Thursday, October 30, 2014

Late October days brightened by comedy highlight of the year, as Lib Dem blogger from Bedfordshire tries (and I rather suspect fails) to psych Alex Salmond out of turning up for a near-certain win against the Lib Dems in next year's general election

"Gawd."  Can he "be arsed"?

Yup, you've guessed it, it's our old friend Mike "varied vocabulary" Smithson - the blogger who in May 2010 gave the single worst piece of advice in political history when he begged his colleagues in the Liberal Democrats to go into coalition with the Tories, rather than agreeing to a progressive coalition to keep the Tories out.  You've got to admire his sunny optimism, because he's now hoping that Alex Salmond will ignore that less-than-promising track record by listening to his risible warning that standing in the nominally Lib Dem-held seat of Gordon would be "oooh, such a terrible gamble, much better to stand in a Labour seat that voted Yes" (you can almost hear the pleading in his voice when he gets to the latter bit).  He then ramps up the self-delusion to a truly heroic level by cautioning Mr Salmond that "life is almost always hard for ex-leaders" - particularly one who "failed in the biggest project of his political career".

When confronted with someone as clueless as Mr Smithson I'd normally want to let them down gently as I acquaint them with some unwelcome facts, but as he's such an objectionable individual I'll just get straight to the point. I doubt if there's a single person in either the SNP or the Scottish Liberal Democrats who privately thinks that a Salmond candidacy in Gordon next year would result in anything other than an overwhelming SNP win. Indeed, the SNP are strong favourites to win the seat anyway regardless of who their candidate is. Smithson's notion that all the Lib Dems have to do to stop the tide coming in is to say to people “You voted NO – now tell him you mean it” misses the point so spectacularly that it's difficult to know where to begin. There's a senior politician who will shortly discover the true meaning of the word 'NO' in the Gordon constituency, and he goes by the name of Nick Clegg.

This is apparently going to be news to Lib Dem bloggers caught in the Bedford end of the metropolitan bubble, but in stark contrast to Clegg's rock-bottom approval ratings after a litany of broken promises, Mr Salmond emerged from his supposed "failure" with his personal reputation even further enhanced. He and Nicola Sturgeon now tower over Scottish politics like colossuses. Either one of them could stroll to victory in the majority of constituencies in Scotland, and would have at least a fighting chance in pretty much any seat (with the possible exception of Orkney and Shetland). If Salmond does decide to seek a return to Westminster, the only question is whether he takes on an easy seat like Gordon that he would be virtually guaranteed to win, or whether he leads from the front as he did in 2007 by selecting a constituency much further down the SNP target list. To all intents and purposes Gordon already is a rock-solid SNP seat - Salmond won the roughly equivalent Holyrood constituency of Aberdeenshire East by a mind-bogglingly wide margin in 2011, and that becomes the effective baseline result if he's the Westminster candidate (especially given that the Lib Dem incumbent Malcolm Bruce won't be on the ballot paper this time). The only way that the SNP might fail to win the seat is if Salmond isn't the candidate and thus doesn't bring his personal vote across, leaving an outside chance for the Tories to hoover up the bulk of No-voting Lib Dems. But either way it's bad news for Smithson, because the Lib Dems themselves don't have a hope in hell.

My guess is that Salmond will indeed choose the easy option of Gordon, not out of undue caution, but simply because of the practical and presentational difficulties of dealing with constituency workload from two different parts of the country (the hints seem to be that he would retain his Scottish Parliament seat after being elected to Westminster).

Returning to Mr Smithson's cretinous attempt at an intervention, I should point out the glorious irony of his lazy assumption that No voters are "owned" by the anti-independence parties. That's rather different to the tune he was humming in 2011, when he issued a hysterical "warning" that the SNP had "misinterpreted" their landslide victory as being a vote for independence (he was apparently blissfully unaware that SNP spokespeople had spent much of election night repeatedly making the point that people who voted SNP hadn't been voting for independence). With his customary comic timing he added that "Salmond now has to find a way out of this mess" - code for finding an excuse for cancelling the referendum! As it turned out, Salmond found a much better way "out of the mess" than that - he turned 900,000 votes for the SNP in 2011 into 1,600,000 votes for Yes in 2014.

