tweedledum’ attack never works when the electorate quite clearly prefers ‘dee to ‘dum. It could have been seen as Labour+, a vote for Gordon, a vote for Scotland and a vote against nuclear weapons. Smashing, where do I sign.
However, with May 2011 on the horizon, the tables may yet be turned. To what extent could ‘Vote Labour – get Gray’ work on to the SNP’s benefit?
Fresh from undignified insults of Ireland and Iceland (recovering faster than expected incidentally), the insult of Montenegro is the latest embarrassing incident that Iain Gray has pulled his party into, not to mention the latest bit of evidence that Iain thus far can’t match the statesmanlike gravitas and verbal delivery that Alex Salmond possesses. Even the harshest of the First Minister’s critics tend to agree that he is a tremendous politician in the purest sense of the word and therein lies Labour’s problem with current leader Gray.
And, well, does it get much worse than this?:
As I pack up to leave I ask Gray to give me five interesting and unknown facts about himself to dispel his boring image.
“I speak Portuguese although it’s very rusty,†he says. “I grow bonsai trees.†There is a silence and his press officer throws in the observation that Gray is a blue belt in karate. “It’s a green belt actually,†says Gray. “That’s three.†The PR comes up with the observation that Gray’s holiday job as a student was as a bus conductor. “That’s four,†says Gray. “We need one more.â€
In the silence you can hear the sound of spatulas scraping barrel bottoms. “There must be something else,†says Gray. It’s like naming five famous Belgians. We all think hard. I suggest he thinks of the most mischievous thing he’s ever done. “No there’s nothing,†he jokes. “I’ve always been perfect. Smoking is the extent of my badness.†The seconds tick on.
I’m not having a go. Well, I am, but with an overriding, justifiable point. Labour are clearly ahead in the polls and currently has its tails up with an expectation that May is theirs for the taking but there is a large question mark hanging over its key individual and that is a question mark that the public is well within its rights to consider and ponder, and the public will do so in the months to come but not before the media really starts to peel back the layers of who this would-be First Minister is and how up to the job he may or may not be.
Many a country has seen a challenging party ride high in the polls in the run up to an election only to be denied victory at the last hurdle due to a flatfooted leader that just didn’t make the grade :-
Neil Kinnock in the UK (1992)
Segolene Royal in France (1997)
John Kerry in the US (2004)
Mona Sahlin in Sweden (2010)
Julia Gillard in Australia (2010) (ok, she eventually won, but only just and after throwing away a commanding lead in the polls)
Ed Miliband in the UK (2015) (just joking, but he is heading that way…)
The suggestion that Gray falls short of Salmond’s level of support could equally be applied to Labour’s Shadow Cabinet when compared to the current Cabinet, further reinforcing my point. When personality trumps party, the effects tend to apply late.
One can already feel that this coming election will be a visceral, personal, unattractive slugfest; the ‘enemy’ isn’t even contesting the election as Cameron and Clegg and the source of the cuts are safely ensconced in Westminster for the next four years which, I suspect, will only add to the level of bickering that will ensue up North. The bickering will lead to bruising, the contusion to confusion and, against that backdrop, a perceived weakness on the opposing side can only ever be expected to be exploited.
The SNP has wanted a referendum on independence for the past four years but, if it can make this coming election a referendum on Iain Gray, then therein probably lies its best chance of success.
It would be nice to talk of a great battle of ideals that is due to take place, a row of party leaders seeking to inspire and impress its citizens with high-minded ideas and wide-reaching solutions. I predict that in the various hustings and tv debates Scotland will, sadly, fall way short of this aim.
Play the ball not the man? For the Holyrood elections it doesn’t seem likely from an SNP perspective and, perhaps, justifiably so.
There will be no ‘Alex Salmond for First Minister’ voting option this year but ‘Vote Labour – get Gray’. Could that be the crucial slogan of Holyrood 2011?
#1 by Nicola on January 4, 2011 - 11:05 pm
Interesting. From what i’ve heard Salmond is planning on pushing independence at the election & with Tories in power at Westminster there is no better time to push it.
#2 by Jeff on January 5, 2011 - 8:08 am
There is that Nicola. I do forget that merely winning elections isn’t the extent of SNP ambitions. Although I don’t think an election solely based on indepedence is winnable for Salmond, that doesn’t mean it’ll necessarily be a bad thing if the Nats did lose. Tories/Lib Dems in Westminster and Labour in Holyrood but still an underwhelming sense amongst the public that Scotland could do better could ironically be the best way forward for those wanting independence.
