Selection Box: West Scotland

The final region, West Scotland, has one major eye-opener: the emerging contest in Renfrewshire North & West. Sitting MSP, Trish Godman, is standing down here, and her replacement is Stuart Clark. Up against him are Derek MacKay, the Leader of Renfrewshire Council, and Tory Leader Annabel Goldie. Now, this throws up a few interesting questions. Firstly, how well will Cllr MacKay's candidacy be received? His position will make him a well-kent face, but is this good or bad? Renfrewshire Council have, like many others, had to take some tough decisions even before the recession, so there's the possibility that he could well end up as a Peter Grant-type figure. Or his profile could carry him to top spot.

But breathing down his neck is the Tory leader, Annabel Goldie, the only sitting MSP to be standing in the seat (unless Ross Finnie decamps), and let's not forget, reasonably high-profile as the Leader of her Party. QIB would potentially turn this seat into a clear three-way marginal (it's possible that just 6% could end up separating first and third). Who will prevail? This one is worth watching next May...

Meanwhile, Jackson Carlaw is the Tory candidate tasked with 'defending' the re-drawn Eastwood, but thanks to Cunninghame South entering the region, there are still two notional Tory Regional seats, so even if Carlaw gets ranked second on the List, the big question is, who'll get third? An early figure to watch is Maurice Golden of the Glenrothes By-Election, who has been selected for Cunninghame North, but it's early days yet.

Of course, all of these, in this and the previous five posts, are just the tip of the iceberg and there are many more selections now in place. But even so, there are all sorts of twists and turns that could take place between now and next April, when the candidacies will be formalised. Anything could happen.

Selection Box: South Scotland

South Scotland isn't devoid of a few interesting contests.

For Labour, there's the vexed question of who to replace Cathy Jamieson as candidate in Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley, particularly as a QIB would make this seat highly marginal. But there's another interesting decision for the party. With Cunninghame South leaving the region, and SNP-held Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley coming in, there's now a notional Labour Regional seat, and a vacancy to fill. Moreover, the theory that the spot might prove tempting for a defeated Labour MP has been blown part by the somewhat frustrating failure on the part of any Labour MP to be defeated, so unless Lord Browne fancies doing a Foulkes, it's not clear who might come forward.

But in terms of constituencies, all eyes should be on the Borders: the new boundaries of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale are favourable to SNP candidate Christine Grahame (suggesting that Jeremy Purvis might have to decamp to the List), while the Tories have, somewhat surprisingly, selected former Tory MP Peter Duncan ahead of Derek Brownlee, who stood in the old Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale seat. Brownlee will have to make do with fighting East Lothian instead, but this throws up another intriguing battle: with only one Regional seat (and even that's in doubt if Gillian Dykes succeeds where Murray Tosh failed and beats Elaine Murray in Dumfriesshire), and two strong candidates for it, what will the Tories do? Will they opt for old standard-bearer Peter Duncan, the former Party Chairman and Shadow Secretary of State, who quite literally put the Tories back on the map in Scotland back in 2001? Or will they choose the up-and-coming Derek Brownlee, whose negotiation during the budget process has delivered the implementation of Tory policies for the first time since devolution? It's a tough call, and there's going to be one hell of a bloody nose for someone.

(Incidentally, a correspondent who, sadly, didn't leave a name assures me that in fact, Brownlee secured the East Lothian selection before Duncan was chosen in Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale. I must confess to being surprised by that particular alignment of events: while neither seat is a particularly appealing prospect, respectively being the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition and an SNP-LibDem marginal with the Tories shut out, but Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale was Brownlee's base for the last two elections. Does he just fancy a pop at Iain Gray?)

Meanwhile, we have the re-match between Tory MSP John Lamont and the man he defeated, LibDem Euan Robson, in Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire.

Finally, there's the SNP List, with Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley coming into the region but being absorbed into the SNP's current total of five seats in the South, and with five Regional MSPs currently, this could have been ugly for the Party. But with Mike Russell heading north, and Alasdair Morgan standing down, the SNP goes from having more candidates than slots to defend, to having a vacancy for a new face.

Selection Box: North East Scotland

This region has a few fascinating contests in store, mainly as this is the region with the truly new seat, in the shape of Angus North & Mearns. It looks like we can expect a battle between two sitting Regional MSPs: the SNP's Nigel Don, and the Tories' Alex Johnstone. And of course, it remains to be seen what effect Andrew Welsh's retirement will have in Angus South.

Meanwhile, there's also speculation that the LibDems' Nicol Stephen will stand down, leaving the LibDems with a vacancy to fill in Aberdeen South & North Kincardine.

But again, check out the list. The extra (notional) SNP constituency creates a new Tory seat on the List, so there's a question now of who might fill it, especially as no obvious name springs to mind, on account of the candidate in the one top target seat the Tories had in the area in May being a certain Mr. A. Johnstone.

Selection Box: Highlands & Islands

In the Highlands and Islands, there are a wave of retirements on the way, with Jim Mather, John Farquhar Munro and Jamie Stone all leaving in 2011. In Argyll & Bute, Education Secretary and current MSP for the South of Scotland Mike Russell will replace Jim Mather as the SNP candidate, with Alison Hay looking to win the seat back for the LibDems and current Regional MSP Jamie McGrigor making the pitch for the Tories. Now, at this point, I'd usually mention the QIB here, but the fact that Mike Russell, who lives in this constituency, is a sitting MSP and a Cabinet Secretary to boot, probably neutralises it, along with the fact that for Holyrood, this seat is an SNP/LibDem marginal and the Tories are some distance off the pace. However, QIB would certainly apply in Caithness, Sutherland & Ross (where Regional MSP Rob Gibson will be having a go), and Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch (where LibDem Alan MacRae will be hoping to defend the seat against SNP MSP Dave Thompson). And the average bonus of a quasi-incumbent equates to a 6% swing, which would put both seats in the SNP column.

Meanwhile, it's worth flagging up that Mary Scanlon has been selected in Inverness & Nairn. If I were feeling uncharitable, I would mention that she attempted to present herself as "A New Bonnie Fechter for Moray" following the death of Margaret Ewing, but that wouldn't be like me at all, would it? In fact, she was never a bonnie fechter for Moray: she'd stood in Inverness East, Nairn & Lochaber in 1999 and 2003, and doubtless only stood in the Moray By-Election as she'd already been selected for the seat for the 2007 Election. I mention this simply to point out to those who remember that campaign that she has not been ejected from her base, she is actually returning to it.

The Return of the Selection Box: Central Scotland and Glasgow

Despite the hysteria over the 100-day of the Coalition, and the excitement over Charles Kennedy doing nothing, the Scottish political parties are in the midst of selecting their candidates for next year's elections. So, inspired by Malc's post on retiring MSPs, I thought I'd take a look.

In Central Scotland, all eyes are on Motherwell & Wishaw, not because there's a vacancy (yet), but because there's pressure on Jack McConnell to stand down after taking a peerage. It should be noted that McConnell is the fifth MSP Peer: Lords Douglas-Hamilton, Foulkes, Steel and Watson all went before him and Lord Watson (despite his fall from grace) provides something of a precedent in that he too was a Constituency MSP, and successfully sought election and re-election as a Peer of the Realm. However, McConnell is the first to become an MSP while sitting in the Scottish Parliament (normally the reverse is the case), and he is the first one to consider keeping a foot in both camps after 2011. This is significant for the Kelly Review, which proposed the end of dual mandates from the date of the next devolved elections. Now, the review referred only to "Westminster MPs", which suggests that only membership of the Commons was considered, but combining a working peerage with the Scottish Parliament would be dubious in the spirit of Kelly if not the letter. He may, therefore, end up feeling pressured to stand down. We shall see.

In Glasgow, keep your eye on Glasgow Shettleston, where John Mason (of the Glasgow East By-Election) has been selected for the SNP. Now, Mason is not seeking a place on the Regional List, and does require an 11.22% swing to win the seat. Of course, that's a considerable increase on the swing he achieved in Glasgow East in the General Election in May, but it's only about half what he pulled off in the By-Election in 2008, so it's not completely beyond the realms of possibility. But of course, this will have a knock-on effect for the List, and assuming that Nicola Sturgeon takes #1 billing, then none of the sitting Regional MSPs will want to come fifth.

Meanwhile, for Labour, a pressure has been eased with Margaret Curran's transfer to Westminster: they are no longer trying to fit nine MSPs into eight notional seats, and have already selected Stephen Curran as their candidate for Glasgow Southside. Then there are the Tories, who find themselves with a vacancy at the top of their List given the retirement of Bill Aitken. Malcolm Macaskill has been chosen as his replacement for the Glasgow Anniesland candidacy, but the actual list is yet to be determined. It's still possible that Ruth Davidson might enter the fold, but I understand that the Tories' one Councillor in Glasgow, David Meikle, has been selected in Southside, so he is one to watch.

The State of the Secretary

Following on from last week's Guest Post by Socialist Animal on who might emerge as Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland once the Labour Leadership and Shadow Cabinet elections have been and gone, I thought I'd take a look at the state of the actual Secretary's role as it stands, and its ramifications for Labour and the SNP.

So the first part of this post, then, the actual role as it stands, is going to be rather short.

What exactly is Michael Moore doing?

We're seeing that there are more direct interventions from the actual subject portfolios: Danny Alexander has, arguably, engaged more with the Scottish Parliament as Chief Secretary to the Treasury than he did in his brief spell as Secretary of State for Scotland, when his only notable public utterance was to confirm that he had nothing to add following David Cameron's words, and Nick Clegg has got into a direct row over the timing of the AV referendum and its clash with next year's Holyrood election. Even David Cameron and William Hague have got in on the act with their entrance into the Lockerbie row, and the Scottish Affairs Select Committee has resolved to discuss the end of the video gaming industry tax break with George Osborne directly. Michael Moore appears to be cut out of the process.

It may be that a lot of this is owed to bad timing: we know that he wants to push Calman forward, but this has been overshadowed with the continuing row with the US Senate over al-Megrahi, so he is, perhaps, just unfortunate. But even so, his interventions have been fewer in number and of a lower profile than those of Jim Murphy, whose spell in Dover House saw him pretty much everywhere, or indeed, Moore's counterpart in the Welsh Office, Cheryl Gillan, whose first act was to get into a row with the Welsh Assembly Government over the timing of the referendum on more powers for the Assembly.

Compared with Murphy and Gillan, Moore looks positively Trappist. And that means that Dover House is out of the picture.

And this spells trouble for the LibDems: with Clegg unilaterally scheduling a referendum to clash with the Holyrood poll, and with Alexander being put up to make the argument for budget cuts, it's LibDem ministers who are being forced to fight the main battles, and they're being forced onto the wrong side of the argument. This could spell disaster next year: five LibDem constituencies are vulnerable to just 5% swings; they risk losing their regional seat in Central Scotland altogether; even factoring in extra regional seats to balance out Constituency loses, the LibDem Group could find itself reduced to just thirteen members next year if the Party can't find its mojo again.

Meanwhile, it just highlights the irrelevance of the Scottish Tories: David Mundell is not helping matters by being mired in a row over his election expenses and an accusation that he planned a smear campaign against his current boss, but despite being the sole Tory MP in Scotland, he is subordinate to a Secretary of State who appears to have been drowned out of matters himself. Mundell is at best an insignificant member and at worst a liability in a Department which few appear to care about at this time.

Yet this, perversely, makes things harder for the Shadow Secretary of State. Now, the previous occupant of the post had difficulty making waves but I'd put that down to 1) the occupant being a Tory, and 2) the occupant being David Mundell, whose impact has been low. However, even Jim Murphy appears to have fallen down a black hole of late which suggests that the job is not all that big a draw. And it's not hard to see why: the occupant isn't in the Westminster Government; they aren't in the Scottish Government; they aren't the Leader of either Opposition and the Department they're shadowing isn't getting in the papers. The only Shadow Cabinet portfolio worse in that respect would be Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. So it's hard to shape the news agenda, and on that basis, it hardly matters who gets the Shadow job - it's currently worthless.

Of course, this means it's Iain Gray's big moment: Jim Murphy stole the show in Dover House, leaving Gray out of the picture. Now, it's his time to shine, and with the Holyrood elections next, and Gray effectively a First Ministerial candidate, that's the way it should be. But it's only a good thing if Gray and his people use the limelight well and there seem to be echoes of Labour's post-2007 behaviour at the moment. The party seemed to get its act together, and became more professional and effective when Murphy was at the front, but under Gray it seems to have gone back to form. When in a position to make common cause with the SNP on the timing of the referendum, Gray could only be grudging, noting that he agreed with Alex Salmond "for once". George Foulkes opted to use Nicola Sturgeon's wedding as a vehicle for a venomous press release about how she ought to change her name. And Richard Baker has now told the press that it is perfectly proper for politicians to kowtow to foreign legislatures, on the basis of his protests against Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill not being willing to travel to Washington DC just to say something that they've already said about a thousand times over. So the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Party is centre-stage, but on the basis of early performances, the show doesn't deserve to last too long.

In short, without Jim Murphy sitting in Dover House, Labour has gone back three years. That's not a good thing.

So this, then, is the SNP's big chance: the Scotland Office has been neutered, the UK Government ministers discussing policy in Scotland appear to be on the wrong side of an argument, and Labour have gone back to their worst. Moreover, with this being a Holyrood election, the Tory stick isn't quite as effective and besides, despite what we were told in this year's campaign, voting Labour did not keep the Tories out anyway.

But more importantly, with UK ministers directly involved, we're back to where we were before Jim Murphy's appointment. For me, a major contributing factor to the SNP's victory in the Glasgow East By-Election (though I accept that with such a close result, all factors were major contributing factors) was the party's ability to frame the contest as a tale of two governments, with each promoting and defending its record. The SNP came out on top as it had an effective frontman for that purpose, whereas the UK Government did not. It took the appointment of Murphy to spike those guns, as we saw in Glenrothes, Glasgow North East and the General Election. Although the Coalition Government has someone in Murphy's job, it doesn't have anyone performing his role as he did.

In short, Labour need a lot of creativity at Westminster and a more mature approach at Holyrood if they're to make any progress. Conversely, with a weakened Scotland Office and the Shadow Secretary of State role reduced to an irrelevance, there is a major opportunity for the SNP to seize the initiative.

But with only a little over nine months left until polling day (barring any last minute panic-driven changes to the Scotland Act), the party must move quickly.

A Precedent Set - Well, Sort of...

It's now official: Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson has been selected as Tory candidate for Galloway & West Dumfries next year. We were expecting this, but it still rankles: we've got it in our heads that a Presiding Officer needs to be above the fray, and here he is standing as a Conservative candidate.

But then, this is uncharted territory: unless he changes his mind between now and next April, this will be the first time since devolution that the Presiding Officer at Dissolution has been on the ballot paper at the subsequent election. Fergusson is now setting the precedent.

And it's because he's setting the precedent of seeking re-election as an MSP that his decision to stand again as a Tory, when he's supposed to be above the political fray, rankles so. But that's understandable: it rankled when it emerged that David Steel continued to take the LibDem Whip in the Lords. He set a precedent that the Presiding Officer's impartiality extended only as far as his duties as PO. As Steel's duties in the Chair did not go as far as Westminster, so Fergusson's duties don't go as far as the stump once Parliament is dissolved. But Steel also set the precedent of the commentariat being offended that a Presiding Officer wouldn't shed his political allegiances completely (a predecent backed up when George Reid was overheard commenting on Nicola Sturgeon's performance at FMQs once), and Fergusson has already had to face this. Indeed, his campaign leaflets will make for interesting reading.

But before the hysteria starts, let's consider a few things: firstly, does the affiliation (or lack of it) of a Presiding Officer make the blindest bit of difference? If they chair a meeting fairly, then it does not. After all, except in exceptional cases, the PO only speaks to say 'Order' and 'We now come to Decision Time', and he does not vote, except to break a tie when convention now effectively dictates that he must vote for the status quo. And not only can the Deputies speak and vote when they're not in the Chair, but they have stood for re-election to Parliament on a partisan ticket. George Reid was elected Deputy PO in 1999, and stood for the SNP in Ochil and in Mid Scotland and Fife in 2003. Murray Tosh was elected Deputy PO in 2001 and stood for the Tories in Dumbarton and the West of Scotland two years later, then was re-elected DPO and stood again for the Tories in Dumfries and the South of Scotland in 2007. Trish Godman was elected Deputy PO in 2003, and stood again for Labour in West Renfrewshire four years later. So it's perhaps a little harsh that Fergusson shouldn't have the same rights as his deputies (though we know that one of them, Alasdair Morgan, will not be exercising those rights as he is standing down).

Of course, we're spoiled by Westminster convention, where the Speaker sheds his Party and stands for re-election as 'Mister Speaker Seeking Re-Election', but we might want to note the convention in the Welsh Assembly, where Dafydd Elis Thomas was elected as Presiding Officer in 1999, then stood as a Plaid candidate in 2003, when he was re-elected to the Chair, and stood again for Plaid in 2007, and retained his post as PO.

But there's another factor, which means that Fergusson is not setting a full and clear precedent: he is standing for re-election as an MSP, but not as Presiding Officer: indeed, he was reluctant to take the post the first time round and has no wish to take it again.

So he is standing as a Tory Candidate because he wishes to be a Tory MSP. Fair do's, I suppose, though it does start to generate speculation as to who might succeed him. Do Labour have anyone this time? They're the only one of the Big 4 not to have supplied one yet, despite having had a total of 67 different MSPs since the Parliament first sat (and who'd have thought back when the referendum campaign was being fought that a Tory would be the Presiding Officer of a Scottish Parliament before a Labour member?). Is LibDem Ross Finnie thinking of throwing his hat into the ring, as is rumoured? We shall see.

But again, Fergusson's decision still leaves a basic question unanswered: what happens when a Presiding Officer decides to seek re-election as Presiding Officer?

We won't know the answer to that one for another four years.

Have I instigated this?

This is what I said about the Scottish Tory reshuffle:

And what happened to Mary Scanlon? Has she irked Ms Goldie? Or is she standing down like her fellow 1947 baby Bill Aitken, who is after all only six weeks older than her? If he's going, then you can see why she'd be going too. Incidentally, if this is the case, can we expect Ted Brocklebank and Nanette Milne, both born in 1942, to depart as well? If so, this would represent a relatively major infusion of new blood for the Tory Group.

This was in the Sunday Herald:

There is speculation Ted Brocklebank, MSP for Mid-Scotland and Fife and Nanette Milne, MSP for North East Scotland, may also step down in 2011.

Brocklebank, 67, and Milne, 68, have both been MSPs since 2003.

After her demotion in a Tory reshuffle last week, former Tory health spokeswoman Mary Scanlon, 62, is also under pressure to go.

Now, we should note that Mary Scanlon has voiced an intention to seek re-election, and Nanette Milne is inclined to do the same, but the Sunday Herald couldn't get hold of Brocklebank. Incidentally, they went further and queried Sir Jamie McGrigor's position, and he didn't get back to them either.

Nevertheless, it's telling that out of 16 MSPs, the retirement of one has prompted allegations of fustiness for a further four members. This isn't helped in Scanlon's case by her demotion from the front bench so that Murdo Fraser can take her portfolio. It's telling as well that in Scanlon's Parliamentary career, she was Health Spokesperson all through her first term, and Communities Spokesperson in her second until her resignation to fight the Moray By-Election. Then, after the 2007 election, her return to Holyrood and the reorganisation of the Tory front bench to map onto the new Scottish Government Ministerial structure, she returned to Health. Now, in a small group, there's a versatility expected of members (Ross Finnie spent eight years as Rural Affairs Minister: when the LibDems went into Opposition, he became Health Spokesman), and you'd expect that a trusted frontbencher would just move to a different, vacant portfolio in a reshuffle - in this case, Education in a straight swap with Murdo Fraser, or Justice. But not this time. Clearly, there has been an expression of only limited confidence in Mary Scanlon on the part of Annabel Goldie, and one has to wonder what the future holds for Scanlon if she does seek, and win, re-election in 2011.

But what about the fustiness or otherwise of the Tories? Well, in the first place, it depends on how you define it. If you're linking it to age, and you shouldn't, then you have to define at what age one does cease to be fit to serve. And it's interesting that Kenneth Clarke, seven years the retiring Bill Aitken's senior, has just been appointed to the post of (funnily enough) Justice Minister and Lord Chancellor. So if he's fit for that, then Bill Aitken and all the Tory MSPs mentioned above are fit to carry on. Similarly, next month, Clarke will reach his 40th Anniversary of being elected to Parliament for the first time. The Scottish Parliament is only eleven years old. Again, if he's fit to carry on, so are the MSPs.

And besides, with one known retirement, with boundary changes basically gifting the Tories two extra seats, and with uncertainty about whether or not Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson will seek re-election and if so, with what styling (his two predecessors quit Parliament at the end of their term) then there are three, possibly four potential new faces who will be tasked with defending a Conservative seat.

In Central Scotland, Margaret Mitchell has been the Party's sole MSP since 2003, so can hardly be described as a 'bed-blocker'. And despite having no portfolio at all and being exiled to Convenership of the Equal Opportunities Committee, it's hard to think of a credible local replacement.

We know that Bill Aitken is standing down as an MSP for Glasgow in 2011 after 12 years.

The Highlands & Islands cohort is in need of the most renewal: Mary Scanlon was an MSP since 1999, save for a year out of Parliament following her attempt to win Moray, and her replacement, Dave Petrie, ended up ranked fifth on the Tory list in 2007. Jamie McGrigor has been in situ continuously since the formation of the devolved Parliament. If new blood is needed, it's here.

In Lothian, it's a different story: David McLetchie has been an MSP since 1999 but is something of a big hitter in the Scottish Tories, while up-and-coming Gavin Brown was only elected in 2007. That's a reasonable mix.

In Mid Scotland and Fife, none of the sitting MSPs were elected in 1999: Murdo Fraser came in two years later, following the resignation of Nick Johnston; Ted Brocklebank was third in the 2003 rankings (when sitting MSP Keith Harding was ranked fifth and ended up defecting to the People's Alliance), and remained there in 2007, where he was overtaken by Liz Smith, who was able to capitalise on Brian Monteith's departure from the party. So this region has had some pretty high Tory turnover anyway.

North East Scotland has Alex Johnstone, MSP since 1999, Nanette Milne, MSP since 2003, and a vacant Regional slot thanks to the extra SNP Constituency in Angus North & Mearns. So there is, unless the Tories go backwards, scope for new blood anyway.

South Scotland sees the Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson as the only remaining Tory member of the Class of 1999 (Phil Gallie stood down in 2007, Murray Tosh failed to be re-elected that year and David Mundell headed to Westminster in 2005), with his elevation to the Chair making John Scott in Ayr the longest-serving Tory MSP in the South, having won the 2000 By-Election. Derek Brownlee replaced Mundell in 2005, while John Lamont entered Holyrood in 2007 having won Roxburgh & Berwickshire. Assuming the PO stands down, there's a Tory vacancy in Galloway & West Dumfries. The thing is, former MP Peter Duncan is probably the likeliest candidate given the fact that a return to Westminster isn't on the cards until the day of the 2015 Holyrood election, so he won't exactly be a breath of fresh air either. But Brownlee and Lamont provide the youth anyway.

West Scotland, meanwhile, may well have Annabel Goldie as a member since 1999, but as Leader, she's obviously untouchable. Jackson Carlaw only took a seat in 2007, but the redrawn Eastwood sees the Tories gain a seat in the Region overall, creating a vacancy.

So there is still some freshness in Tory ranks, and plenty of scope for new blood. But to get at it in any major way, they'll need to shed some of the old blood. The question is, if the sitting tenants won't leave, will the members evict them?

In the Highlands especially, they may have to.

A Vision of the Scottish Tory Frontbench

As Andrew notes, word has got round that Annabel Goldie has reshuffled her Frontbench in advance of the election.

Murdo Fraser remains as Deputy Leader, but moves to the Health portfolio, replacing Mary Scanlon. Liz Smith takes over as Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Education having been a junior spokesperson on the subject.

Bill Aitken, who has announced his intention to stand down from Holyrood in 2011 - and if the Tories select anyone other than Ruth Davidson as his prospective replacement then they deserve to lose their Regional seat in Glasgow - has left his front bench role in the Justice portfolio, to be replaced by John Lamont, who was a junior Justice spokesperson and only a fortnight ago was trying to change Parliaments.

Derek Brownlee remains at Finance, John Scott is still at Rural Affairs, David McLetchie remains Chief Whip and is confirmed as Campaign Manager (perhaps unwise, given that he held that post for the election just passed, which was not a roaring success for the Scottish Conservatives), while Gavin Brown becomes "Political Adviser to the Leader".

So what can we say, aside from wondering quite what Gavin Brown's role actually entails (or who was advising the Leader beforehand)? Firstly, Fraser's appointment to Health perhaps suggests that this will be a key campaign issue for the Tories - why else would Goldie appoint the Deputy Leader to the portfolio if it weren't? And what happened to Mary Scanlon? Has she irked Ms Goldie? Or is she standing down like her fellow 1947 baby Bill Aitken, who is after all only six weeks older than her? If he's going, then you can see why she'd be going too. Incidentally, if this is the case, can we expect Ted Brocklebank and Nanette Milne, both born in 1942, to depart as well? If so, this would represent a relatively major infusion of new blood for the Tory Group.

Liz Smith's elevation to the Shadow Cabinet for a subject on which she has been speaking anyway makes sense. And on that basis, it makes sense to appoint John Lamont to Justice as well: he has been speaking on that brief anyhow. Nevertheless, on the basis that Lamont was seeking to head South earlier on this month, this is a little embarrassing, and it speaks volumes about the Group as it is presently composed that Goldie had to bite the bullet, perform the straight promotion and appoint him. Was there no one else? Apparently not. Clearly that infusion is more of a transfusion, and is needed urgently.

One final point: this is a screenshot of the Scottish Tories' MSPs' page, taken this evening:

You'll notice, as I did, that it still has Fraser in the Education portfolio, Aitken at Justice and Scanlon at Health. While the news release was posted on the website, the rest of the pages have not yet been updated.

How embarrassing it is for the Scottish Tories, that not even their Webmaster notices a frontbench reshuffle!

Two Visions of the Scottish Tories

Was there an election on the other week? If you were a Scottish Tory, you'd have struggled to notice. They went into the campaign with one seat, and 15.8% of the Scottish vote at Westminster. They go into this Parliament with one seat and 16.7% of the vote. Oh dear.

David Mundell managed to increase his majority, but the Tories did have 11 seats on their shopping list. Their vote actually went down in neighbouring seat (and top target) Dumfries & Galloway. John Lamont, who fought Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk in 2005 and has been the MSP for Roxburgh & Berwickshire since 2007 couldn't even manage a 1% swing against Michael Moore. Their hope of moving from third to first in Edinburgh South was dashed when they lost votes there, and they at least managed an increase in their vote in Edinburgh South West, but still saw a net swing to Alistair Darling there, and with a net 3.2% swing to Jim Murphy in East Renfrewshire, the Tories in East Renfrewshire failed to produce a 'Portillo Moment'. There was even a swing against the Tories in Stirling (how many disabled people did Anne McGuire have to sack to lose this seat?), while the SNP increased its majority in Angus and Perth & North Perthshire. It was the LibDem-held seats - Argyll & Bute and West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine - that provided the Tories with their best results on the 'hit list': swings of 2.7% and 4.9% respectively. Not great.

But then, the premise of the Tory campaign was - and let's not mince words here - utter shite. Its basis appeared to be that England was going to vote in a Tory Government, so the Scots might as well jump on the bandwagon.

But Scotland chose not to jump on the bandwagon. Scotland's support for Labour may have waned somewhat in recent years, but it seems as though there was a collective decision to hold onto Nurse for fear of something worse. And so, with the LibDems coming third in Scotland, England and Wales, and the Tories coming first in England, second in Wales but fourth in Scotland (and with UCUNF coming fourth in Northern Ireland with a sum total of no seats), it's clear that Scotland has been decidedly less enthusiastic than other parts of the UK about the coming Government. And those suggesting that the Coalition has an enhanced mandate when you add the LibDem and Tory figures together might do well to bear in mind that the combined total of the two parties' votes in Scotland is still less than Labour's total poll. The combined votes of the Coalition might well have come first in England and indeed in Wales, but it still came second in Scotland, so the 64% of Scottish voters who voted for someone other than the governing parties might well have differing views of the constitutional niceties of the UK, but you can, I think, forgive them some wariness at what they see emerging from Westminster.

And, let's face it, the Cameron-Goldie combination has not set the heather alight: its vote increased by a paltry 1% in the Westminster elections; it went down 1% in the European elections; barely moved on the Holyrood Constituency vote and fell by 1.6% on the Regional vote. So it's a given that the Tories as they are presently constituted do not resonate in Scotland.

So the Tories have not got off on the right foot with Scotland. And given the circumstances we find ourselves in, the Tory-led Government has to take some ugly, ugly decisions which will reverberate. A government that isn't popular anyway is going to have to take steps which will make it even less popular.

Which brings us neatly to 2011. With Annabel Goldie not setting the heather alight, and with the sole Tory MP David Mundell being given the job of Minister of State at the Scotland Office - essentially the guy who gets Danny Alexander's coffee, and remember that Alexander was basically Nick Clegg's typist (well, I'm applying some dramatic licence there, but probably not all that much) - the Tories are surely in real trouble to hold on to what they have next year.

For example, the Tories have three seats in Mid Scotland & Fife. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that they could lose one of them. Boundary changes in the North East given them an extra Regional seat there - an unpopular Tory Government at Westminster could put that at risk. And Ken McIntosh's re-election prospects in Eastwood probably look a little brighter now than they did a fortnight ago. And if the Tories were to lose their seats in either Central Scotland or Glasgow - it's not impossible - then it would be a calamity: they'd be the first of the Big 4 parties to find themselves with full Regional gaps in their Parliamentary team. Until now, all of the Big 4 have managed at least one seat in every region, in every election. A growing hostility to David Cameron could end that next year.

But there's one problem with that analysis: it's based on the Coalition being a disaster.

What if the Coalition exceeds expectations? And let's be honest, that isn't hard.

We all talk about the hostility to Margaret Thatcher, but we forget that one month after she entered Downing Street for the first time (though in those days she had 22 Scottish MPs), the Tories 'won' the European Election in Scotland, and despite losing a seat overall in 1983, it was 1987 when they lost half their Scottish seats and the slow death of Tory Scotland began, culminating in the 1997 annihilation. In short, it took eight years for real hostility to creep into proceedings. Perhaps the first sign of trouble was surely the 1984 European election, but even that served only to bring Tory support down to the level that would have been reasonably expected at that time.

What if the Coalition makes itself look responsible? What if that gives the Tories new credibility?

Then it's a whole new ball game. An extra set in Lothian? Why not? Finally unseating Roseanna Cunningham? Why not? Coming through the middle in Stirling? Why not? Winning Dumfriesshire? Again, why not? A relevant Tory party? It's not impossible.

The Coalition that poses so many risks for the Tories also affords so many opportunities if they know how to act on them.

But despite the noises made by David Cameron on Friday, I don't think they will. The Tories have been out of office for 13 years, the Labour Government looked tired and out of ideas, yet the best reaction the Tories have had in Scotland over the last few years appears to be, "Ummm... Naaahhhh!"

Even if they don't turn it into outright hostility, I just don't think the Tories are capable of advancing. The Scottish HQ is moving into the Edinburgh North & Leith Constituency Association. The candidate in East Renfrewshire is talking about the party changing. Norman Tebbit wants to cut it loose from the UK organisation altogether.

That's not a party that's ready for any advance. I suspect the darker vision for the Tories is closer to the immediate future.

The Magic Roundabout

This seems to sum up the state of politics at the moment. The Prime Minister - for that is what he is, remember - has announced that he is continuing merely in a caretaker capacity regardless of the outcome of coalition talks. He has announced his resignation of the Leadership of the Labour Party. However long it takes to find a new Leader, it's clear that whatever happens, the UK will have a new Prime Minister in time for the Conference season.

It's clear that, just as Con-LibDem talks have inevitably reached impasse at discussions of electoral reform, Lab-LibDem talks weren't going to seriously get off the ground if the successful outcome of such negotiations kept Gordon Brown in Downing Street. Brown has come to the same conclusion as others in his party did months, even years ago: that he is the primary barrier to continued office for the Labour Party. There will, I suspect, be more than a handful of defeated former MPs who wish that this epiphany had visited their Leader a year ago.

But still, we are where we are, and the outgoing Prime Minister (as he now is) produced a statement that was measured and dignified. I've noticed that it's often the closing moments of a Leader's tenure that brings out their best. Perhaps it's the feeling of freedom that comes with knowing that no matter what they do, the outcome is pre-determined. No one wants to breathe down your neck when you're heading for the exit. Perhaps it's the reverse, the sense that this is their last chance to make an impact. Go out with a bang. Leave them wanting more.

In any case, there appear to be four permutations of Government.

The first is the combination for which we've been bracing ourselves for the past couple of days, until the events of the past few hours blew it out of the water - the Tory-LibDem Coalition. This would (in England, at least) come with the perceived legitimacy of involving the first-placed party. But then, it smacks of a traditional first-past-the-post approach to politics: why would the LibDems support the Tories just because they're first? It would, however, be the only pairing (save a highly improbable Grand Coalition) with a majority in the Commons: 362 seats. The problem, however, is that although the maths favour this arrangement, the relations between the parties do not. It's clear that on electoral reform alone, it's been a massive stretch just to get the Tories to propose a referendum on Alternative Vote - which is still not far enough for LibDem tastes. Besides, this isn't like the Lab-LibDem Coalition in Scotland from 1999 to 2007. In that case, Labour's primary challengers in most of its constituency contests were the SNP. For the LibDems, they faced off against the Tories in their main battles. There were few Labour/LibDem contests. This time, there were a wave of battles where the Tories and LibDems were locked in combat. These contests were dotted all around Britain, but they were concentrated in the West Country and along the South Coast. Did, for example, LibDem voters in Wells just eject a sitting Tory MP to see their successful candidate support a Tory Government? I doubt it. And of course, many Tories will be horrified that the LibDems were flirting with Labour while dating the Tories. Whatever trust, whatever rapport, has been built up over the past week has surely been eroded. While expedient, this combination would not be stable and would not contain natural bedfellows.

Then there's the alternative, the First Past the Post approach: a Tory minority Government. It would be ideologically pure, and neither the Tories nor the LibDems would need to debase themselves too much in negotiations. At least, not this week. But the Tories only have 305 seats and they need 326. And while LibDems would have influence, it's questionable how well they'd be able to implement their policies from the Opposition benches - membership of a Coalition would surely get the chance to make some progress... wouldn't it? This is the dilemma the LibDems face.

But there's perhaps another way: a Labour-LibDem Coalition. The two parties are undoubtedly closer: they have clashed on matters such as civil liberties, foreign affairs and defence but the crazy thing is that most Labour supporters probably favour the LibDem approach in the first place! And on the main point of contention - electoral reform - Labour's starting point is the Tories' final offer: the referendum on AV. The party could go further (though Coalition Whips could do to lock Tom Harris in a cupboard somewhere). The scope is there. But Clegg has effectively determined who is (or at lest, who is not) Leader of the Labour Party. That ain't right: members of political parties announce who they want to lead rival parties as a joke (e.g. Labour MSPs supporting Dorothy-Grace Elder as SNP Leader, SNP Members wanting George Foulkes to lead Labour, and so on). But it's not great for the LibDems either: the person in charge when they negotiate isn't the person who'll be in charge four months down the line. And they don't know who that person is. Who will they be working with? They don't know. That ain't good. Besides, Labour and the LibDems only have 315 seats - also short of a majority. Even if you factor in the SDLP and Alliance, that comes to only 319. It's not ideal and it won't get the majority needed.

To get that, you need the so-called 'Progressive Alliance', as floated by Alex Salmond. Assume that 319 seats are in the bag: add the SNP and Plaid and you get 328. And it's certainly in the interest of the two parties to back a Lab-LibDem Coalition. At least, it's in the interest of the SNP to do so: if after 13 years in Government the Labour vote share in Scotland can increase by more than the Tory vote, then when forced to choose which side they're on, the SNP have only one way to go and this is it. Caroline Lucas would almost certainly prefer this to the alternative. So would Sylvia Hermon. Even the DUP would see this as preferable to a Tory Government given the likelihood that Northern Ireland could be on the wrong end of particularly hefty budget cuts, but on the other hand, there have been talks between the Tories, UUP and DUP before now and with both Peter Robinson and Sir Reg Empey having a bad night on Thursday, the path is clear for new leaders who might make the first tentative steps towards Unionist unity. Given UCUNF's poor showing, however, what links such a movement would have with the Conservatives is unclear. Whatever happens, the votes for such an alliance are there, but the amount of negotiation involved would make it unwieldy. It surely wouldn't last very long: it wouldn't take much for one part of the grouping to get pissed off and trigger its downfall. Then there's the principle: if you argue that the Tories don't have a mandate to govern Scotland and Wales on the grounds that they didn't come first there (there's that FPTP politics again), you have to accept that Labour don't have a mandate to govern in England. Then there's the sight of a wave of parties who have spent the last 13 years opposing the Labour Government jumping on board to support it, particularly when the Labour Party is sufficiently weak that its Leader announces his intention to resign four days after polling day. It seems... off, somehow.

So we have four options, all of which have strengths and weaknesses. It's going to be a while before this gets sorted out, and we know who's in charge - at least for the Spring. But by Parliamentary standards, it's not going to be long at all before we do this all over again.

And that's another calculation: 18 months in opposition for Labour could see them back in Government if the Tories struggle on. An 18 month Progressive Alliance could end up ushering in another 18 years of Tory Government at the end. Whatever the parties decide now, they should surely understand that what plans they make for this Parliament will impact on the course of the next one.

But then, under the circumstances, perhaps we should be grateful that one leader at least is looking as far ahead as this year's Party Conferences.

Debate Prep

In which I take a look at what the performers in the upcoming Prime Ministerial Debates need to do to get the edge.

Brown: Be more confrontational

This one sounds counter-intuitive, even after I explain that I don't mean 'aggressive'. But I'm not suggesting that he be confrontational towards the other candidates, but towards the issues. When someone heckles Gordon Brown, he just sweeps past them - he can surely hear them, but he's rather good at pretending that he doesn't. When someone asks him a question he doesn't like, he ignores it. When someone presents him with a fact, a truth, a reality that isn't convenient to him, he completely dismisses it no matter how ridiculous it makes him look (I recall how David Cameron brought up Wendy Alexander's infamous, "Bring It On" moment, and Cameron quoted verbatim, only for Brown to reply "that was not what she said" despite the fact that Cameron was quoting the transcript).

So Gordon, if you're reading this, when a question comes, answer it. When a point is made, respond to it. When a fact is brought up, address it. Don't avoid it. Don't sidestep it. Don't ignore it. And only deny it if it's patently untrue. You'll gain respect by being honest (let's face it, Blair's masochism strategy worked to an extent), and the papers will pan you more if you brush anything uncomfortable aside than if you try to tackle it.

After all, this is a debate: that means engaging with the other side's points.

Cameron: Think on your feet

For someone who likes to pace around the stage without notes, David Cameron is a highly programmable speaker. His Conference performances don't show a man who's speaking from the heart and doesn't need notes, but a man with a good memory, who can recite lines on cue. One may as well stick a parrot in front of the ITV cameras. The downfall comes when everything's committed to memory, Cameron has learned what points and lines he wants to get in and when, but the argument moves in an unexpected fashion or the other side's response was not what he planned (rather like how Paul Le Guen appeared to plan how the opposition team would play, then couldn't understand how Falkirk wouldn't stick to that plan and would win 1-0), and he's been caught cold like this a few times.

So he should try a more free-form approach. OK, the lines might be less polished and there may even be the odd 'Um' and 'Ah' in there but that's not as bad a mess-up as trying to steer a debate back to territory it left a while ago, or trying to make a point that's already been shot to pieces by the other side. One error like that, where his over-preparedness makes him look semi-detached from the debate, and it's an open goal for Brown and Clegg.

Again, this is a debate, go with the flow.

Clegg: Be less emotional

Again, this may seem counter-intuitive, but bear with me. Remember last week's PMQs, where Nick Clegg opened with that disdainful "He and he...", and it sounded like a cross between a hissy fit, and an exasperated Eric Morecambe introducing Ernie Wise and Andre Previn's interpretation of Greig's Piano Concerto for the fifth or sixth time (the point at which he gave up naming them and exclaimed, "With him and him!". Now, it may well be that it's a matter that genuinely frustrates Clegg, but the truth is he doesn't seem to render them in a natural way. Perhaps because, at times, it looks like he's getting narky about procedure rather than policy. But whatever the reason, his anger, however genuine it may actually be, appears contrived, synthetic. So, don't do anger!

Besides, there'll be plenty of heat exchanged between the other two, so there's scope for Clegg to be the Voice of Reason, leaving the playground to the children and actually making serious points. That'll set him out as being different in a good way, rather than just appearing to be a crap actor.

The others: Better off out of it?

Imagine. It's 10:01 on Thursday night. The debate was inconclusive. No one was the winner. The losers were the unfortunate viewers who did their best to stay tuned in to the end but ended up watching the commercials and making a brew during the programme instead of the other way around. The bulk of the debate centred around England-only issues (or even issues that might be reserved but seem to matter more in England than in Scotland, or perhaps where the perspective is different in any case) and the three candidates tore into each other without actually discussing relevant points.

It's possible that these debates might put people off all three parties, especially as Nick Clegg's "the other two are the same, we are different" line can't be sustained in the programme. The minute the other parties disagree - which they will - his line about them being the same is blown out of the water. The minute he agrees with either Brown or Cameron - and he will have to on something sooner or later - his line about the LibDems being different is undermined. And if he just disagrees with everything anyone else, he'll look like a complete muppet. Plus which, if the other two parties do agree on something, his choice is to either join the grey, cosy consensus, or be the one who breaks that consensus and creates division. The "Labservative" line will look increasingly shaky come Friday morning and advantage will fall to a party that wasn't on the platform. And one party in particular - the SNP, of course - will have a spot on BBC Scotland which will provide a window to go through all the material gathered on the Thursday night debates.

Basically, if this debate turns out to be a damp squib, if neither leader satisfies people's expectations, if there's no clear winner or loser, that generates a massive opportunity for the SNP, for Plaid and for the Greens - even for UKIP in Tory areas.

If Brown, Cameron and Clegg can't conquer their demons, they can't conquer each other. If they can't conquer each other, they can't capture votes. And if they can't capture votes, there are others who can.

By the end of April, they may all rue these debates.

Irony

Now, I know there's a trend for parties ripping off each other's poster ideas (memo to all party campaign managers, if I see another 'Fire Up The Quattro' variant, I will hunt you down and beat you up with my laptop), but this one has particular zing.

It was, I suppose, only a matter of time (though 18 years is a little much) that this 1992 effort would come back to haunt the Tories:


Well, today we discovered that what goes around comes around. Though I didn't expect the LibDem view to be that to attack the Tories, they must pay homage to the Tories:


There's irony in here somewhere: the Tories getting hoist by their own petard is one possible source. The LibDems deciding that the best way to attack a Tory idea is to use, er, a Tory idea is perhaps another.

I'll leave that one to the philosophers.

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

We are, of course, nearing the Final Act, and over the next few weeks, across the UK, the last scenes will be played out. Will the curtain fall, or will there be a sequel that few of us were expecting?

I'm in a dramatic mood today (hence the rejig and the culling of the blogroll) and there are times when such urges just have to be indulged. After all, tomorrow Gordon Brown will almost certainly go to the Palace and seek a dissolution of Parliament. It's going to be tomorrow: it's either then, or next month, anyway.

I was never convinced by the wave of expectation, sweeping us all towards an early General Election back in Autumn 2007. Let's face it, Brown had spent thirteen long, agonising years plotting and scheming to eject his colleague Tony Blair, and having had all sorts of golden opportunities over the period, never quite managed it: Blair went of his own accord, having announced of his own initiative that the 2005 Election would be his last. Brown's acolytes got the concession that the 2006 Conferences would be his last, but again, Brown himself was not in a position to land the final blow, and it was Blair who set his final departure date and somehow, despite everything, left the stage with the audience wanting an encore.

No, Brown had spent the time waiting, plotting and hoping, but never quite having the bottle to make the ultimate decisive move that would bring about his move next door at a time when he wanted. Why, then, having waited so long, would he risk it all in an election that could have seen him leave 10 Downing Street before his feet were properly under the desk? Why, after 13 years of cautious inaction, would he blow it on one massively reckless move? That wasn't his style and that election was never going to happen. Still, we all planned for it - just in case.

Then 2009 came. And went again. That's how it was always going to be: after an ugly git of a 2008 for the Government, and Labour (not completely fairly) getting the blame for the expenses scandal, he was never going to go last year. Again, it wasn't his style.

So why, then, am I sure that, with a choice between going to the Palace tomorrow, and leaving it a month, he'll go tomorrow?

Image. It's what did for Callaghan in the end: he thought Prime Minister 1976-79 looked better in the history books than 1976-78. Similarly, Brown didn't want the 2007 Election as he didn't want to have the shortest term of office since George Canning, who had the excuse of dying in office. Of course, Brown has metaphorically died in office many times over, but that's beside the point. Image counts, and going tomorrow gives Brown at least some dignity and credibility. Wait another month and he'll spend the next four PMQs getting filleted.

Besides, there are elections anyway on 6 May, to local Councils (including the London Boroughs), and recent history is very clear: the polls will be timed to co-incide. It used to be that Governments tried to avoid that at all costs, it was a factor in the timing of Polling Day when the Callaghan Government fell; Margaret Thatcher went to the country just over a month after local elections in 1983 and did the same in 1987; John Major's re-election took place just four weeks before local elections and European elections, until 2004, always fell a few weeks after council contests.

But it was John Major's departure from office when the approach changed: the 1997 General Election coincided with County Council elections in England; and Blair repeated the process in 2001 (delaying both due to Foot and Mouth) and 2005. He even brought forward Northern Irish local elections so they'd take place concurrently with the Westminster campaign. The 1999 Council Elections in Scotland coincided with the first elections to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament passed the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002, which changed the terms of office for local Councillors from three years to four so that they would continue to coincide (and thanks primarily to the Gould Report, that decision will be undone soon). Local elections were moved back in 2004 and 2009 to coincide with the European Elections, and even the London Mayoral and Assembly elections were moved back in 2004 for the same reason. Indeed, the last time two sets of major contests were held just a few weeks apart was 1999, when the European elections took place just five weeks after elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly (as well as local elections).

It would be a major break with this recent approach, and an act of cowardice to delay any longer.

And what of the outcomes? One gets the feeling that Gordon Brown spent so long plotting to be Prime Minister that he never actually bothered to work out what he'd do once he got the job, and we've had platitudes where there should have been a plan, as the Government has spent the last few years bouncing from fiasco to crisis, like a ping pong ball in a tumble dryer. But still, the polls aren't as unfavourable as they could be - or indeed, have been. The Tories lost half of their seats in 1997, while Labour lost just under a sixth of their seats in 1979. The reality, I guess, will be somewhere between the two and the marker for Labour is 237 seats, a loss of 119 seats or one third of the 2005 actual total. Anything higher than 237, and they can claim to have held off the worst (though as Labour found out to its cost in 1983, the worst could still be to come). Anything lower, and Labour are in disaster territory.

By contrast, you get the feeling that all the Tories stand for is winning elections and there's still no real sense as to what a Tory Government will mean. It seems that David Cameron has been trying so hard to get into Downing Street that he doesn't really know what he'll do when he gets there either - that the Party seems to face both ways on - well, basically everything - makes the sense of uncertainty even greater and that might explain the blip in the polls. Voters like policies they can reach out and touch, and the Tory Government still has this intangible quality that doesn't help its cause. The electoral maths aren't helpful either: a net increase of 107 seats on the Tories' actual 2005 total would be broadly equivalent to the gains made by Tony Blair. That increase would still deliver a Hung Parliament. With a Hung Parliament increasingly likely, 274 (an increase halfway between those of Thatcher and Blair) is the target and anything short of that would be an embarrassment. Anything higher, and the Tories are at the very least on track, and would have the necessary momentum to get their majority in 2011.

For the LibDems, the actual numbers are irrelevant: it's their position relative to everyone else that matters and their requirements are frighteningly specific. There has to be a Hung Parliament, and they - and only they - should be able to carry one party or (preferably) both over the line. If the Tories get a majority, it doesn't matter whether there are nine LibDems or ninety: it's all been for nought. And their campaign doesn't inspire confidence: vote for us, because our spokesman successfully predicted economic doom (I won a bet on Saturday that Bristol City would draw with Nottingham Forest - does that make me an ideal candidate to be Minister for Sport?). Vote for us, and our clunky slogan that's a mishmash of everyone else's. Vote for us, because the other parties are actually drawing up a manifesto specifically designed to make your life a living hell (that's the upshot of "We are the only people who believe in fairness" line). Vote for us, because, really, you shouldn't give a shit about that other lot (that's the upshot of all the SNP-bashing, despite their apparently being irrelevant, and in any case, that's a rather daft claim from party that lost its deposit in the last three Westminster By-Elections in Scotland). And I still haven't forgiven my local LibDem Councillor for saying that he's "not bothered" how I vote in a General Election as long as I vote for him to keep his seat on the Council and get a pretty community garden across the road from his house while a current beauty spot gets flattened for just two houses.

Then there's the SNP. Again, the numbers shouldn't matter too much, but the number 20 does still loom large. It's some way off in the distance, but the number is there. The SNP premise is a clear one: it won't be the Government but it can influence the Government better than its own backbenchers can. And the slogan ("More Nats, Less Cuts") is simple and effective, albeit ungrammatical. The big problem is, with the party basically cut off from the UK-wide media, how does it make sure that its message gets across to the maximum number of people? That's the challenge.

And what of the other parties? Can the Greens make the breakthrough? They can. Will they? We don't know. Can UKIP's Nigel Farage oust John Bercow? I doubt it. Can Nick Griffin get into the House of Commons? Well, if press reports are to be believed he'll have done well getting to polling day without his publicity officer murdering him.

Here are a few early calls:

1. The Tories will have the most votes, and will probably have the most seats. But unless David Cameron is capable of going without oxygen for a fortnight, he shouldn't hold his breath before getting into Downing Street. He will have to wait a while.

2. Nick Clegg will find himself with a lot of explaining to do, either to his Party not getting the result they wanted, or to the press and the public for a cack-handed reaction to getting the result he wanted.

3. No more than 1,000 votes will determine whether or not Caroline Lucas enters the House of Commons.

4. Esther Rantzen's challenge will come to nothing: the main reason Martin Bell won in Tatton in 1997 was that the opposition to Neil Hamilton coalesced around him. That isn't happening in Luton and the vote will be too badly split for her.

5. Nigel Farage will still be an MEP at the end of it all. He'll accuse the main three parties of a 'cosy European consensus' that prevented a fair fight.

6. The SNP will make a real progress in votes and seats, but Labour will attempt to portray the result as a personal disaster for Alex Salmond.

7. This is as much hope as expectation, but if there's any justice, Anne McGuire will have done to her by the people of Stirling what she did to thousands of disabled workers at Remploy.

Now, let the drama begin...

Why can't the Tories be straight on gay rights?

I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences. I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home.

Thus spake Chris Grayling, in a conversation taped on the sly by the Observer. Needless to say, it's sparked a row.

After all, we were told that the Tories were no longer the party of Section 28, that they'd changed, that they were gay-friendly and could wheel out gay supporters (and openly gay frontbenchers) as proof of this. Then they formed a group in the European Parliament with a gaggle of homophobes and fans of the Waffen SS. Their MEPs also refused to condemn Lithuania's answer to Section 28. This is coloured by the fact that Chris Grayling voted in favour of the regulations that prevent B&B owners from banning gay couples on the grounds of their sexuality. Mixed messages? You bet.

As for the argument itself - I don't think it's as clear cut as we'd like to believe. On the one hand, yes, this is meant to be based on a religious principle and I'm not comfortable with the idea of two groups being in a position where if one is to get its way, it has to trample on the right of the other one to live as it would wish. On the other hand, let's nail this deeply-held religious belief thing once and for all. These people claim they are acting in accordance with the Christian faith. This is the same faith which teaches its followers "Judge not, lest ye be judged" (Matthew 7). Well, I am sorry, but I can't think of anything more judgemental than saying, "No, you can't stay in my guest house as a paying customer like everyone else because I'm afraid that you might get up to something that I find sick and wrong!". In short, to say that it's an honest, legitimate religious belief is bullshit: it's nothing less than a complete inversion of one of the key principles of Christianity.

But what about the LGBT position? I can't help but wonder if maybe we've got so used to having to shout and fight for our rights that we can't get it into our heads that there might be other ways of doing things. After all, in cases like this, we're only a vulnerable minority if we allow ourselves to be vulnerable: we, ultimately, are the consumers, the ones with the cash. And that gives us the power. So the owner of the Shangri-La doesn't like gay couples? