John Curtice, widely acknowledged to be Scotland's only living psephologist (if another one is ever discovered it'll be a bigger story than the comet landing), has made a superficially fair criticism of the SNP's strategy for a hung parliament at Westminster. During the BBC coverage of the party's conference, he suggested that they were making a mistake by completely ruling out a deal with the Tories, because that will reduce their leverage over Labour in any post-election negotiations (for example, witness the way in which the Tories only upped their offer in 2010 after the Lib Dems entered into talks with Labour).
There's a big flaw in Curtice's line of thinking, though, which is that he's looking one tactical step too far ahead. There's not much use in having the perfect strategy for what to do when you hold the balance of power if you never get to that point in the first place. And even leaving open the slimmest of theoretical possibilities that the SNP might deal with the Tories would only hamper the chances of a significant breakthrough next year. Voters need absolute clarity that putting their faith in the SNP will not let the Tories in by the back door - and Nicola Sturgeon has just given them that clarity.
In any case, the leverage a large SNP bloc could have over Labour in a hung parliament, even without the threat of putting the Tories in, should not be underestimated. It's not true that Labour could say to Nicola Sturgeon "you have nowhere else to go", because she would always have the option of walking away and letting Labour try to govern through ad hoc deals with UKIP and the DUP. A few months of that might just bring Miliband and Balls to their senses.
* * *
A couple of hours ago, the Lib Dem blogger Caron Lindsay said on Twitter that a "one-party state" was unhealthy, and that greater plurality and diversity was needed. She didn't elaborate on what she meant, but I can only assume that Scotland is supposed to be the "state" and the SNP is supposed to be the "one-party". Well, that's curious, because of course Scotland is not a state (it's a distinct legal jurisdiction, but that's not the same thing). The head of government in the state we inhabit is not Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon, but David Cameron - and it's scarcely people on our side of the argument who are responsible for putting him there and keeping him there.
What would her solution be, then? Is there some way to persuade fewer voters to vote for the SNP and who should be tasked with enforcing this?
ReplyDeleteIf an overwhelming number of people choose to vote for the same party, in free and fair elections in a PR system, with five parties actually represented and several more standing, it doesn't seem fair to blame that party for being too popular and whine about one-party states. Maybe try to make your own party more popular, Caron?
As a thought experiment, I wonder if Caron would be saying the same if it was the LibDems on ~50% of the popular vote?
There are plenty of potential banana skins here. Entering into a deal with Labour could damage the party's support if the government becomes unpopular (which it almost certainly will) however not entering into a deal if there are some tangible offers on the table for Scotland could also make the party lose support. If Miliband fails to form a government and it lets the Tories in we're back in a 1979 type situation where the SNP will be blamed by Labour for bringing a Labour government down.
ReplyDeleteSo you can't prejudge these things, it has to be determined on the basis of what happens after the election. Nobody can say what the best option is at this stage.
"If Miliband fails to form a government and it lets the Tories in we're back in a 1979 type situation where the SNP will be blamed by Labour for bringing a Labour government down."
DeleteThat thought crossed my mind. There's a fair chance of a Labour minority government, especially if they find the SNP's conditions to enter a coalition (Such as no more Trident) too much to bear, which they almost certainly would. If that happens there's quite a good chance of that minority government collapsing well before its full five year term. If that led to a Tory government getting back in then Labour would be fools not to try and pin the blame on the SNP. Interesting times ahead....
Of course, Labour refused to countenance a 'rainbow' coalition in 2010 - which led to.... A Tory govt.
DeleteIt would take a hell of a brass neck for Lab to blame the SNP for the Tories getting in if Lab refused a confidence and supply arrangement with SNP / Plaid / Greens. A joint arrangement with Plaid / Greens would also give a degree of protection to the SNP in these circumstances.
"It would take a hell of a brass neck for Lab to blame the SNP for the Tories getting in if Lab refused a confidence and supply arrangement with SNP / Plaid / Greens."
DeleteOf course, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't make political sense to give it a try.
"the SNP will be blamed by Labour for bringing a Labour government down"
DeleteI don't think that would be the case in any *realistic* scenario I can think of.
The SNP couldn't and wouldn't make unrealistic demands to prop up a Labour government, but they would certainly be looking for significant devolved powers - which Labour had already promised to voters.
Labour would be forced to deliver on their own vows, which otherwise would be watered down so much as to be meaningless.
"If that happens there's quite a good chance of that minority government collapsing well before its full five year term. If that led to a Tory government getting back in then Labour would be fools not to try and pin the blame on the SNP."
DeleteThey could try, but unless the SNP had actively voted to bring down a Labour government in a confidence vote (as they did in 1979) it wouldn't have much traction.
If Labour refuse to offer significant concessions in post-election negotiations, my guess is that the SNP would cast their votes in such a way as to leave Labour "in office but not in power", to use Norman Lamont's phrase.
If Caron Lindsay now sees there is a problem with Scotland becoming a "one party state" then why doesn´t she point out the electoral results of the Unionist Party until the 1950s, when it sometimes won over 70% of seats and in 1955 got 50.1% of the electoral votes.
ReplyDeleteWe know the answer to that of course.
Or Labour´s success from the 1960s until recently.
Of course there is one, no problem, rule for some political parties and another, problematic, rule for a certain Scottish political party.
*rolls eyes*
She's a Lib Dem blogger, why would she think Labour dominating Scotland is a good thing?
DeleteI didn´t state that as my focus. I´ll illustrating the point that if Caron Lindsay says a "one party state" is unhealthy then why not point out that historically one particular party in Scotland has tended to be far more popular, democratically elected, than any other party at any given time.
