Labour gain two seats in District Council by-elections

There were three district level by-elections on Thursday night and the Labour party were celebrating victory in two of them. The more surprising of the two gains came in East Lindsey, Lincolnshire where Labour did not field a candidate in the North Holme ward at the last election. Coming from nowhere they took the seat off the Liberal Democrats following the death of the sitting Councillor. The Lib Dems slipped to a disappointing fourth place, polling less than the BNP. In Hastings, East Sussex secured a majority on the Council by gaining the Ore ward off the Conservatives. The election was delayed from May 6^th due to the death of the incumbent Conservative Councillor who was standing for re-election. The victory was achieved by a 12.9% swing on the 2008 result and Labour now hold 17 of the 32 seats on the Council.

The Conservatives enjoyed a gain themselves on the Wellingborough Council in Northamptonshire. They won the by-election in the Earls Barton ward following the resignation of the sitting Independent Councillor. The result doesn't change the balance of power on the Council as the Conservatives already have a huge majority in Wellingborough. The Tories also hold onto a seat on the Chichester Council in West Sussex by virtue of the fact no-one was willing stand against their candidate in next weeks by-election.

So the big news as far as local government goes is the pick up by Labour in Hastings. The Council was in No Overall Control prior to last month's election but Labour gained three wards to hold half the seats on the council. Victory in this deferred election gives Labour a majority of two, which will give the local party a welcome boost after they lost the Parliamentary seat in a close battle last month. It's hard to know what to make of the result in East Lindsey. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives contested the seat when the whole Council was up for election in 2007, and the Liberal Democrats won with ease. The Lib Dems will be looking to the many Principal Authority elections next month and hoping this result was just a blip due to local factors and/or a personal vote for the previous Councillor. As for the Conservative victory in Wellingborough it appears to be fairly regulation. They already held 30 of the 36 seats and so the gain is possibly a nice reflection on the Council's performance.

Lib Dems elect Hughes as their Deputy Leader, but does anyone care?!

Last Wednesday the Liberal Democrat MPs elected Simon Hughes their new Deputy Leader. The story was slightly buried under the drama of Diane Abbott's late surge in nominations, which meant she made it onto the Labour leadership ballot in the nick of time. Hughes replaces Vince Cable, who stood down to concentrate on his new ministerial position in the Coalition Government. But the main issue here is does this actually matter?!

To many the Liberal Democrats are still largely irrelevant. This is a view encapsulated by a response we had on twitter when we enquired if anyone knew what time the Deputy Leader result would be revealed. A follower replied simply "does anyone care?" Clearly the vast majority of Liberal Democrat activists care; even if the result was a foregone conclusion and they we're able to vote themselves. But should anyone else care? It's easy to see the fuss surrounding the Labour Leadership contest. The winner has a very good chance of being the country's next Prime Minister. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats does not have such an obvious high profile career path, Simon Hughes' election should not be so easily dismissed.

Times are changing in British politics and the Bermondsey & Old Southwark MP is actually now in a curiously prominent position within it. The Coalition Government has bestowed a far greater importance on a couple of cabinet posts which usually slip under the radar. The Lib Dem Deputy Leader position is another which will enjoy far greater media exposure than it otherwise would have done. The Deputy Prime Minister is a position assigned purely at the discretion of the PM. Gordon Brown did not replace John Prescott after he stood down from the role in 2007. Nick Clegg's power will come purely from his status as the junior coalition partner's leader, not by holding the office of Deputy PM. This is in contrast to, say, a department like the Home Office. And the recent furore surround David Laws has emphasised the office of Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I'm not sure how many members of the general public had heard of Liam Byrne when he held the position but in the Coalition the Chief Secretary's role represents the Liberal Democrats influence within the Treasury. It's in this vein that Simon Hughes will be listened to a lot more than Vince Cable was as the Lib Dem's Deputy Leader.

Hughes now has the opportunity to become his party's alternative spokesman. With Nick Clegg muffled by the principle of collective responsibility the Liberal Democrats need someone not in the Cabinet to help prevent the party becoming swallowed by their senior Coalition partner. A Distinct Voice, so to speak. I happen to think Hughes is the perfect man for this job. His speech at the emergency conference persuaded activists on the left of the party to support the agreement so he understands the importance of showing solidarity. But that doesn't mean slavishly agreeing with everything that is put before them. With all the novelty of an official Coalition between two parties it's easy to forget how our big political parties are, in reality, coalitions themselves. Tony Benn in the 1970's and John Redewood in the 1990's are good examples of how internal dissent can be managed well and extremely badly. Essentially Hughes has been elected to provide that kind of dissent, and I expect Cameron and Clegg to deal with him effectively.

