The 2015 General Election is going to be one humdinger of a magical mystery tour. No one has any idea actual evidence as to how the losses and gains will play out.
The latest flurry of polls of voting intentions suggests that the result will be a more even distribution of seats between many smaller party groups in Westminster.
The nationwide interest is in what happens after that – with the probability of no party gaining an overall majority. What deals will be cut? What suitors sought and shunned? What multiple coalitions might be cooked up? Will it be minority government with ‘confidence and supply’ arrangements – on a quid pro quo basis – where scrutiny will necessarily be paid to both quid and quo?
With the Lib Dems said to have suffered electoral damage from coalition, a proposition in circulation is that this is likely to give other parties pause in entering coalition – but we don’t entirely buy that perspective.
The country does not want, in the current economic and political times, to have to face another General Election in the short term. In an already febrile situation, that would be too much uncertainty and too obvious a day-to-day balancing act to give the sort of confidence that supports stable and constructive decision taking and the vital investor confidence.
Parties may not like the compromises but coalitions do pretty well guarantee to the electorate that an administration will see out a term without collapse. In the case of the current coalition, David Cameron’s biggest success has been his skilful and generous management of the coalition he leads.
The alternative to coalition is a minority administration with non-coalition support given under what is called ‘confidence and supply’ arrangements. This means that a smaller party will support into government a larger one which lacks an overall majority – offering support on motions of confidence and on bills relating to proposed government spending.
Such comfort is not given for nothing. The acceptability of such agreements to the electorate centres on the digestibility of the deals that would have to done to assure ‘confidence and supply’.
There are issues making this sort of manoeuvre potentially unpalatable that are specific to the current political environment of the United Kingdom.
The first is practical. With a greater number of smaller parties each with substantial enough representation, any ‘confidence and supply’ arrangements would have to involve more than one other party. Any one of these would want to know who the other junior partners were going to be and what they were demanding for their support. The opportunity here for internal tensions, objections and alienations between the partners and the payoff deals themselves would be more complex than usual in such arrangements.
The electorate would also find this a nervy business and would be uncomfortable with its essential lack of democracy. Deals could be done which would be markedly unacceptable to the majority of the electorate but would be agreed simply to let one political party – which itself had not convinced the voters to give it an overall majority – to hold power.
This situation would be directly in play in any arrangements, coalition or confidence and supply with the two most subversive parties in the mix, both nationalist and both enjoying a surge in popular support – the SNP and UKIP. One is out to destroy the Union of the United Kingdom; and the other out to destroy the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union.
This leads to the second problem with confidence and supply – the political one. There is a straight constitutional contradiction in any unionist party making any kind of mutual support pact with a separatist party, like the SNP. There is also risk in any unequivocally European unionist party, like the Lib Dems, being involved in a complex of support arrangements where UKIP might be involved.
Whatever the hopes of each of the SNP and UKIP to be in the position of ‘kingmaker’ after the General Election, both will be political untouchables. There will be factions in the Conservative party arguing for an arrangement of some kind with UKIP, as there will be factions in the Labour party arguing for one with the SNP. But the cost of any kind of pact with either of these will be too high for each of the two major parties. Each would lose a substantial volume of their core vote in response to what would be seen as a betrayal of the party’s declared commitments:
- to unionism in the case of the Labour party;
- to business in the case of the Conservatives;
- and to inclusive and tolerant societies in the case of both.
Whatever else happens in relationships formed by either of the Conservatives or Labour, the SNP and UKIP will be noisy and attention-grabbing ginger groups in the House of Commons; but they will have no formal role and there are no deals that can be done, particularly with the SNP, in its settled will to break up the Union. They are already in train to be dubbed ‘The famous Grouse’ and their mouths can only turn further down.
How will it play?
The Labour Party is in the worst position of all. It is effectively leaderless at national level. It is enfeebled in England with some fudged ad hoc adjustments to be made towards allowing England more control of its own affairs – a matter fiercely and wrongly resisted by Labour, fighting the wrong battle to protect its position as a party pf national significance. The party is also vulnerable to substantial predation of its Scottish seats by the SNP, with losses that will impact on the overall Labour position at close of play in May.