DeleteShe has never seemed to have an issue with Labour being, by far, the dominant, democratically elected, party in Scotland (despite herself being a LibDem blogger) in the last 50 years, i.e. in her lifetime. If she had had a problem with this she would have been blogging extensively about Labour creating this supposed "one party state."
Only now does it seem she has taken issue with the idea of a "one party state" (whatever her definition is) because it isn´t a Westminster focussed/based party.
We haven't got the MPs yet.
ReplyDeleteCarol Lindsay, like so many professional unionists in Scotland, wants to smear the SNP as being fascist/Nazis. This is a familiar theme of unionists in Scotland going back decades. The whole "one party state" rhetoric thing is merely a device to camouflage and disguise their idea that the SNP is inherently totalitarian/ authoritarian/ dictatorial/ extremist. Of course it is delusional garbage, but then they really do not have anything much else to offer. We saw what the likes of Lindsay and her unionist compatriots had to offer during the referendum campaign, and it was mostly hatred and bile against the Yes campaign.
ReplyDeleteJames, another astute observation. The SNP does not need to align themselves with any party in Westminster in order to gain a few baubles and trinkets.
ReplyDeleteFar better to let both parties hang themselves in a hung parliament!!
Much better to have the power to bring down a government than to prop one up.
John Curtice, widely acknowledged to be Scotland's only living psephologist
ReplyDeleteDinosaur sorted.
A Tory-Labour alliance, at least on a bill by bill basis to freeze out the SNP (and UKIP) is quite probable if the SNP do well and hold the balance of power.
ReplyDeleteIt's common in Scotland already. What is it... 7 councils which have a formal Tory-Labour coalition? Better Together was an official Tory-funded Labour-Tory anti-Scotland coalition. We all know what goes on in Holyrood too; Labour+Lib+Tory informal opposition coalition. Only the Greens and Margo are/were free thinkers.
Labour and the Tories commonly support / vote for the same legislation in London with most Tory policies just a progression of Labour ones (workfare, bedroom tax, NHS privatisation...). Moving forward to a loose alliance would be a natural step to block out the 'threat to the British state' from the SNP and UKIP.
If Labour have lost Scotland to the SNP then it matters little what impact such arrangements would have on the Labour vote Scotland to London Labour.
Going to be interesting anyway. Part of the reason I hesitate over any kind of devo max alliance. We could focus so much effort and time only to find it wasn't worth it. Our new 'Yes/devo max' MPs being frozen out by a Labour-Tory coalition of 'national unity' (ahem).
Sounds about right. A formal coalition would be a bit too blatant, but I could see Labour and Conservatives cooperating in an informal manner. At least until that government's inevitable collapse.
DeleteFor most of a hundred years we've had the so called advantages of strong government in a one-party state system (see Thatcher, Blair and the rest of the BritNat elected dictators); yet they have the nerve to tell the Scottish people that because they choose a government which keeps its promises, and that remains popular, to do what they want it to do and then that becomes suddenly gloomy and evil. There will eventually be another majority government in England - it may even be UKIP one day - and if we are still stuck in the union then we'll be told that that is just democracy.
ReplyDeleteCurtice is a psephologist - a sociologist who studies election trends. Just why exactly that makes him a political commentator, qualified to pontificate about what a party may or may not do when in power, or holding the balance of power, is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteHe's also dodgy when it comes to translating the results of polls into potential seats, allowing his unionist / labour leanings to influence his opinions, and more than that, to make his articles attempt to be directive, i.e. causing action (like not voting SNP), rather than being properly analytical. It's got worse since the referendum, and more factually based comments on his blog seem to be the only way to force him back to the straight and more narrow. They are therefore to be encouraged.
It's a pity because he can be insightful, and more than that, funny.
"Curtice is a psephologist - a sociologist who studies election trends. Just why exactly that makes him a political commentator, qualified to pontificate about what a party may or may not do when in power, or holding the balance of power, is beyond me."
DeleteGotta fill the schedules somehow. If we disqualified everyone who isn't qualified to pontificate on politics then our TV schedules would be completely bereft of any political content.
Labour could form a coalition with the Conservatives. A red/blue Tory one. The SNP have been pragmatists at Holyrood. They governed well in minority.
ReplyDeleteIf the deal for a Supply arrangement is that we get everything except defence and foreign affairs. Everything. Then I would do a deal with the Earl of Hell himself.
Remember. Once we are Independent, people are free to elect whomever they want. The cause is not a left wing one, it is a civic, all encompassing, above class and political persuasion mission. Scotland should be free.
In principle I would agree that a deal with the Tories would be worth it if it delivered full, genuine Devo Max, but that sort of conditionality will be lost on people. The SNP need to completely rule out a deal with the Tories, otherwise the only message some people will hear is "they're saying they might do a deal with the Tories".
DeleteI agree that it would be political suicide for the SNP to enter a coalition with the Tories. But I've always thought that, given their lack of a major presence in Scotland, that the Tories would be more amenable entering a coalition with the SNP and delivering Devo Max than Labour. So it could be a delicious irony if it ends up being Scotland's hatred of the Tories that actually prevents the delivery of Devo Max.
DeletePerhaps the snp are thinking about trying to split the labour party....i am thinking north v south....there is certainly alot of fun to be had....considering the north of england, is also sick of london and feels little attachment to it.
ReplyDeleteJust a thought.
We all know that John Curtice is the wee singing bird automaton of the establishment Unionist media. Wind him up and push his (financial) button, and listen to his never-ending song.
ReplyDeleteAntique automated toys don't bear much credibility as astute commentators on political analysis however, as we should remember when watching the Duracell bunnies of Scottish Labour and the Lib Dems running out of power. Literally.