As for the "ex-leader" jibe, it apparently has yet to occur to Mr Smithson that Salmond could well be just six months away from resuming his old role as leader of the SNP parliamentary group at Westminster (if he does become an MP, he'll either be literal leader or de facto leader). And if this "failed, washed-up" politician becomes Deputy Prime Minister of the UK into the bargain, or even if he is simply the kingmaker from the opposition benches, I suspect we'll be hearing the screams of "DOES NOT COMPUTE" from the general direction of Bedford for many satisfying years to come.

26 comments:

  1. Fun, for sure. But seriously, is there any combination of circumstances in this actual reality that would see Salmond as deputy PM? I ask out of genuine curiosity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the SNP would say they're only interested in a confidence-and-supply deal that wouldn't involve them taking up ministerial office. But it just seems to me that when it really came to the crunch, it would be tempting for them to take the chance to deliver sweeping new powers for the Scottish Parliament themselves, rather than rely on others to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I see what you're thinking, but I have trouble imagining Salmond or the SNP getting that close to either Dave or Ed. For any reason.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let's just take Smithson's theory to it's logical conclusion. He claims a lot of No voters correspond to a decrease in SNP support yet at every opportunity he spins that the Labour majorities in scotland are not just big but somehow insurmountable. Sorry old chap but you can't have it both ways because if that 30-40% support for Yes from Labour voters translates into SNP votes then a great many of those safe Labour seats become nothing of the kind.

    Of course it isn't as simplistic as one of Clegg's ostrich faction tries to make out and the relationship is far more complex than that.

    By all means though let's examine it as it is going to matter. What is more likely? That those who voted No will vote against the SNP or that those Labour voters who voted Yes will vote against Labour? Well for a start everyone in scotland knows the SNP are for independence and they knew it long before the referendum. A fact which did not stop the landslide in 2011. The aftermath of the referendum also had the small matter of the colossal rise in SNP membership to 85,000 + and rising. (which as Clegg's ostrich faction will know is more than twice the size of the entire UK lib dem membership and heading for three times the size of UKIPs entire UK membership) Doesn't really seem to be the kind of thing you would see if all those No votes were deadly to the SNP, does it?

    Labour on the other hand saw their polling tank as they were linked to the tories and the lib dems in supporting No. There were ACTUAL polling questions on precisely that subject and they bore it out completely. 'Scottish' Labour also seem to be in the middle of what could charitably be called a complete fucking trainwreck in the aftermath of the referendum. Mere coincidence perhaps? LOL somewhat unlikely, to say the least.

    So the relationship is obviously complex and you can't just draw across every vote for Yes or No to the SNP or Labour. What you can do is go on the facts thus far and they all seem to be pointing in the direction of the SNP getting far, FAR stronger while the branch office of London Labour appears to be in a complete meltdown.

    Facts like those tend to favour their being some obvious asymmetry to the No/Yes vote to Labour/SNP relationship, and it sure ain't in the favour of Labour.


    Also, the yellow tories are going to get annihilated in scotland. We all know they are just as we all knew they were going to be in 2011. There will be no shortage of volunteers to make absolutely certain of that and the lib dems are going to be on the sharp end of ground campaigning and numbers that will far eclipse anything they have seen in almost all of their seats. For a start Wee Danny had best reapply for his park ranger job NOW. :-D


    Speaking of which, it's well worth highlighting that some of the most amusing and fulsome praise for the Eggman is coming from the same out of touch tory twits who thought wee Danny and Clegg were doing such a spiffing job. Best have a look at wee Danny and Clegg's popularity ratings in scotland to see the 'wisdom' of that. Though to be fair we already know that uber-Blairite Eggman Murphy was beyond the pale when you had the likes of "no-brainer" McTernan and Dan Hodges gushing praise all over him.