Whatever happens to the Liberal Democrats, they will still be the first group to be sought after for coalition by both Conservatives and Labour – so even if there a handful of them, they will be back in power. They have a long national establishment, so do not carry the unpredicatability of the unknown. They have a known philosophy – even if they have themselves forgotten what it is. They are now experienced in government and in coalition government – here too reassuring since they are not newbies likely to go off piste.
The Conservatives have been in a largely effective coalition with the Lib Dems in the current administration, so they know the personalities, the pains in the backside, the egos, the window dressers and the seriously able performers. This coalition could easily re-form – although it would be unlikely to be confined to a twosome this time around.
The Lib Dems have been flicking their hair at Labour, talking up a possible coalition with them, now that Labour have been partially purged of their fiscal failures by a term out of office.
Labour, which has been unconvincing on the economy and with this recent enough history of disastrous fiscal management to live down, will also lose flesh to UKIP in some of its seats in England; and is at risk of losing structural stability to the SNP in Scotland.
The strong likelihood is that the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party, cannibalised by UKIP, without an overall majority but with the Lib Dems and the Ulster Unionists available for coalition.
In Scotland – this election is still about the Union
Throughout the United Kingdom – but most obviously in Scotland, this election is still about the survival, or not, of the Union.
This reality will influence votes in both directions, enlivening the pro-independents and toughening the resolve of the pro-unionists.
Here in Scotland, for the unionist voters, indyref was a full-on fight for the Union, with no real support from any other source. These voters saved the Union themselves, from their own convictions – and they know they will be alone again in holding the line in May.
Look at the situation from the SNP’s perspective – that of a party whose raison d’etre is to take Scotland to independence. Just now the force is with them. That force is their mighty new membership, its impact on campaigning and on voting – and its expectations.
All the SNP have to do is make it clear in their 2015 Manifesto that a vote for the SNP is a vote to mandate the party to enter independence negotiations with the UK Government. If they can not offer their vocal and muscular new support this hope, that membership will wither. First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon is on the record as saying that she would support no short cuts to independence [like UDI] but that if independence were an SNP manifesto issue and the SNP won, she would see that as a mandate.
If, as is quite probable, the SNP were to emerge from the May General Election as the largest party in Scotland, they could then get straight down to the business of negotiating a Scottish withdrawal from the Union.
Why on earth would they not do this? Their goal is to take Scotland out of the Union and to independence – by whatever means. It is not about playing a game by someone else’s rules.
We therefore see the pro-union vote in Scotland as holding up well in the General Election. Remember too that the 16 and 17 year olds, the majority of whom voted for independence, will not vote in this election.
We see the pro-union vote being used strategically on a constituency-by-constituency basis, aimed at keeping out the SNP in order to protect against repeated risk to the union. There is already evidence of such local decisions being made – not by parties but by individuals who see well the writing on the wall.
This will be an important factor in Scottish voting.
The SNP has also rejected the ‘Yes Alliance’ proposed to them for the General Election by the Scottish Socialists and the Scottish Greens – both of which will now be putting up their own candidates.
In traditional Labour constituencies in the Central Belt where the hard work on the streets by the Scottish Socialists and the Radical Independence Group brought a united Yes vote in indyref, the standing of separate Scottish Green and Scottish Socialist candidates will split the indy vote and give Labour a chance of hanging on to many, though not all, of those seats.
The pro-union vote in these constituencies, where Conservative and Liberal Democrat voters have no chance of seeing their own candidates elected, is likely to switch to Labour in direct action to protect the Union.
The catastrophic fall in oil prices which has left the North Sea an industrial basket case, has exposed for all to see what was either dangerous ignorance or straight fraudulent misrepresentation in the SNP indy prospectus.
In the light of this reality, some pro-unionists who, in the aftermath of the huge phatic surge in SNP membership after the loss of the referendum, were starting to think about moving to indy, have gone home ‘tae think again’.
So how will the Scottish vote go?
As is clear above, we see the Scottish vote as being highly strategic – down to the level of individual voters deciding where they might best place their vote to ensure their personal pro-union or pro-independence preferences.
For the sake of Scottish Labour – and thereby for himself and for Labour throughout the UK, Ed Miliband will have to make it clear before the election that there will be no Labour arrangement with the SNP after the result: no coalition, no confidence and supply deals – both of which could only accelerate the arrival of Indy 2. If he did such a deal he would be seen, humiliatingly, to be accepting the loan of the votes of the seats the SNP had ripped from Labour.