Strictly from a May 11 perspective, I do think Gray is the SNP’s best bet.
#3 by Chris Jones on January 4, 2011 - 11:13 pm
Jeff, a great post – and if I may say so, a return to form…. With the elections so close, the Scottish blogosphere could do with your insight. Keep it up.
The SNP party, and the campaigning machine, has certainly switched on to the fact that the state of the Labour front bench could be one of our strongest cards in the coming election: Scottish politics may have too much sneering and partisan faux-outrage, but at heart everyone across the chamber knows that Salmond, Swinney, Sturgeon and Macaskill are unmatched by their Labour shadows. Yet, we feel like we’re in for a rough time.
That’s because the formidable Labour election machine is awake and pumping out creative stuff. Just look at Jackie Baillie in the past 2 days, getting non-stories on NHS company cars and reallocation of un-needed NHS Direct contingency funds. Both pisspoor, both trivial, both made it to the bulletins. We’ve seen similar pieces last year on prisoner flat screen TVs (no-one makes CRTs anymore), teacher cuts (by Labour councils, but spun into anti-SNP received wisdom) and more.
In comparison, we couldn’t even get decent publicity for Iain Gray’s diplomatic slapdown. Folk might think that’s yet another sign of media bias, but what actually happened was that someone decided to issue the press release in the name of Iain Hudghton MEP, who is utterly unknown outside the party (and funnily enough about as inspiring as Iain Gray) – along with a bland and unmemorable quote. No wonder it wasn’t picked up widely – open goal missed. Later this error was corrected by using Angus Robertson, but by then it was too late.
Its no good just relying on the weakness of the Labour front bench. Their press ops are not weak and we have to get sharper. And speaking out of turn for a moment, getting sharper also means that some of our staffers need to up their game and start fighting to win.
#4 by Jeff on January 5, 2011 - 8:50 am
Thanks Chris, being out of Scotland is a quick way to be out of the loop so I guess I’ll be merely nibbling around the edges of this election to come. Maybe not such a bad thing if it’s as bad-blooded as I suspect it will be.
I can’t really comment on media strategy or SNP approaches to it but what you say makes sense, not that getting one’s preferred stories into Scotsman and Daily Record can be an easy gig at the best of times.
Infact, I see they’re on the rack again with it being Mike Russell’s turn for resignation calls. Fire-fighting hopefully won’t be the name of the game for the next full four months.
#5 by Chris Jones on January 5, 2011 - 11:03 am
Ah yes, the Russell story struck me last night too – in reality there is nothing there beyond “politicians in the same party talk to each other” and “senior politician tells junior politician to stop being inept”.
But yes – it proves a point, 3 days running of trivial stories making the front pages, and where pray is our response? Weak rebuttals don’t help stop headlines. We need to get as creative as team Labour.
#6 by Doug Daniel on January 5, 2011 - 1:00 am
I fear for my country if Iain Gray gets the keys to Bute House, and his chums Kerr, Baillie and Baker get to play at running the country. Seriously, the very idea fills me with dread. Richard Baker as Justice Minister? It sounds like a punchline to a very bad and tasteless joke. I wouldn’t put Richard Baker in charge of a plastic spoon, never mind knife crime.
Interesting spin on Newsnight tonight, where the likely election outcome was described as being either a minority Labour government, or a rainbow coalition of the other parties. Really? Are you sure about that, Newsnight Scotland? Tories and Lib Dems joining forces with the SNP to keep Labour out? Hmmm, sounds remarkably like someone trying to paint Labour as being the underdog, fighting against everyone else who will stop at nothing to keep them and their “radical ideas” out of Government.
#7 by James on January 5, 2011 - 9:39 am
The choice between minority Labour and rainbow opposition wasn’t predicted by Newsnight Scotland, it was predicted by the Scotsman’s Bill Jamieson. Blaming the BBC for that is classic SNP paranoia.
#8 by Doug Daniel on January 5, 2011 - 11:05 am
You’re quite right that it was Jamieson and I should have clarified that, but he did say it on Newsnight, and there was no attempt by Brewer to probe further, which I thought he might since it was quite a ludicrous suggestion. Unless I’m wrong and the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens have already made a pact with the SNP to form a rainbow alliance to fight Labour?
#9 by James on January 5, 2011 - 11:19 am
Ach, all sorts of stuff goes unchallenged (see yesterday’s headlines about “VAT rise will create jobs, Chancellor says”).