On a more ambitious note Hughes has actually manoeuvred himself into an excellent position to become the next leader of his party. With other potential front runners irrevocably damaged (David Laws) or tied to Coalition policy (Chris Huhne) Hughes would be a strong favourite if this Government failed miserably. The Liberal Democrats would almost certainly shift to the left politically if the orange bookers mess up the Coalition and this will play perfectly into Hughes hands. I can't for a moment imagine Hughes hopes to find himself in the middle of that scenario though. He will instead like to be a friendly check on a successful Government, and the man who safeguards his party's distinctive voice in British politics. Even so, at 33/1…!

 

Tom Harris

By-Election Watch (14/06/10)

There aren't any top-tier by-elections this week but voters will be heading to the polls to elect few district Councillors on Thursday. The will be by-elections in East Lindsey (Lincolnshire), Hastings (East Sussex) and Wellingborough (Northamptonshire). Britain-Votes will tweet out the results as and when we hear them. Meanwhile, here are all the forthcoming by-elections in Principal Authority Councils we know about:

Council	Type	Ward	Party	Reason	Date
Conwy	Wales	Mostyn	Labour	Death	24th June
Lambeth	London	Tulse Hill	Labour	Arrested	1st July
Shropshire	Unitary	Clee	Conservative	Misconduct	1st July
Barking & Dagenham	London	Goresbrook	Labour	Ineligible	8th July
Blaenau Gwent	Wales	Tredegar Central & West	Labour	Death	8th July
Brighton	Unitary	St. Peter's & North Laine	Green	MEP	8th July
Caerphilly	Wales	Blackwood	Independent	Personal	8th July
Darlington	Unitary	Cockerton West	Labour	MP	8th July
Redbridge	London	Chadwell	Labour	Ineligible	8th July
Gwynedd	Wales	Diffwys and Maenofferon	Llais Gwynedd	Arrested	15th July
Surrey	County	Worplesdon	Conservative	Death	15th July
Walsall	Metro.	Bloxwich West	Conservative	Death	15th July
Camden	London	Frognal and Fitzjohns	Conservative	Death	TBA
Cumbria	County	Aspatria & Wharrels	Conservative	Death	TBA
Durham	County	Brandon	Labour	Death	TBA
Knowsley	Metro.	Park	Labour	Personal	TBA
Rhondda Cynon Taff	Wales	Cymmer	Labour	Death	TBA
Rotherham	Metro.	Sitwell	Conservative	Death	TBA
St Helens	Metro.	Billinge & Seneley Green	Labour	Death	TBA
Wolverhampton	Metro.	Bilston North	Conservative	Death	TBA

 

Tom Harris

A Man’s World?

Politics has, to one extent or another, always been a primarily male pastime. Harriet Harman's suggestion that fifty percent of Labours shadow cabinet should be women, and that the party rules should be changed to accommodate this, comes at a time when women are more represented in British politics than at any previous time. Obviously Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, but she was just one woman and her approach to the job could hardly be considered overtly feminine.

Presently a third of Labour MP's are female, more than in any other party. This clearly falls short of representing the actual population of the country. Therefore the concept of the shadow cabinet reflecting society on these current figures would require a disproportionate number of cabinet positions being allocated to female MP's.

This issue of women in politics was debated on Question Time. Diane Abbott, who has since been nominated as the only female Labour leadership candidate, featured on the panel and had a few things to say on the matter. The suggestion of cabinets members being selected on merit was, unsurprisingly, met with enthusiasm. This is widely, and rightly, accepted as the way things should be done. Abbott did, however, suggest that there are mediocre men in cabinet so why not mediocre women. To be quite honest a fair point, though ideally not a model for future cabinet selections...

The problem, which was touched upon on Question Time, is a lack of females in politics generally. It would seem that people are reluctant to bring up the actual reason. Abbott suggested that politics is still a 'boys club', which may be true to a point. The real difficulty though is that most women just aren't attracted to politics. Some women may enjoy the idea of power and competition but far more men are drawn to it. Generally women find the confrontational nature of politics unappealing, again there are exceptions but I would say that this is true for the best part. I can't imagine that the House of Commons would be the work place of choice for many women.