If he does not disavow any such pact in good time, he will lose Scottish Labour critical votes in two ways:
- seriously pro-union Labour voters will be shaken by the party’s betrayal of themselves in being prepared to take the fifth column into government with them – or deliver concessions on demand which would imperil the sustainability of the Union. These are voters many of whom sustained personal abuse and threats to vote with their convictions and who saw the union case poorly supported by all of the major unionist parties.
- seriously pro-union voters who normally support parties other than Labour, will stay their hand in switching their vote to Labour in the Central Belt constituencies. These are Labour’s heartland seats and will be under heavy attack from an invigorated SNP. Labour and the Union will badly need these vote transfers.
The Conservatives, who supported the first SNP minority administration from 2007 to 2011, have been alienated and demonised by Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. Their vote will stay rock solid in fidelity to the Union and, beyond that, in defiance of those who would destroy them. They have only one seat to hold – and will do so. Rather than aim to try for any unlikely wins in the current situation, many conservative voters will chose themselves to place their vote where it will best secure the future of the Union.
After the exposure of the reality of the oil industry’s inability to underwrite a continuous spending government in Scotland, there will now be no Conservative or Liberal Democrat transfers to the SNP to enable them to take Labour seats.
But vote transfers will affect the Labour vote as well.
In this Union-focused Westminster scenario, Scottish Labour could find itself leaching votes in all directions – to the SNP, in favour of independence and of the clothes that party has stolen from Labour in proposed social justice measures; and in some constituencies, to the Liberal Democrats, in favour of the most acceptably effective placement in Scotland of pro-union votes.
In seats held by major Liberal Democrat figures, many Labour voters – even if their party might aim to come in second, will see the greater value in voting to shore up the Liberal Democrat vote in order to protect the Union.
Since Labour will benefit hugely from incoming pro-union vote transfers in its Central Belt fortress constituencies, it will have no reason to resist this outgoing transfer of pro-union Labour votes in Liberal Democrat seats – the majority of which are rural, not natural Labour constituencies.
So how will the Lib Dems do?
The pro-union vote, allied to the fact that most of the Liberal Democrat candidates are well known, well liked and respected in their constituencies, would indicate that there is no reason why Alastair Carmichael, John Thurso, Danny Alexander, Robert Smith, Charles Kennedy and Michael Moore should not hold their seats. They would be all the better from having to fight hard to secure them.
- Jo Swinson in East Dunbartonshire is a very possible major scalp for the SNP, with the Labour vote there shown to be highly vulnerable to the SNP.
- North Fife is a possible SNP take, with Ming Campbell standing down – but this is the territory of the Lib Dem Scottish Leader, the likeable Willie Rennie MSP.
- Mike Crockart in Edinburgh West could lose – possibly not to the SNP but to Labour, if Jim Murphy’s Scottish Labour intelligently made that seat a flag-bearer of potential recovery – and in the capital city.
Two other Liberal Democrat constituencies are of particular interest. One is right here in Argyll and Bute; and the other other is what has become the totemic contest in Gordon.
The Union and the SNP’s local betrayal are players in Argyll and Bute
With the people understanding that the survival of the Union remains the overriding issue in this election, it is germane that Argyll & Bute was a strongly pro-union constituency in the referendum. This was the case in spite of the addition of the 16 and 17 year old voters who were largely pro-independence – and who will not have a vote in the UK General Election.
The Westminster constituency here is likely to be a contest between the established Lib Dem incumbent, Alan Reid [never a push over] and Labour’s Mary Galbraith. The SNP will improve their vote but, across the constituency, they have to recover from a dreadful reputational irresponsibility in the events following their tragicomic betrayal of the trust the electorate placed in them in May 2012 to lead Argyll and Bute Council.
Within 18 months they had bolted in the most bizarre disarray. This let back in the old administration under Councillor Dick Walsh that the public had wanted – needed – to see the last of; and which has been running particularly true to form since its return. Argyll & Bute has the SNP to thank for that.
The SNP short list of four from which its candidate will be chosen – to be announced at the end of January – shows again external party influences in the selection process. At least as importantly, it also shows the same catastrophic absence of respect for local ability, achievement and commitment which saw the SNP-led coalition in Argyll and Bute Council deliberately forced out of power by its own National Executive Committee – lest it took decisions that might have damaged the indy vote. Ironically but deservedly, that very shambles damaged the indy vote in Argyll.