    Incidently an interesting wee fact about the Eggman is that he was feeding info directly to the twat Hodges from inside little Ed's shadow cabinet. Which is just one of the reasons little Ed demoted him in the wake of Murphy's involvement in the Falkirk scandal. A scandal which I doubt many in 'scottish' Labour have forgotten and the unions certainly haven't. Nor will all those workers in Grangemouth who nearly lost their jobs over it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. James will love this. I could be mistaken, but apparently Smithson appears to be using sub-samples??? in his amusing new 'quest' to spin the green rise in the polls (they overtook the lib dems in the last YouGov) as a threat to... the lib dems? LOL Of course not! This is one of Clegg's ostrich faction of spinners we are talking about here. Nope! The REAL threat the greens present is to Labour of course. Clegg won't be worried at all obviously. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I came up with an interesting thought experiment yesterday.

    Imagine the scenario where Labour and Tories have around 275 seats each, the Libs crash down to 25, UKIP pick up 25 but the SNP manage to get 35 to 40.

    What are the scenarios for either Labour or the Tories to build a coalition, even with UKIP and the DUP, the Tories don't have a majority even with Sinn Fein abstentions. There is nowhere else for them to turn.

    Even with the Liberals, Greens, SDLP (dangerous) and Alliance, Labour are even further short of a majority.

    There follows a very distinct possibility of a Grand Coalition. It is obviously a difficult consideration given the UK's electoral make up and the history of the parties. But could the "national unity" argument be used, especially if the economy is still failing to pick up.

    In those circumstances, with a Grand Coalition, the next largest party becomes Her Majesties Official Opposition. And that next largest party would be... the SNP.

    ReplyDelete
  7. We need to factor in also the fact that although AS is 59 his wife is 73 (?). I have no way of knowing if she would look forward to AS being down in London when she has just been relieved of him being in Edinburgh most of the time (and his many engagements in Scotland). It's not political, it's marital!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Independent Voices ‏@Celebs4indy 33m

    IAIN MACWHIRTER 'Jim Murphy would be seen inevitably as London Labour's man in Scotland.' #LabourCivilWar

    Peter Pink ‏@ideas4thefuture 1h

    Lamont was the victim of a Murphy coup, claims Labour MP | Herald Scotland http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/lamont-was-the-victim-of-a-murphy-coup-claims-labour-mp.25722918 … via @hsnewsbreak

    Richard Murphy ‏@RichardJMurphy 3h

    Jim Murphy: a neoliberal Blairite is the last thing Scottish Labour needs http://gu.com/p/42pha/tw

    PeatWorrier ‏@PeatWorrier 19h

    "I've been booing Tony Blair for twenty years" says Scottish Labour's new leadership candidate. This could be fun. http://youtu.be/U4NHSm5STuE?t=4m43s …


    Certainly sounds like a triumph in the making. Let's get ready to rumble indeed.
    You can see why so many tory twits are full of gushing praise for Murphy. Those who don't just admire his right-wing views no doubt want to see Labour tear themselves to shreds before the election and Murphy looks like the Eggman to do just that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think if the SNP get enough seats to hold the balance of power. They should make any pact with any party, compromise any principle and take any position of power in order to guarantee Devo-Max. It doesn't matter if they get annihilated in the Westminster GE 2020 as powers will have already been moved to Holyrood.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If we take the PB logic to its end then all parties should just give up if the majorities of your opponents are too large. Take the 1999 Holyrood election results - SNP win 7 FPTP seats then have a look at 2011, SNP win 53 seat. If you had said in 1999 that the SNP would win all those seats in 2011 you would have been sectioned. Politics is fluid. Let the people decide not pundits or gamblers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think it's slowly dawning on Yes voting labour voters that a vote for the SNP will result in something quite dramatic going on in the House of Commons, that's without mentioning the avalance of ex lib dem voters.... It would be very interesting to say the least if we got 35-40 seats, it is a big ask, but as said before, so was a majority in 2011.