On your latter point, I think I’d know if we were signed up to any secret pacts, and you’ll have to take my word for it that we aren’t!
#10 by Hamish on January 5, 2011 - 11:45 am
Just to clarify James, who are ‘we’?
#11 by Jeff on January 5, 2011 - 11:54 am
(Pretty sure “we” = the Scottish Green Party, which James works for)
#12 by James on January 5, 2011 - 12:32 pm
Roger that.
#13 by Nicola on January 5, 2011 - 11:43 am
Annabel Goldie has suggested that the Tories would join a coalition with the SNP. Alex Salmond effectively said Over My Dead Body will the SNP ever allow the Tories into power when Scotland hates them.
#14 by Jeff on January 5, 2011 - 11:52 am
I think the SNP should be more open to this option. The Tories, quite understandably so desperate to be relevant North of the border, probably offer the most likely route to the much coveted referendum.
The numbers could quite easily end up with SNP&Conservative(&Green) being the only possible coalition. Where would that leave us?
#15 by Richard T on January 5, 2011 - 10:50 am
Just a cautionary note before you get too carried away by maximum Eck’s glib silver tongue. There was an election in 1970 when it was widely assumed that Harold Wilson’s quick wittedness and experience in government would see off flat footed leadened tongued Heath. The voters preferred the Tory.
#16 by Dubbyside on January 5, 2011 - 11:36 am
Just a cautionary note before you get too carried away, there was an election in the mid Eightys when it was assumed that a partys lead was so great that even a useless leader who the public disliked would not matter and they would sweep to victory.
Remember the victory celebration held before the election, back then Neil Kinnock, today Iain Gray.
Also in the last opinion poll before May 2007 had Labour 17% ahead, so do not count chickens just yet.
P.S. The more that Ballie is on TV the better, as she shows just how shallow she is. Can we please get Kerr on talking economics and Baker talking crime.
#17 by Jeff on January 5, 2011 - 11:48 am
That 17% opinion poll must have been the decidedly dodgy poll from an obscure polling company because I remember the SNP being a little bit ahead going into the last week, so much so that the SNP team held back on some good polling news to stop public and activists from not getting complacent.
However, I definitely agree there is plenty of scope for swings in opinion polls over the next four months.
#18 by Indy on January 5, 2011 - 11:56 am
The thing about responding or rebutting stories like that is that you just give them more publicity – and credence.
It’s an interesting phenomenon. A friend of mine works with asylum seekers and refugees and told me that the various organisations supporting them stopped focusing so much on rebutting false stories e.g. asylum seekers getting preferential treatment regarding housing etc. The reason they stopped doing that is because they did some research which showed very strongly that it was completely counter-productive, as the rebuttal only reinforced the story rather than undermining it.
So the more people were told that asylum seekers did not get preferential treatment on social housing waiting lists the more people came away believing that, in fact, they did. It’s not logical but it is the way many people interpret things they hear in the media – particularly from political sources.
The more a political party says X, Y and Z are not true the more people believe that they are true.
I understand the frustration activists feel when they do not see the SNP fighting back about the kind of made-up stories that the press tend to run with but I think that’s the reason. The more fuss we make about it, the more the papers will continue to run the story and the more likely people are to believe them. A lot of people would just think that the SNP wouldn’t be so keen to deny something if there was nothing to deny.
#19 by Chris Jones on January 5, 2011 - 12:10 pm
I understand what you are saying, but at the moment we’re providing weak or late rebuttals, which is worse than no rebuttal at all.
We also shouldn’t be letting Labour lead the agenda – we should be getting as creative as they are, and providing the press with alternative stories that fire up the public interest. Instead, again, we’re doing the worst thing possible and issuing endless press releases that rehash old news and repeat tired lines because they are personal hobby-horse subjects. Funnily enough they either aren’t picked up, or worse are used as target practice by the opposition.
My plea to fellow activists is therefore simple – stop bleating about press coverage and instead get working on driving the agenda.
Maybe we also ought to relax about Baillie, Kerr and Baker getting onto the bulletins – the more the public hears them speak the more they will realise just how appalling they really are!
#20 by Jeff on January 5, 2011 - 1:02 pm
“My plea to fellow activists is therefore simple – stop bleating about press coverage and instead get working on driving the agenda. ”
Sound advice I reckon, for any party. Attack is the best form of defence and I’m not even sure if complaining about media coverage, although frustrating, even counts as defence. 2011 will be an even more difficult election for the SNP than 2007 was and consequently it’ll be harder to keep focus and stick together. So, yeah, good luck!
#21 by Indy on January 5, 2011 - 12:56 pm
Well let’s take an example Chris. On the day that the press ran with the non-story about the flu vaccine/Commonwealth Games the SG put out a story about 1 million more people being registered with an NHS dentist since 2007. That’s a pretty strong story – especially when you consider what a big issue lack of access to NHS dentistry was in the run up to the election and the various promises the SNP made (and kept) about how thet would tackle it. But did you read it anywhere? No, me neither.
So it’s not a question of saying the SNP/Scottish Government doesn’t put out good strong stories. The press don’t print them. It really is that simple.
#22 by Jeff on January 5, 2011 - 1:03 pm
Fair point.
#23 by Chris Jones on January 5, 2011 - 1:17 pm
Actually, no – and this example neatly underlines the problem.
The press release that you refer to was a Scottish Government PR – it can found at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/01/03115953 – and therefore has two characteristics: It is politically neutral in tone and was released by the civil service rather than our own press team, so won’t be pushed as a political story. Government press releases are not SNP political press releases. As this stands this a success for the state but not the party. Journos ignore bland good-new stories from all parties and always have done.
Look at our own press release feeds and it is no-where to be seen – http://www.snp.org/news – the significance of the story has completely bypassed our press teams and SPADs. And if we were really upping our game and getting creative we would firstly highlight the success of SNP policy in this area and then explicitly remind folk of how under Labour they couldn’t get NHS dentistry, highlight evidence that this wouldn’t have happened without SNP intervention, possibly extending into evidence of how this progress would be at risk under a Labour government.
But instead we sit back on a mild puff piece with a junior minister quoted in her ministerial capacity – instead of rolling out big guns and hammering home what is undoubtedly a major success story.
#24 by Despairing on January 5, 2011 - 1:22 pm
Party leaders need time to grow into a job, something that isn’t given to them in the age of 24/7 media coverage. They need to consolidate their position within their party, distance themselves from previous stances and actually work out an agenda. Thus the first year or two of someone leading a party can be mostly written off, to the frustration of both the party and the media.
William Hague would have been a match for Blair come the Iraq War, but the Tories got frustrated and ousted him just as he was beginning to look statesmanlike (and had ditched the baseball caps). Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard were clearly not the right men for the job, but they were never given much time to stamp their authority before being summarily dismissed.
Cameron, on the other hand, was given the time, and it paid off (just).
The problem that Scottish Labour have is that Gray has never matured into the job. He hasn’t been allowed to have any authority because Gordon was king, and therefore has been mostly anonymous to the Scottish public.
The other problem is that there aren’t any big names behind him. Mostly legends in their own lunchtimes, the Labour benches are nondescript. Compare that with the SNP benches at FMQs: Salmond always has two household names sitting next to him – Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney.
(Incidentally, perhaps Salmond missed a trick there by reducing the number of cabinet ministers a few years ago, and thereby reducing the number of future “big-hitters” in the party in the coming years that the public can name, but that’s a subject for another post – from you!)
There’s a feeling of competency exuding from the SNP front bench which seems to be missing when you look at Gray floundering when he has to think on his feet. He’s had the time to get into the role and has been found wanting.
#25 by Shuna on January 5, 2011 - 1:26 pm
some of the words and how they have been used in this discussion are exactly the reason that so many people have such a low opinion of politicians and politics.
These tit for tat, insult slinging and personal attacks are turning people off. They are much more interested in what is actually being done to help them.
I suspect after the fees backlash people may well be more interested in policies than personalities – every party should expect more scrutiny – there are thousands of people out there looking for a new place to put their ‘X’ now.
Not that I want the SNP to win the election but if I were them I would be clear about what they stand for (not just Independance – because heck they failed to life up to the referendum promise – hiding behind the ‘wouldnt get it past parliament’ – why not try??) and be possitive about what they have achieved. And keep at it – keep telling the good news stories and dont get embroiled in mud slinging.
negativity wears me down – and I am not alone….
#26 by Indy on January 5, 2011 - 2:22 pm
Tit for tat, insult slinging and personal attacks may turn people off Shuna but in that case why do the media only focus on negative stories? I suggest it is partly because that is what people want to read. It is not as simple as saying that political parties alone are to blame for a negative political culture. They are partly to blame but so is the media and so are the voters.
You get what you vote for and, as long as people reward negative campaigning, political parties will do it. As a Labour Party member you know that fine well – or you ought to.