However, on the ‘Caligula’s horse’ principle, the troops will vote for anything with the yellow rosette – and the troops have been enlarged in number. But the vote transfers that might have come will not now do so. The high profile collapse of the oil price with the obvious undeliverability of the SNP’s spending prospectus; the internal wounds from the particular choice of some on the candidate shortlist; and the growing awareness of just how much this election is still about the survivability of the shelter belt of the Union are all powerful forces at play.
The Conservative vote is not enlivened by its candidate but is aware of the continuing threat to the Union. Much of that vote will strategically transfer either to Alan Reid or to Mary Galbraith, whichever is seen by the individual voter as having the best chance of denying the seat to the SNP, who locally let down the voters of Argyll and Bute.
Gordon – the totemic contest
Gordon is a totemic contest for the Liberal Democrats in Scotland.
In an election where the Union is again at very real risk, the Lib Dems will be finished in Scotland if they cannot hold on to Gordon against an outdated politician who is badly wounded by his own exposed game-playing. Scotland has now seen proven what independent experts had always maintained – that the oil-supported spending prospectus for independence was either a deliberate fraud on the indy voters or a colossal misreading of the situation in the locally crucial North Sea oil industry.
Mr Salmond recently said that if he had stayed with RBS, he could have saved it from the destructive direction it took. Setting aside the former First Minister’s now well established folie de grandeur, nothing is less likely than this proposition.
If Mr Salmond had reached a position in the RBS to influence its business development direction – it is laughable to imagine that he would have stayed its hand from the massive punts it took on the sub-prime mortgage market and on its acquisition of ABN AMRO. Taking punts is Mr Salmond’s lifelong modus operandi. He would have been in there with Fred the Shred, egging him on – as indeed he is on the record as having done in the terminal mistake of RBS buying ABN AMRO.
Mr Salmond had allowed his supporters to float the alternative prospect of his ‘wanting a scalp’ by standing against the Lib Dem’s successful Treasury Secretary, Danny Alexander, in Inverness. The former First Minsiter retired from that possibility, saying grumpily that it was never an option; and chose what he thinks is the softer option of Gordon. Gordon has yet to prove whether or not it is that unlikely soft option.
If the Lib Dems can shore up their retiring MP, Malcolm Bruce’s majority and take their very capable Christine Jardine through to a win in Gordon, that will give them a future to fight for in Scotland. And that success would be a hefty buttress against whatever may happen to them elsewhere.
It is up to the Lib Dems to harden their majorities, bringing fresh air and some edge to politics with a restating of the important values of liberalism which they themselves have long forgotten. That philosophy now needs to be energetically fronted up, less in the interests of the party than of the country, where democracy and accountability are under real threat from the possibility of becoming a one party state.
We live in volatile but fascinating political times. The General Election is gong to be electric.
Postscript: The Salmond retreat from Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey
The reality here is that Mr Salmond quickly realised that the scalp in Inverness was likely to have been his own.
The SNP candidate for the seat in 2010 was John Finnie, who polled quite well, coming third with less than half of Mr Alexander’s vote – although times are different today.
Mr Finnie. however, was, with Jean Urquhart, one of two principled anti-Trident SNP MSPs who resigned from the party over Alex Salmond’s decision, ratified by the party conference, to put membership of NATO into the indy prospectus. Both continued to support the SNP’s legislative programme in the chamber at Holyrood and both remain committed to independence.
But Mr Finnie has now become a formal member of another party, the Scottish Greens – saying that he realises he has been a Green all his life. He will remain strongly pro-independence but since that is also the Scottish Green party’s position, he faces no contradiction there.
The SNP have rejected the ‘Yes Alliance’ proposed to them for the General Election campaign by the Scottish Greens and the Scottish Socialists, both of whom will now field their own candidates.
The Scottish Green candidate in 2010 came a very poor sixth. It was obviously to the party’s advantage to stand Mr Finnie in the constituency this time around – where he would have split Mr Salmond’s indy vote, with an added dollop of personal support for his principles, as opposed to Mr Salmond’s absence of the same, as the man who lied on television to Andrew Neil on having legal advice on Scottish EU membership.
No wonder Mr Salmond was grumpy in saying he would not stand in Inverness. The bite of karma is a sharp one.