Above these reasons, however, is the fact that women often put their family before themselves. Political success often leads to family being thrust into the limelight, or at least subjected to increased and unwanted scrutiny. This occurs regardless of whether the Mother or the Father is the politician but it seems to sit better with males who perhaps feel they are able to protect their family. Like males do. Sadly with the British media and British politics currently it seems rather unlikely. The idea of having your family suffer as a result of your career seems rather un-maternal, and selfish, to many women. Often wives put their careers second, or even quit their jobs in order to support their husband's political aspirations. Samantha Cameron is a perfect example, especially since she has give up a perfectly successful career be Mrs Prime Minister. The likelihood of a female MP's husband putting his career second to further hers is neither likely, nor would it be expected. As, of course, is the likelihood of the public electing a single 35 year old career-minded woman to represent their constituency over a 'more rounded' candidate, sympathetic to their needs, probably a parent and spouse.

If there were to be a rule change there would be more definite female places at the top which may inspire more females to enter politics to a point, or at least enthuse current female MP's to aspire to be more. This isn't the answer to the problem though is it? The cabinet might better reflect the gender division of the population but it probably wouldn't be made up of the best people for the job. Though it might well result in Abbott's suggestion of a cabinet of mediocre men and women.

In order to truly change the gender division of positions at the top of not just the Labour party, but of any of the political parties, there must be an increase in female politicians from the grass roots up. For this change to happen the face of politics needs to soften a little. Women need to feel that they are welcome and able to succeed in the world of politics whilst retaining their femininity. The shape of politics will inevitably change as more women enter it, thus becoming more accessible for all people, not just women, who don't fit the mould of white, Oxford educated, male. As for how the media, and society in general, would react to women in the more traditionally 'masculine' cabinet positions, for example defence secretary, remains to be seen. What is clear is that meritocracy is essential if people are going to have confidence in the party. If women aren't in the cabinet it should be because they simply aren't as good as their male counterparts, not because they are women.

East of England – Post Mortem [Part III]

This is the final part of our re-look at the East. We're just going to shoot through the others now considering GE2010 is rather old news now (and we're losing the will to talk about it!). However, for the sake of completion we fell obliged to have a quick look a few odd regional results before we archive the whole thing and look forward to next years Scottish and Welsh elections.

Despite this region being completely dominated by the Conservatives, and so largely boring, it did throw up some of the shock results of the night. Here's a little selection; some we got right…some we got quite wrong!

Constituency	Incumbent	Notional Majority	Swing Needed	Favourite	Prediction	Result	Swing Achieved
Luton South	Margaret Moran	5,698	7.4%	4/6	LD Gain	LAB Hold	4.6%
Luton North	Kelvin Hopkins	6,439	8.2%	5/6	LAB Hold	LAB Hold	0.5%
Norwich North	Chloe Smith	6,769	8.3%	2/5	CON Gain	CON Gain	12.9%
Norwich South	Charles Clarke	3,023	3.7%	11/8	LAB Hold	LD Gain	4%
Watford	Claire Ward	1,151	1.2%	Ev	LD Gain	CON Gain	6.1%

Luton South was probably the most exciting contest in the election with the high profile candidacy of Ester Rantzan as an Independent creating an interesting dynamic, and making a prediction extremely difficult. I put this mistake, and most of them to be honest, down to our overestimating of the Liberal Democrats. If fact, my initial prediction was for Labour to hold this but during the election campaign I read too many articles and blogs to feel they actually had any hope of pulling this off. I thought that Rantzan's presence would be detrimental to the Conservatives and that the Liberal Democrats were too far away to make a challenge. The noise from Luton that the Labour candidate Gavin Shuker was struggling under the weight of the former MP Margaret Moran's misdemeanours, and so following the debates I switched this to a Lib Dem gain. This was under the assumption that the Clegg bounce would make this a three way fight in which two of the parties were severely disadvantaged. As it turned out the Clegg bounce didn't really happen anywhere, and Rantzen's showing turned out to be quite poor. With just 1800 votes she wasn't the difference between a hold and a gain even if every single one of her votes were 'Conservatives'. To everyone's surprise Shuker comfortably held the seat by almost 2500 votes and the other parties must be wondering if they'll ever get close to winning a seat in Luton.

Labour's strength in Luton is aptly highlighted by Kelvin Hopkins performance in Luton North. Although the odds were quite close in the run up to the election I was very confident Hopkins could defend his 6439 vote majority. He had an excellent expenses record and so he was able to distance himself from Moran in that respect. What I hadn't expected was for Hopkins to actually increase his vote! Yep, you read that right. The Labour backbencher managed to secure a 0.5% swing towards him from the Conservatives, completely against the national and regional swings. The local Labour party must be very proud of their efforts here and it certainly looks like a difficult task for the other parties to breakthrough in Luton, whatever the circumstances.

I'll take you from an excellent Labour performance to a couple of bad ones. In 2005 Labour held both seats in Norwich but that has all changed. In 2009 the Labour MP for Norwich North, Ian Gibson, stood down after becoming embroiled by the expenses scandal. The voters punished Labour in the subsequent by-election and the Conservative Chloe Smith was swept to Parliament on a 16.5% swing. That was almost double the swing required to gain the seat and although her vote share slipped back a little in the General Election Smith comfortably won her seat again. Although the circumstances surrounding the by-election were removed the Tories enjoyed the bonus of a squeaky clean incumbent MP, who'd spentthe past year campaigning for her re-election.

A much bigger shock was Labour's losing Norwich South, whose MP was the former minister turned rebellious backbencher Charles Clarke. Despite enjoying the rather unique advantages of both name recognition and an anti-Brown history Clarke was unseated by Simon Wright of the Liberal Democrats. I didn't think they'd have enough to take this considering the large Green support within the constituency. But it was Labour who suffered from the swing to the Greens and the Lib Dems secured a gain without actually increasing their vote. If we move to an AV system for the next election then this seat could potentially be a four way fight between Labour, the Lib Dems, the surging Greens and the Conservatives, who were only around 6% behind the winning candidate this year.

Finally, we got the three way marginal of Watford quite wrong. In fact, we got this, and most, three-way marginals wrong by backing the Lib Dems. But considering they were second here in 2005, and the bookies favourite, our prediction wasn't too risky. The actual swing in this seat went pretty much with the national swing as the Conservatives gained 5% at Labour's expense. The Liberal Democrats actually increased their vote share by 1% but this wasn't enough to prevent the Conservative Richard Harrington becoming the new MP. His predecessor Claire Ward was pushed to third but Labour's vote didn't crash too low. This is another seat that is sure to be exciting next time rough, whatever electoral system it's fought under!

Labour Leadership Competition – Who NOT to nominate

Having the widest possible field from which to choose from. It's been the mantra of the nominations step within the Labour leadership contest. Truth be told, as many have cynically put it, one must have more of a choice than 2 Ed's and 2 Miliband's, as it was just a few weeks back. Since then, three more candidates, Dianne Abbot, John McDonnell and Andy Burnham, joined the competition. Yet, out of these three, only Burnham, it would seemed, less than 12 hours before the deadline, to be able to acquire these, while, the latest news show both him and Diane Abbott getting on the ballot paper after John McDonnell's rather late withdrawal. And this fact precisely has led to an ample debate in the blogosphere on how Labour should ensure that they have the 'widest possible field' from which to choose their leader.

Blogs and articles belonging to members and supporters of all political parties, from Labour to the nationalists, argued ardently that either Abbott or McDonnell needed to have a chance, that there needed to be a leftist candidate in the books, making the whole competition more interesting. Even more, some of the candidates, like David Miliband, have declared that they would be willing to 'donate' their own personal vote to a contra-candidate to ensure they will make it past nominations stage. How nice of them! Or how patronising!!! No wonder that, upon getting his vote Abbott was actually quoted as criticising his 'insincere' support (D'oh!). In the same way, Harriet Harman, acting leader of the opposition, endorsed Dianne Abbott as a follow up to her comment last week that the Shadow Cabinet should have an equal number of men and women, even admitting that she essentially did not want to see a 'men-only' competition.

But going back to the whole 'widening the field' agenda, one must wonder why is everyone so keen to do this. True, political theory will tell you that in order to ensure a semblance of representation, the opinions of all the groups within it should be heard. But, in the same line of argument, we must all see that in many proportional systems there are parties that get that few votes to barely scrape a couple of seats in parliament or make is past the electoral threshold. (Which is why representative democracy has this sin of only representing the biggest groups/parties in society.) And that is relevant to our case, as it seem to be rather obvious that the left-wing group of labour MPs just isn't big enough, struggling to get at least one of their candidates past the nominations stage (versus it would seem now, four representing New Labour in its different forms). Moreover, the need for a leftist candidate is further skewed by the organisation of the voting process, which also encompasses the unions with a third of the vote (in what Chris would call the natural link between a social-democratic (?) party and the unions).

Yet, the problem remains: should we have a leftist candidate as all the papers and bloggers keep arguing, even as they are can barely get the nomination? Is representation worth sacrificing? I'd say it is, for two major reasons. Firstly, the MPs, though only a third of the final vote, are the people elected by the general public and through this they have a certain degree of legitimacy and link with the wished of the electorate, and thus the fact that very few of them are inclined to the left of the party should probably tell them something about the wishes of the public. Secondly, it seems like most of the argument for having a left-wing candidate stems from a desire for 'political circus', in having different discourses contend in this debate (And other political competitions, across Europe, have shown us that the further apart ideologically the candidates the more interesting the debate becomes - especially when you can provide an extreme-right or socialist voice in the debate).

But going beyond the entertainment and debate value, I genuinely believe that these three/four candidates will have to learn to construct different policies, different images in order to convince people differentiate them from their counter-candidates and to vote for them, not to rally against a leftist candidate, going against the Third way promoted 13 years ago by Tony Blair. Ed Balls is having a go at it, though his success is debatable, in breaking with the UK's commitment under the 'freedom of movement' legislation of the EU, in arguing too many Eastern Europeans have come to the UK. The others must learn to do the same, as the Post-New Labour era needs reform from within its very core, not from the outside. Having seen other examples, like the German SPD's return in 2007 to its leftist core, it is extremely predictable that Labour will move back to the left, especially as the governing coalition seems to have outflanked the centre both left and right. But this needn't happen by scrapping the old leadership, but by reform within it. Lastly, there is another argument: a leftist candidate may realign all or just some of the others to the right of the party's position. This isn't bad, but given the natural evolution of the politics of Labour, it may be a bit problematic if one of the candidates would still hold to his teeth to New Labour and the centre-left, in promoting 'disillusions' of grandeur and a copy of the Liberal democrat programme (which some analysts argue won't come out alive of this coalition anyway).

 

Labour leadership: The contenders

Last Thursday I covered the Labour leadership electoral system in all its glory. Nominations close tomorrow, so I just thought I'd look over the contenders and their chances.

David Miliband is the usual favourite. The son of a Marxist economist Miliband was Tony Blair's head of policy before entering parliament in 2001. During Euro 2004 I recall watching Tony Blair answer a parliamentary question comparing him to Sven Goran Eriksson, the upshot of Blair's response was to suggest that Miliband was his Wayne Rooney. Miliband was Britain's youngest ever foreign minister. Extraordinarily intelligent, Miliband is not as well known for his charisma. That said, he is not a bad media performer, he is just not as polished as Cameron or Clegg. It may be that this allows him to present himself as more substance than style, especially as people inevitably tire of the current government. It is said that he performed well at the first leadership hustings. Miliband enjoys massive support amongst the parliamentary party, as of this moment the Labour website lists 74 nominations for him, and it is likely that people like Frank Field, who have nominated other candidates in order to widen the field of contenders will get behind him on the actual ballot. Miliband's potential problems lie amongst the wider membership and the affliated societies. Being the frontrunner is not always a good thing, and Miliband may well be seen as too attached to the previous Labour leadership, and as he is widely seen as a Blairite, too attached to Blair specifically and a cleaner break with the past may be desired.

Ed Miliband is nipping on his brother's heels. In much of the press the leadership is seen as the 'battle of the Miliband's'. With 59 nominations behind him Ed has done well for himself. The former Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed is seen as a good performer, and thoroughly progressive. The fact that he was named by the Daily Telegraph as an expenses 'saint', also works in his advantage. While he was certainly a supporter of New Labour, he enjoys the support of the UNITE trade union and Tony Benn, likely to reassure the left of the party. My personal fear is that he may have peaked too early. Once tipped as the dark horse of the contest, he now risks being seen as just as establishment as his brother. While Ed is usually seen as a Brownite, he is not seen as overly factional, and is the closest thing to a 'unity' candidate running in the contest. Ed appears popular among the grassroots, and with UNITE's support is likely to do well amongst the trade unionists as well. He also enjoys the support of my sister, who deems him 'hot'. While David is supposed to be the frontrunner I think Ed is the most likely winner, assuming he can maintain momentum, which is a big if.

Ed Balls was Schools Secretary in the last government. With 33 nominations behind him, Balls has exactly the number required to reach the ballot tomorrow. Balls is known for his combative, tribal, style, rather than the calmer, more intellectual, more pluralistic style of the Milibands. This may work well at the leadership hustings, where diatribes against the new government will probably go down well. Balls' has big issues with expenses, and only won his seat by a small majority, after the Tories targeted him for decapitation. Balls has an advantage in his Schools Ministry, which is likely to come under more attention than those of other party contenders, and therefore propel him into the media spotlight. I would say that Balls is the least likely of the contenders who have currently reached the nominations threshold though.

Andy Burnham is relatively unknown compared to the other candidates. Gordon Brown's last Health Secretary, Burnham was widely seen as an extremely competent and likeable cabinet minister. Currently Burnham is two nominations away from reaching the threshold, which he is likely to get. I would watch out for Burnham, if that cabinet likeability extends into solid media performances Burnham could well come from nowhere. There is a trend at the moment of young, talented politicians seemingly coming from nowhere to the public stage. Think Obama, think Cameron in 2005, think Nick Clegg's bursting onto the scene with the debates. If Burnham can pull this off, he may well achieve victory. In Burnham's favour is his background. The son of a telephone engineer from Liverpool, Burnham is genuinely working class, a factor that is likely to work in his favour amongst trade unionists, and to a lesser degree, activists. He has also been a member of the Labour Party since he was 14. Working to his disfavour is his record on expenses, which is not as bad as Balls', but still not a cause for celebration. Nonetheless, I think Burnham is one to watch, especially if Ed Miliband starts to lose steam.

John McDonnell is the leader of the Socialist Campaign Group, the group of 'Old Labour' MPs. The standard-bearer of the left McDonnell, is unlikely to reach the necessary nomination threshold, and is likely to withdraw in favour of fellow left-winger Diane Abbott.

Diane Abbott is primarily notable for being the only person in the contest who isn't white and male. On the traditional Labour left of the party, Abbott is mostly known for her appearances on This Week with Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo. Currently she has the lowest number of nominations. While he has more nominations, it is foreseeable that fellow left-winger John McDonnell will withdraw in her favour, and his supporters will nominate her. It is likely that if he withdraws Abbott can win more nominations than McDonnell, among those New Labour MPs who want to see a black woman in the race. Harriet Harman has said she will nominate Abbott for instance because she wishes to see a woman in the race. It is difficult to see Harman backing McDonnell. If she reaches the ballot, Abbott's chances will be about zero, but a left-wing black female voice in the contest will help to broaden the terms of the debate.

Scotland – Post Mortem

Scotland was exceptionally dull on Election Day, whereas in England we saw massive and unusual swings, and a massive number of seats changing hands, in Scotland not a single seat changed hands. Part of this is down to the regional vote, which splits as follows.

Party	2005 Percentage	2010 Percentage	Difference	Seats (Both 2005 and 2010)
Labour	39.5%	42%	+2.5%	41
SNP	17.6%	19.9%	+2.3%	6
Lib Dems	22.6%	18.9%	-3.7%	11
Conservatives	15.8%	16.7%	+0.9%	1

As you can see, the Labour Party actually gained the most of the four parties. The SNP gained, but not by as much as Labour, the Liberal Democrats actually lost a good portion of their vote, and the Conservatives gained a measly 0.9% from an already low base.

I predicted 8 seats to change hands in Scotland, 1 to Labour, 2 to the SNP, 4 to the Lib Dems and 1 to the Conservatives.

I think the main thing that went wrong in Scotland was that Scottish issues proved more important to the Scottish than local ones. I actually expected one or two Scottish seats to completely surprise me with massive swings seemingly out of nowhere. A large number of Scottish seats are held by people with dodgy expenses. The extremely safe nature of a lot of Scottish seats reinforces the view in some Scottish MPs that they cannot possibly lose. This feeling of security, to my mind, led several MPs to feel they could get away with large or inappropriate expenses. Livingstone was one seat where I was actually expecting this to happen due to the arrest of former MP Jim Devine on charges of fraud. In the end the SNP gained a swing of 3.5%, a fair amount above the Scottish swing, but still not very close to the 14.8% they would have needed to win the seat. My feeling was that the previous vote had been partially a result of a high personal vote for former MP Robin Cook, and with the expenses situation, and SNP candidate Lis Bardell, who appeared to be running a strong and visceral campaign, looked likely to do well. On the opposite end of the spectrum were Edinburgh North and Leith, Edinburgh South, and Ochil and South Perthshire. All three of these seats required low swings to be taken by the Lib Dems, or the SNP in the latter case (2.5%, 0.5% and 0.8%). The 3 MPs in these seats were no doubt aided by their healthy expenses, (though Mark Lazarowicz made himself look worse than he actually was on expenses, it appears that the people of Edinburgh North and Leith saw through his foot in mouth syndrome). I had expected the SNP and Liberal Democrats to win these seats despite the regional swing, by focusing in activists and resources on the seats in question, a typical tactic. I suspect that they did do this, but it was simply not enough.

In 2005 Labour had several big issues in Scotland. The War in Iraq had been very unpopular in Scotland as were issues like the council tax, which played into the hands of the Liberal Democrats. What's more in 2005 Labour was led by a fairly posh Englishman (albeit one who was born and schooled in Scotland), while the Liberal Democrats were led by Charles Kennedy (these things count for a lot in Scotland). In 2010 the Liberal Democrats were led by Nick Clegg, whereas the Labour Party was led by a Scotsman, Gordon Brown. Brown is much more popular in Scotland than in England, and attacks on him by the English just seem to rally the Scottish around him, and the Liberal Democrats had little distinctive to offer the Scottish electorate this time round.

Yet, why not vote SNP? Well, the SNP vote did rise, but there are several reasons why the Scottish may not want to vote SNP. Firstly there is the traditional view that there is no point in voting nationalist because they cannot form the government. Secondly, there may be a case that disappointment with Alex Salmond's Scottish Executive may have fed through into this election. The SNP's campaign also centred on 'More Nats, Less Cuts', the argument flowing that a large bloc of nationalist MPs in a hung parliament could negotiate protection from cuts to Scottish public services. I personally suspect that the Scottish general public took the view that if they wanted to stop cuts to Scottish public services the Labour Party was a safer bet.

The Conservative result in Scotland has to make pretty sore reading for the party leadership. A gain of 0.9% in an election in which they desired to make a breakthrough. Now in government the Scottish Conservative Party must have concerns about next year's Scottish parliamentary elections and the security of David Mundell's single Scottish constituency. There are grumblings within the Conservative Party about the quality of the Scottish Conservative leadership and the way the affiliate operates, with some arguing that there are too many chiefs. Certainly, I suspect, the Conservative Party's Scottish section will come in for a large amount of evaluation in the coming years. Britain-Votes will keep you up to date if any plans come to light.

By-Election Watch (07/06/10)

There's a bit of a break in by-elections until the end of the month. Here are all the forthcoming top-tier Council by-elections that we're aware of. If you are aware of one that we've missed, or you can fill in a date, then please give us a shout!

Council	Type	Ward	Party	Reason	Date
Conwy	Unitary	Mostyn	Labour	Death	24th June
Lambeth	London	Tulse Hill	Labour	Arrested	1st July
Shropshire	Unitary	Clee	Conservative	Misconduct	1st July
Brighton	Unitary	St. Peter's & North Laine	Green	MEP	8th July
Redbridge	London	Chadwell	Labour	Ineligible	8th July
Caerphilly	County	Blackwood	Independent	Personal	8th July
Barking & Dagenham	London	Goresbrook	Labour	Ineligible	8th July
Knowsley	Metro.	Park	Labour	Personal	TBA
Wolverhampton	Metro.	Bilston North	Conservative	Death	TBA
St Helens	Metro.	Billinge & Seneley Green	Labour	Death	TBA
Walsall	Metro.	Bloxwich West	Conservative	Death	TBA
Surrey	County	Worplesdon	Conservative	Death	TBA