    I think Alex Salmond will stand, his wife Moira was probably looking forward to him being around the house a bit more, BUT perhaps in the lull after the referendum she is sick of him sitting around cluttering the place up ; )

    ReplyDelete
  12. "the blogger who in May 2010 gave the single worst piece of advice in political history when he begged his colleagues in the Liberal Democrats to go into coalition with the Tories"

    I am caertainly not a lib dem but the situation in 2010 was surely much more complex:

    (1) whilst there were the numbers for a rainbow coalition on paper how would this have worked when you had so many different ideologies and competing interests and when many in labour were not keen - eg, reid and blunkett went on the record to oppose this. many in labour were happy to go into opposition and let someone else clear up the mess they had created.

    (2) even if they had agreed on a coalition with a 'progessive' non-austerity programme they would not have been able to see it through - look at the shambles and u-turns of hollande's france after he was elected on an anti-austerity programme.

    (3) the lib dems were screwed whatever the did. if they went for something like confidence and supply that would look incredibly weak for a party that supports pr but would not go into a formal coalition. If they had gone into a rainbow coalition then it is fair to hypothecate that they would be facing the same problems in their marginal seats vs the tories since labour is pretty much as toxic in the south of england as the tories are in the north of england and scotland.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In a local authority bye election 2 wks ago in Oban,Argyll & Bute ,part of the LibDum so called heartland they failed to put up a candidate.I have asked why,but have received no reply.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Lib Dems didn't have to enter into anything.

    They could have done nothing and the tories run a minority government...they then could have built on their existing support as another GE would have been around the corner. With a very poor labour leader, they could have moved in on more Labour seats whilst making a massive noise about the tories plans....or policies that had failed to get through the commons due to a minority government.

    They had plenty of options, but bottled it completely. The truth is, their policies aren't that different to the other two and were shown to be naive and lack any sort of ambition. The electorate will now punish them, they voted Lib Dem but got the tories.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Lib Dems didn't have to enter into anything.

    What is the point of a political party that does not take the opportunity to go into government? You are effectively just a protest movement. This is particularly relevant for a party which advocates pr which by definition almost inevitably leads to no overall majority situations.

    They could have done nothing and the tories run a minority government...they then could have built on their existing support as another GE would have been around the corner

    Many lib dems feared that a second ge would lead to a tory maj and them losing seats. Who knows but it was certainly not an implausible scenario.

    they voted Lib Dem but got the tories

    clegg always said that he would negotiate with the party that got the most seats - which in this ge was odds on to be the tories - so ld voters should not have been that surprised

    ReplyDelete
  16. So you are saying the SNP should enter into a coalition with the tories if it meant they would be in government? Alienating their core support and forever being labelled sell outs?

    What nonsense, if the Lib Dems had any real political acumen they would have seen a minority government for what it is, a chance to ramp up the pressure on cameron, show miliband out to be the fool he is whilst making gains through looking strong and having principles by not jumping into bed with whoever offered.

    That's the lib dem legacy now and they'll reap everything coming to them, from being the lapdogs of osborne and cameron to ignoring their own voters.

    If you can't see that entering into coalition with the tories was a bad move then I think you should answer why they have collapsed all over the country when it comes to peoples voting intentions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a nonsense that the libdems are being punished for being in coalition with the Tories; they are being punished for not standing up to the Tories.
      Most were in favour of the coalition but what we ended up with is a Tory govt with a splash of yellow. The fact that the libdems couldn't even hold the Tories to the coalition agreement shows what pathetic amateurs they have been.

      Delete
  17. if they went for something like confidence and supply that would look incredibly weak for a party that supports pr but would not go into a formal coalition.

    Support for PR doesn't entail or imply any particular support for coalition governments. I'm for PR, and based on our experience so far in Scotland, I'd be for minority government over coalitions or majorities.

    Anyway, surely it looks even weaker that a party that supports PR entered into government without being offered PR, or even a referendum on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure you can have a minority gov but i fail to see what is so wrong about the lds entering a coalition; it is natural for political parties to want to have power! I guess they would argue that whilst they have made some big mistakes they have also had some big achievements; eg the increase of the personal tax threshold.

      i just think that after being out of power for so many years it would have looked odd if the lds had not seized their opportunity.

      Delete
    2. In a hung parliament, all parties who have MPs have power. In opposition, the Lib Dems could have made their support for the budget conditional on an increase in the personal allowance.

      Delete
    3. Hit the nail on the head there keaton.

      If the lib dems really did want PR (which would have transformed westminster politics forever) then they could have ensured it. All Calamity Clegg needed to do was not to buckle and give in to Cameron and his backbenchers when they said AV and no further. Calamity Clegg was of course too weak and too desperate for power to do so, nor did he have the tactical nouse to appreciate that the tory backbenchers would have reluctantly given in if it was present by Cameron as a take it or leave it option. They wanted power just as desperately as the lib dems while Cameron knew perfectly well he had to lay down the law for his backbenchers on day 1 to keep them from constantly revolting.

      The fact that cowardly Cameron he gave in to those backbenchers on AV set the stage for everything that has followed. Every rebellion on Europe and every policy loss on the likes of boundary reform/Lords reform. Tory backbenchers sensed weakness in Cameron from the outset which is why he is forever posturing to them and flouncing on the EU etc. to try and win the most gullible of them over.

      Delete
  18. So you are saying the SNP should enter into a coalition with the tories if it meant they would be in government? Alienating their core support and forever being labelled sell outs?

    No; because within the context of Scottish politics that would be suicide plus the ideological differences would not make it viable. But equally if the lds had gone into coalition with labour they would have alienated many of their voters in se and sw england where labour is toxic.

    What nonsense, if the Lib Dems had any real political acumen they would have seen a minority government for what it is, a chance to ramp up the pressure on cameron, show miliband out to be the fool he is whilst making gains through looking strong and having principles by not jumping into bed with whoever offered.

    If they never go into government what is the point of them as a political party because they will never get the opportunity to implement any of their policies. They would be just a protest movement. Plus any agreement with the tories outside of a formal coalition would havr required support for the gov's economic policies which is one of the causes of their unpopularity now.

    If you can't see that entering into coalition with the tories was a bad move then I think you should answer why they have collapsed all over the country when it comes to peoples voting intentions

    I previously said that they will lose seats to labour but equally if they had gone in with labour they would now be looking at losing seats to the tories.

    ReplyDelete
  19. IPSOS MORI Scotland-wide poll for STV.

    Westminster VI

    SNP 52%
    Scottish Labour 23%
    Scottish Conservatives 10%
    Scottish Liberal Democrats 6%
    Scottish Green Party 6%
    Ukip 2%
    1% support for others.

    http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/297729-stv-poll-labour-would-annihilated-if-general-election-held-tomorrow/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mental. Is that the SNP's best ever result in a full Westminster poll?

      Delete
  20. And it's not even my birthday for three weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anon, in the context of UK politics it's suicide.

    No one ever expected them to stand up to the Tories, if they did, it would be a hung parliament and there would be another General Election, there was only ever going to be one outcome from a coalition with the Tories, the lib dems being used as fodder and being exterminated across the country.

    Political parties do not necessarily have to go into power, of course, the situation in 2010 was vastly different and there was a gap for them to get bigger, they failed to see the bigger picture.

    Wow, they raised the tax threshold, excellent. I see it's making a big difference.

    ReplyDelete