The sad, untimely death of David Cairns is the cause of the first election in Scotland since the Holyrood vote last month. Speculation will of course be mounting as the date of 30th June draws nearer as to whether the SNP can wrest this seat from Labour and take its tally of MPs up to seven.
The 2010 election result was:
Labour – 20,933
SNP – 6,577
Lib Dem – 5,007
Conservative – 4,502
The 2011 Scottish Parliament election result (for what I believe is a very similar area) was:
Labour – 12,387
SNP – 11,876
Conservative – 2,011
Lib Dem – 1,934
The contest will of course be a two-horse race between Labour and the SNP, there is little point in pretending otherwise and the candidates are confirmed as Iain Mackenzie (Labour) and Anne McLaughlin (SNP).
The SNP has picked a great candidate – Anne has experience of being an MSP, was the mastermind behind the Glasgow East by-election triumph a few years back, is female and seems to be very likeable. However, Labour have picked a great candidate too as Iain is the leader of the local council and perhaps has more ‘local credentials’ than his rival. The opening salvos do seem to suggest that a common Labour refrain will be ‘this area needs a strong local voice’.
The by-elections in the last term are not much to go on in terms of by-election form. The SNP won Glasgow East with a shocking swing from Labour but were then brought down to earth with thumping defeats in Glenrothes and Glasgow North East.
The problem for the SNP of course is that it is easier for it to take seats from Labour in a Holyrood election than it is in a Westminster election. There is no ‘strategy, vision, team’ from before, there is no Swinney record to rely upon, there is no Council Tax freeze to outmanoeuvre Labour on and there is no Iain Gray to set against Alex Salmond for First Minister. In a media-driven narrative of Cameron vs Miliband, how does Angus Robertson get a look in? Let alone a Scottish Tory, Scottish Green or Scottish Lib Dem viewpoint? One genuinely has to wonder if it’s worth those three parties gambling with their deposits and instead just staying at home. Â
Furthermore, the independence hare is off and running, cooped up as it was before May 5th. How many voters will that keep at home or spook into voting elsewhere?Â
Labour will send busloads of activists up north telling all sorts of terrible tales about the Tories down south and, at the end of the day, if you define yourself by not watching Coronation St, you watch Eastenders instead, not BBC Alba or Gardener’s World. The 2010 election did help confirm that, in a Westminster context, Labour vs Tory is indeed the norm.
Many will seek to make inapplicable hay out of the SNP finishing second and the Salmond honeymoon being shortlived. It shall be tosh. I am sure the Nats are in it to win it but falling a few thousand votes short, as I believe they will, is a result to be proud of in a deep red area like Inverclyde and Greenock. Â
#1 by Holyroodpatter on June 9, 2011 - 8:58 am
Big bad Tories might fall on sceptical discerning ears as the Tory candidate announced yesterday is part of a ruling local coalition with Iain, whose campaign thus far is defined by it’s vapid nature, saying very little at all
#2 by Tony on June 9, 2011 - 9:15 am
Why Fr Cairns Jeff?, he relinquished that position long ago.
Anne McLaughlin is from Greenock and has extensive ties there.
I am very interested in the result because we know that labour will go about their business in the same auld discredited way. Unless Robertson comes up with a masterstroke it is really boils down to a test of the maturity of the Scottish electorate, in so far as to how long a large section of us are wil continue to be bedazzled and bullshited, with a heady mix of fear.
Independence should be an issue, as win lose or draw more information will be put out there, helping to inform an electorate that if we are to be honest have been deliberately kept in the dark by our Westminster masters. And what little they by and large know is tinted by the afore mentioned fear and bullshit.
#3 by Indy on June 9, 2011 - 9:28 am
It will be interesting. I haven’t been there yet but will be going at the weekend. What I have heard so far sounds good.
I think we have good cause for optimism looking at the independence poll in the Herals today. OK it is just one poll but it is quite striking to see how the level of support for independence has grown in the west of Scotland. If this is true it gives me great encouragement.
#4 by JPJ2 on June 9, 2011 - 9:28 am
I commented on another blog yesterday and so I repeat what I said then:
Bookies seem to be offering 2/7 that Labour will hold Inverclyde. That is poor value for money-evens is the worst that I would accept-not that I could accept it as I have had my account closed due to being too succesful with my political betting 🙂
Labour are total idiots calling this by-election quickly (what’s new?). Here are a number of reasons why Labour will be lucky to hold on:
*The Holyrood seat was WON on the list/regional vote by the SNP
*The main reason for people voting Labour rather than SNP at UK GE’s is that Labour can form a UK government-that is irrelevant at this by-election
*The SNP candidate was the campaign manager for the famous Glasgow East by-election SNP victory
*The campaign manager for this by-election (Kenny Gibson) is a magnificent election fighter-at the recent election he achieved the highest % increase of any candidate in Scotland (and think of the swings that took place!)
#5 by Jeff on June 9, 2011 - 9:56 am
A strong case for a strong charge by the SNP JPJ2! I’m a Kenny G fan (no, not the saxophonist) so you definitely caught my attention with that factoid.
Don’t worry about the Labour odds either; once the SNP activists get their party instructions to put a tenner or two on the SNP to win in order to even up the odds, you’ll see Labour’s voting approach Evens 😉
And my humblest sympathies for no longer having a political betting account.
#6 by Doug Daniel on June 9, 2011 - 11:17 am
“There is no ‘strategy, vision, team’ from before, there is no Swinney record to rely upon, there is no Council Tax freeze to outmanoeuvre Labour on”
To be fair, this sort of thing has never presented a problem to Labour – if I recall correctly (and I do), wee Willie Bain talked almost exclusively about knife crime in his bafflingly successful bid for Glasgow North-East, despite it having nothing to do with Westminster issues whatsoever.
Ever the pessamist, I have absolutely no expectations of the SNP winning this seat whatsoever. Hopefully I’ll be in for a pleasant surprise though!
#7 by Dubbieside on June 9, 2011 - 11:34 am
Jeff
One of the main points about this by-election is that the SNP would like to win it, but if we loose we carry on with our mandate at Holyrood. jpj2 makes some interesting points, particularly about the general election message “only Labour can keep the torys out” but for Labour they must win it.
A defeat for Labour in a heartland seat after Mays humiliation would be a hammer blow, and boy don’t they know it. The big question for Labour is can they risk exposing the Eds up north after their contribution
#8 by Lost Highlander on June 9, 2011 - 12:08 pm
Why did Labour call for that quick an election I suspect it has a lot more to do with finances and concerns about its voting machine.
I suspect that those in charge of Labour want a quick burst election one where they can bus in loads of support and to use there scant finances more effectively. They do not want a long drawn out affair where there opponents can use there more effective systems against them.
I suspect that Labour should win this but it will still turn out badly as the SNP make large gains in what for Labour is supposed to be heartland.
#9 by Duncan on June 9, 2011 - 1:24 pm
I think they are running quickly so they can capitalise on David Cairns’s considerable personal appeal. Some of the stuff they have been putting out comes fairly close to shroud-waving. The longer the campaign, the more the focus turns on what this is about, the less likely they are to win. If they can keep Cairns in the voters’ thoughts, they might have a better chance.
#10 by JPJ2 on June 9, 2011 - 3:26 pm
Duncan-you may well be right about why Labour are holding a quick byelection-but with due respect to David Cairns, his death is not as cataclysmic an event as that of John Smith.
After his death on 12 May 1994, the Monklands East by-election was held on 30 June 1994. The Labour Party majority was reduced from 15,712 to 1,640.
I am sure Labour would settle for a victory of any sort, but as I said in my earler post, I think they should be no shorter than evens to hold Inverclyde.
#11 by Jeff on June 9, 2011 - 8:32 pm
This is crazy. I wrote this post with the manifest belief that Labour could not lose this by-election; thanks to these comments I’m now strongly considering putting a hefty bet on the SNP winning as it looks like decent value at 3/1. That statistic about Monklands is interesting.
I think I need to get out of this betting game entirely….
#12 by Aidan Skinner on June 9, 2011 - 8:53 pm
Honestly, if you can get decent odds on the SNP winning it, I’d take it. They want it incredibly badly, although as you point out really any result short of an SNP wipeout will be spun as a win for the SNP and further weakness on behalf of Labour.
The likely Lib Dem and possible Tory collapses alone put it into play, never mind the Holyrood result and the likely low-ish turnout.
#13 by Dr Bill Reynolds on June 9, 2011 - 4:09 pm
This byelection could go either way.Since it is not a general election it is certainly not a Labour vs Tory battle.The outcome will not help the UYK Tory governmenmt in any way and there is the pec uliar issie of Labour councilors in Inverclyde working with the Tories.
This election is about who is most likely to speak up in defense of Scotlands interests? It is also about giving the UK government anb extra nudge to concede more fiscal powers to Scotland,that are needed to generate jobs.In spite of this election being for Westminster,the resouces needed to create jobs fits withe the agenda of the Scottish government.I do believe that the SNP have shown that they always put Scotland forst and that they are attempting to bring more job creating powers to Scotland.An extra SNP MP is more likely to focus minds on that issue than an extra labour MP
#14 by Aidan Skinner on June 9, 2011 - 8:55 pm
Labour is also supporting bringing more powers to Holyrood, and unlike the SNP we’ve laid out how we would use them to create more high skilled jobs.
#15 by Doug Daniel on June 10, 2011 - 12:11 pm
Which powers, and how would Labour use them?
#16 by Lost Highlander on June 9, 2011 - 11:27 pm
You also have to remember that Labour cannot risk the glasgow trade risk fiasco it suffered in Glasgow North East.
A quick focused election with the sympathy of the public still with Labour is what Labour wants. It will still cost them money they do not have but winning something in Scotland is worth a lot right now.
#17 by Dr William Reynolds on June 10, 2011 - 10:45 am
Glad to hear that labour are in favour of greater powers for the Scottish parliament.Unfortunately they are very quite about it.I do not recall a single labour MP arguing strongly for full fiscal autonomy,which is the favoured way of creating jobs,supported by a majority of the population.In that case why send another labour MP to London? Best to send an MP there that belongs to a party that is actively campaigning for the economic leveres necessary for job creation and greater wealth that is needed for our health care transport infrastructure,education system and so on.I would love to see the labour party stand alongside the SNP ,arguing for such things,but sadly,it is not evident.I think that most peoples perception is of a labour party obstructing the transfer of powers to the Scottish parliament.They have been joined by Mr Michael Moore.
#18 by Scottish republic on June 10, 2011 - 11:38 pm
It’s a mountain for the SNP to climb but Labour are pointless in Westminster, unless voters in Scotland consider the Labour expression, ‘mount an effective opposition’ as being worth anything… they don’t.
But this is a strong Labour area and difficult to win.
We’ll see. Why actually vote Labour? The cuts are going ahead and went ahead despite all the Labour MPs Scotland sent.
A feeble 50 to a failed 40 something. Pointless.
#19 by Indy on June 13, 2011 - 12:16 pm
Having been thetre at the weekend the answer is yes we can.
#20 by James on June 13, 2011 - 1:27 pm
I love the neutral field reports each party’s activists provide.