The Inverclyde by-election is almost upon us. The Westminster issues have been explored in depth and the local public can’t wait to do their democratic duty candidates have verbally battered each other and party activists have stuffed letterboxes with literature to a largely uninterested and increasingly frustrated electorate.
The truth is, of course, a by-election makes little difference at a local level and only really helps to shape the narrative for parties at a national level, albeit for only a short period.
So, if that is what is at stake, let’s see how this Thursday might go for each of the stakeholders…
Labour – In one respect, the red hot favourites have everything to lose and, in another respect, they have nothing to lose. The next Westminster election is 4 years away, the next Holyrood election is 5 five years away and Ed Miliband’s renewal of the party has only just begun. Does it matter if Inverclyde goes yellow? For a few days, maybe even a full week, yes, but after that the disappointment will be swept away as the next crisis/disaster/scandal comes along to take its place.
SNP – For the SNP to win this by-election it would be a big surprise, though perhaps not a huge shock since the campaign seems to be going swimmingly and Anne McLaughlin has acquitted herself very well in the tv debates. However, in the media narrative, you are either a winner or a loser so to avoid the latter, the SNP will have to find a way to be the former. Most of the public won’t appreciate how great a result it would be for the Nats to fall within a couple of thousand votes of Labour in this area so some of the gloss might come off Salmond’s veneer from this Thursday, over and above the self-inflicted problems that is.
Conservatives – They will finish third. They may save their deposit. There will be no embarrassment but there will be no reason for cheer either. From a Tory perspective, this by-election will only serve to remind the UK that David Cameron’s message, and the coalition’s at large, is not being heeded north of the border.
Lib Dems – They should finish fourth, they will lose their deposit. The Lib Dems will have given their youthful ‘rising star’ (a phrase used too liberally if you ask me) a good deal of experience and exposure in this contest but, at best, it can only be a disappointing night for them. The disaster would be finishing below UKIP who received 433 votes in 2010, to the Lib Dems’ 5,007. I wouldn’t rule it out, but that may just be heart ruling head.
Greens – There’s not much point in standing in a contest when you know you will lose your deposit but the Scottish Greens will not be discussed during this campaign nor during the results broadcast so they are already ontrack for a disappointing night as they seek to gain a foothold in the political imagination of Scotland.
So there we go, that’s about the long and short of what Thursday evening will mean despite the hours of discussion that anoraks will lap up and the rest of the country will not be listening to. Maybe I’m getting cynical in my old age, maybe the SNP’s arguments are getting through but I would only sit up and take notice of a Scottish by-election if it was for Holyrood rather than Westminster.
Not a bad endorsement of how important the Scottish Parliament has become in 12 short years.
#1 by alex buchan on June 27, 2011 - 1:25 pm
A SNP win could end up being the least good result for them because it would further weaken Miliband and make it more likely that 1) he will step down at some point before the next UK election, and 2) make it much more likely that the reforms to Scottish Labour coming out of the Murphy exercise are substantial. So it could be argued that a very close finish with Labour scraping through is a better result for the SNP.
#2 by alex buchan on June 27, 2011 - 1:30 pm
On the other hand a SNP win would panic the three Westminster parties because they tend to react more to Westminster results and it would be evidence that the SNP bandwagon is still rolling.
#3 by Jeff on June 27, 2011 - 1:37 pm
Yes, I’d go with your latter point there, an SNP win being preferable for the, uh, SNP.
That said, if Scotland is to be such a focus over the next while and Scotland is to have such obvious leadership problems at Holyrood and even outwith, a replacement for Ed Miliband* really could be Jim Murphy which would be a disaster for the SNP’s independence aspirations.
* assuming he continues to struggle to make hs mark, a situation exacerbated by an SNP by-election victory etc etc
#4 by alex buchan on June 27, 2011 - 4:16 pm
I don’t think Jim Murphy is a serious contender for Labour leader at Westminster, it will be a long time before Labour would vote for a Scottish leader after Gordon Brown.
Part of their problem, as they see it, is that they are too associated with Scotland, Wales and the industrial North. They see their main objective as that of rehabilitation in England, and specifically in the Midland’s and the South. It’s not for nothing that Miliband chose to go to Kent the day after the May election. Advertising the fact that they could still win in the South was his main objective.
Miliband is a liability, and thus will have to be replaced before they can win at the UK level. But, unlike the Tories, Labour are not very good at getting rid of leaders. So, in that respect a defeat in Inverclyde, though in theory helpful in bringing about the changes Labour need, in practice it would probably just compound their situation with the potential for further internal divisions.
#5 by Jeff on June 27, 2011 - 4:33 pm
Alex,
I daresay you’re right; I suppose if the battlefield is in the South and Northern/Scottish Labour will grudgingly put up with a southerner over Cameron/Clegg then I guess a Miliband or a Balls or Yvette Cooper will be the favourites to go into the 2015 contest.
There was an article (in the Guardian?) talking about the lack of of northern England representation and I guess that’s why i thought a Northerner might get the nod, particularly given independence being a defining issue over the next few years. For me, if that were to be the case, that means an Andy Burnham, a Rachel Reeves or a Jim Murphy taking over the reins when Ed (inevitably) runs out of time.
So yeah, I can see it both ways really.
#6 by alex buchan on June 27, 2011 - 4:36 pm
That’s the Observer article I mention below.
#7 by alex buchan on June 27, 2011 - 4:40 pm
I can’t see independence ever been seen as a “defining” issue at Westminster.
#8 by Mr. Mxyzptlk on June 27, 2011 - 3:49 pm
If the snp lose this by-election then Salmonds claim(as ever) of an overwhelming majority of the Scottish peoples support is going t be mighty thin.
Obviously the Nats say well its a strong Labour seat which we probably wont win and then on the other hand if they do win will scream from the roof tops what a stunning victory for the snp and Independence .
The fact is if the snp are on course for their Independence win then they must win at inverclyde if they dont (my fervent wish ),
Then indy-lite goes up notch whilst Independence goes down several anyway only a few days and we will know.
#9 by alex buchan on June 27, 2011 - 4:33 pm
Yes but they would still win a devo-max/indy-lite vote. Even John Reid has conceded that point. The result of the referendum is not going to be decided by this by-election result anyway, to think otherwise is to treat the Scottish electorate as idiots.
#10 by Aidan Skinner on June 27, 2011 - 9:58 pm
I’d hope Labour would campaign for a yes in a devo-max referendum, which would help matters 🙂
#11 by alex buchan on June 28, 2011 - 11:02 am
I hope so too
#12 by Jeff on June 27, 2011 - 4:41 pm
Not entirely sure Salmond’s ever claimed to have “overwhelming majority of the Scottish peoples support”. Even at ‘that’ Holyrood election the SNP only got mid-40s% of voteshare, which noone in the SNP is denying that I can see.
I don’t get your “other hand” point. It is a strong Labour seat so why shouldn’t the SNP be chuffed with itself if it wins? What would Labour be like if they won Banff & Buchan?
I daresay you’re correct though that the full arguments for independence will get pushed to the side even more so if the SNP finish 2nd.
#13 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 27, 2011 - 7:10 pm
“The fact is if the snp are on course for their Independence win then they must win at inverclyde if they dont (my fervent wish ),”
What a load of top-to-bottom cobblers. We spent the whole of 2007-11 being told by the Unionist parties that a vote for SNP wasn’t a vote for independence (and indeed this is true), because independence isn’t top of most people’s priorities when voting and they’re perfectly happy to vote for the SNP purely on the grounds of being the best party to run the devolved Parliament.
Inverclyde is a byelection, and a Westminster one at that – local issues and UK issues will play by far the biggest part in determining the outcome, with the Scottish constitution a long, long way back. It will have precisely zero relevance to, or impact on, the independence campaign.
I’m intrigued if Labour are really so scared of losing that they’re starting to spin expectations already. The SNP, even in the light of the Holyrood result, shouldn’t have an *earthly* of winning Inverclyde. If they can get the majority in one of the safest seats anywhere in Britain down to 5000 or less that’ll be a major result, and represent a huge swing. If they win it I’ll eat a banana, and I don’t really like bananas.
#14 by alex buchan on June 27, 2011 - 4:29 pm
Did you see Andrew Rawnsley’s latest Observer article where he pointed out that Miliband finds it hard to differentiate himself from Cameron and Glegg partly because, for anyone in the North of England or in Scotland or Wales, they all come across as quintessentially metropolitan and middle class and thus divorced from the experience of those whose votes they seek.
#15 by Jeff on June 27, 2011 - 4:38 pm
Aha, yes, that was the piece I was thinking of with my earlier comment. It was a very good article.
Great minds think alike…
#16 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 27, 2011 - 7:04 pm
http://wosblog.podgamer.com/2010/09/25/the-creatures-looked-from-pig-to-man/
#17 by Allan on June 27, 2011 - 8:41 pm
A can win seat for the SNP, and one they must win to keep up their momentum…
A Labour loss though will make those calls for a review of where the grand Old Party is going all the louder. Looking at Labour Hame, i don’t see any sign of the penny dropping yet…
#18 by Top Tory Aide on June 27, 2011 - 10:01 pm
By all accounts it’s very very tight – we’re talking 2 or 3 k in it – but Labour will hold on.
I was speaking to a Nat on the campaign trail on Friday who suggested, quite cruelly, if the SNP central thought they could win the seat then they wouldn’t have pushed for Anne McLaughlin to be the candidate.
#19 by Andrew BOD on June 27, 2011 - 11:54 pm
Westminster by-elections in Scotland tend to be more affected by devolved issues than Westminster general elections. As a result, I believe the result will be much closer. In saying that, even if the SNP get a massive 18% swing from Labour, they still won’t win and I’m sure Labour would claim a famous victory!
The candidates themselves could make all the difference in how the electorate identify themselves with them. Don’t know too much about the SNP’s Anne McLaughlin. However, Iain McKenzie is the current leader of the area council, and on the recent Politics Show, presenter Isabel Fraser asked Mr McKenzie a really pertinent question. He had been outlining his job creation success in the area and had pointed out that new jobs were the top of his plans as an MP. She said: “If you’re being so effective as a Council Leader in creating jobs, why would you want to move to Westminster to become an MP?” Good question.
#20 by Indy on June 28, 2011 - 9:44 am
There is no way of knowing who is going to win because the voters are playing their cards very close to their chests and there are still a massive number of undecideds,
Both the Labour and SNP campaigns have been affected by the awful weather. When your canvass sheets turn to paper mache there is not much more you can do.
The quest for an all-weather canvass kit continues ….
#21 by Lost Highlander on June 28, 2011 - 10:27 am
People do tend to not read soggy paper mache put through there doors especially if the ink ruins the carpet.
Inverclyde should have a major swing from Labour to the SNP but will it be enough to win the seat, not so sure especially as David Cairns was very well repected and liked.
Not so sure that Ian Mackenzie has that much affection though from the population. Still he is wearing that red rosette.
#22 by Dr Bill Reynolds on June 28, 2011 - 10:35 am
I agree with much of what Jeff has said.However,every by election has its own narrative.John Masons victory in Shettleston for the SNP may well have had its antecedents in his victory in the Glasgow East by election.John certainly lost the seat in the general election of 2010 but his work as an MP,and earlier work as a councilor probably contributed to the unexpcred victory in Glasgow Shettleston.Shettleston is part of the Glasgow East Westminster seat.This is anecdotal and one case but it contradicts Jeff’s view that:
:By elections make little difference at local level and only shape the narrative for politics for a short perion.
Well I think that John Mason is percieved to be an active and trusted politician,who is readily available.That is something that many Glasgow constituents had not enjoyed for a long time.Thatr situation certainly influenced the narrative of politics during a national election in Scotland last month.
I do not know how Inverclyde will go but I suspect that the SNP candidate,if elected,will be as effective as John Mason.She also has the advantage of being able to work closely with a party of government in Scotland.Something that SNP by election winners,prior to John Mason,did not have.All I am saying is that we live in a period of change and cannot base our assumtions on past trends.
#23 by Hamish on June 28, 2011 - 11:36 am
Entirely agree with the final remark in your article, Jeff.
The focus is now very much on Holyrood, and Westminster is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
Before the last Holyrood election, I wrote to all the SNP MPs urging them to resign their Westminster seats and stand for Holyrood instead. I wonder if some of them now regret not having done so.
(*rest of comment redacted for what I consider to be impolite and ungentlemanly conduct* – Jeff)
#24 by Jeff on June 28, 2011 - 1:06 pm
To be totally honest, if I were to be a politician I would choose Westminster. Shooting down to London every week, getting to talk about big issues like Libya and Greece and IMF and all while being largely unscrutinised by a public that tends to return the same MPs from the parties every 5 years. Easy life.
Maybe that’s cynical and more than a little workshy of me but Holyrood is beginning to look like hard graft (for even the List MSPs) and Westminster is easy street.
(PS Sorry about cutting your comment short Hamish; I suspect it was tongue in cheek but I thought it was a bit too mean)
#25 by Hamish on June 28, 2011 - 3:01 pm
Ouch, Jeff, rebuke accepted, but the rest of my comment wasn’t that bad.
(If I could smuggle in a small explanation, I commented on whether politicians’ looks, good or bad, influence election results).
I assume that your response above is tongue in cheek.
Heaven forfend that you really mean it. If you do mean it, you are not only cynical and workshy. You have lost the (political) will to live.
#26 by Erchie on June 28, 2011 - 12:50 pm
It’s a pity that the Green Party is so easily written off here
This is EXACTLY the sort of area the Greens need to sell their “prosperity without growth message”, perhaps getting some local projects going, if they are ever to convince the rest of us
#27 by Alan Clinch on June 28, 2011 - 4:57 pm
The fact the Green Party isn’t fielding a candidate might go against them.
#28 by Hamish on June 28, 2011 - 5:16 pm
Dammit, is that why I never win the lottery.