Hot on the heels of dissent in the ranks of the SNP come tales of woe from within the ruling Labour party in the City of Glasgow.
There’s a lot at stake. A resurgent SNP has taken the prized political scalp of the City Council as its number one target in next year’s local government elections. It signalled the seriousness of its attempt by appointing Cllr Alison Hunter as the opposition group leader after James Dornan won election to the Scottish Parliament in May.
Yet, there are internal problems over the campaign strategy, essentially over the number of candidates to field. One group advocates a 40 candidate approach while, it has been rumoured, a group backed by Nicola Sturgeon MSP, Depute First Minister (from whose constituency Cllr Hunter hales), want more candidates to stand. It has resulted in bad tempered city association meetings and resignations. For what it’s worth, the Burd reckons the latter strategy – of more than 40 candidates – is the right one. In some wards, a carefully targeted 1 – 2 voting scheme could pay dividends. Labour has managed to get more than one candidate from wards elected in the past. But the way the party is behaving it will be lucky to win any wards at all.
The party is undergoing a purge, removing dead wood in the form of sitting councillors to make way for fresh faces. But newspaper reports suggest the scale of the scalping is causing deep divisions with some who have been dumped threatening court action over claims of procedures not being followed properly. And worst of all, the party might find itself embroiled in financial irregularities with allegations against former Shettleston MSP Frank MacAveety, hoping to return to active politics as an elected member, currently being investigated by police. It might come to nought, but the publicity will be damaging to a party already in the doldrums and still recovering from the resignation of its energetic reformist council leader, Stephen Purcell.
God help Glasgow. For in amongst this morass, the city faces huge economic and social challenges. Even during the boom years, Glasgow featured in all the “worst of” rankings. Lower life expectancy, high levels of poverty, long term economic inactivity, huge social dislocation – these are Glasgow norms. And things are about to get worse. The city council’s budget will be hit hard by cuts coming downstream from Westminster via Holyrood. Services are bound to be affected. And measures like changes to benefits through the welfare reform bill will cause unprecendented strain on families and individuals. If folk who have not worked in 20 years are thrown off the new universal credit after 12 months, where will they turn to prevent themselves and their families becoming destitute and homeless?
The ropey economic recovery will also require careful stewardship to ensure that Glasgow, with its lower skill base and more fragile base, is not impacted disproportionately. Investment means new jobs are still being created but it is hard to tell if it amounts to growth or simply displacement. And in amongst it all is the prospect of the city showpiece of the Commonwealth Games in 2014. Glasgow has a chance to shine on the global stage and the city has to be ready for its big moment.
At a time when the city needs strong and energetic leadership, the two biggest parties, vying for the right to rule, are fighting among themselves. We are less than eight months out from the election, and neither of them have all their candidates in place nor evidence of a campaign strategy in the pipeline. To be sure, the SNP’s problems are fewer than Labour’s and it has the bounce to be expected from an outstanding performance across the city.
Perhaps the internecine troubles over candidates point to an obvious solution, that of allowing city folk to participate in candidate selection through primaries. Seeing as the parties are having a little difficulty working out how many and whom, handing the whole process over to the public might work? There have been others touting the use of primaries for candidate selection for Holyrood, mainly I think from the Labour camp. Not only would such an innovation sort a little local difficulty, it would provide a useful road test of a different way of selecting candidates that might result in quite different candidates being put forward.
And Glasgow might just get the candidates and councillors it deserves, rather than the ones the parties think it does.
#1 by Dan on September 20, 2011 - 8:56 am
Ah, the problems of STV and voter management. If you look across the water to Northern Ireland there are two great examples of success and failure in the Assembly. Success: just look at Sinn Fein in the West Belfast constituency, superb voter management returned 5 of the 6 seats for them. And then look at the Ulster Unionists in Lagan Valley, a total failure. Too many candidates and poor vote management led to them splitting their vote and electing fewer MLAs (only one) than they should have. Given the Scottish parties relative inexperience in STV elections I’d go for brutal pragmatism and stand enough candidates for a majority, with a couple more for a margin of error, and no more.
#2 by The Burd on September 20, 2011 - 7:27 pm
There are a number of councils and wards where the SNP has successfully managed to return more than one councillor in a multi-member ward. They could learn from that. Labour has done the same, especially in Glasgow last time round.
#3 by Daniel J on September 20, 2011 - 3:55 pm
Both are surprisingly split. While Labour has the more serious problem of a potential break away I’m quite amazed at how the Glasgow SNP have been able to fall out to this extent over candidate numbers.
With the Lib Dems likely to fall off the radar and Greens picking up a few lucky seats in 2007 we’re going to see a huge number of wards with only Labour or SNP cllrs this time round.
(Has anyone heard anything else about the potential ‘Glasgow Labour’? I can’t imagine it would really happen…)
#4 by Barbarian on September 20, 2011 - 7:23 pm
Good article, and the timing is quite good, considering the latest storm that is about to engulf Edinburgh.
Glasgow is dangerous ground for the SNP. Their ill-advised “Clean Glasgow Up” during the last general election was appallingly managed, as it gave the impression that Glasgow – rather than the councillors – were dirty.
Roll onto the Scottish elections and the strategy change paid off.
I back Sturgeon’s approach. I also think it’s also about time the SNP cleared out its councillors from many councils. Too many of them have got too cosy and some of their skills are highly questionnable – as are many of the other partys councillors skills.
The SNP absolutely must pick candidates based on ability rather on loyalty. Nepotism is highly dangerous. These council elections are absolutely crucial with regards to the referendum.
Not only that, the candidates have to get round the doors making themselves known. Many councillors retain their seats because of who they are, not what party they represent. Relying on the “Alex” factor has to stop.
#5 by The Burd on September 20, 2011 - 7:31 pm
A lot of SNP councillors elected in Glasgow in 2007 were first timers, so I think your criticism is a wee bit wide of the mark re cosying in, though that does apply perhaps to councillors elsewhere! But it doesn’t automatically follow that they were all good and therefore should continue…. Again, a lot of first timers will be elected this time round, with only a few highly experienced hands. Which makes the prospect of a relatively experience lite group assuming control of Scotland’s biggest city an interesting one! Though the correlation of that is the number of Labour councillors who have been elected for years and have done diddly squat in all that time to address some of Glasgow’s deep-seated issues.
#6 by Barbarian on September 20, 2011 - 9:48 pm
Not Glasgow, but South Lanarkshire councillors. I’d personally like to seal the whole lot – every one from every party – into a cave.
Some councillors do a lot of good in their respective wards, but when it comes to central issues, well, that is a different kettle of fish. Let’s say that planning is not a strong suit for any party in the Council.
I’m not querying lack of political experience for councillors (that actually might be advantageous!), but I prefer to see those who have suitable qualifications and/or relevant experience. Councillors should be able to deal with very local issues on their own turf. It would be good to see a change of control in Glasgow, and see if someone new can step in and do something. In fact, change is essential.
#7 by NoOffenceAlan on September 20, 2011 - 7:36 pm
It should be reasonably straightforward for the SNP to turn wards which currently return 3 Labour councillors and 1 SNP into a 2-2 split.
#8 by Indy on September 20, 2011 - 10:25 pm
The main flaw with this article as far as the SNP side of it is concerned – and its no reflection on the author – is that the story it is based on is rubbish. Well, I’ll qualify that by saying that there have been some “personality” issues in the GRA but the person or persons involved have resigned.
The VMS is not a bone of contention. The figure of 40 that has been banded about would, of course, give the SNP a majority. But following the election people reviewed their data and decided whether they could stand more candidates.
The GRA as a body reports to HQ about the number of candidates which will be fielded across Glasgow as a whole. But actual decisions as to how many candidates to stand in each ward are taken by the branches that cover that ward, not by the GRA. So the notion that the GRA could be split on how many candidates to field is based on a misunderstanding of how the whole thing works.
Obviously I can’t really say any more than that except that personally I would not be at all surprised if some of the deselected Labour councillors stood as independents. Many of them do actually have a personal vote, maybe not huge, but enough to tip the result one way or another.
The Sunday Herald SNP Glasgow split stories have certainly been the talk of the steamie amongst Glasgow/west coast activists. The consensus is that Tom Gordon has been speaking to someone, or perhaps a number of people, on the periphery of the SNP in and around Glasgow but who are not actually involved in the party.
To me it is a reminder that sometimes political journalists do get it completely wrong. Garbage in, garbage out.
#9 by The Burd on September 20, 2011 - 10:45 pm
There is usually little more than a grain of truth in such press stories, it is true but there have been personality and more divisions in Glasgow SNP for years – and some, including the author, have been around the block long enough to know this. As for whom Tom Gordon has been speaking to, I’d try a lot closer to home. The GRA still has a pivotal role to play in terms of total number of candidates but it is good that this fecht has been had and hopefully sorted to allow the focus to get on to campaigning for 2012. Labour’s problems are bigger and are likely to rumble on.
Of course, what I didn’t raise is where Glasgow SNP constituencies and branches is going to find all these candidates from… and not just candidates but good quality ones too, capable of running the country’s biggest city.
#10 by Indy on September 21, 2011 - 9:17 am
Well I am telling you, factually, that there is no in-fighting in Glasgow about the number of candidates that should be fielded and never has been, Maybe I didn’t make it clear but constituency A simply cannot tell constituency B how many candidates should be fielded in the wards within that constituency. Each constituency decides that itself and reports to the GRA which then reports to HQ.
There was a bit of a row at a GRA meeting – but it was about a procedural issue. You will be aware that sometimes there can be a tendency for some people in politics to become mired in process, and it was that kind of row.
So whoever Tom Gordom has been speaking to was not present at the meeting and doesn’t really understand what the GRA is and how it works. To me that indicates someone on the periphery who has an interest in feeding a journalists stories about the SNP being divided.
#11 by Aidan on September 21, 2011 - 10:14 am
So the Convenor, Vice Convenor and Secretary didn’t all resign, with one then unresigning?
#12 by Indy on September 21, 2011 - 7:15 pm
Yes they did resign, But not at the same time. And not for the same reasons.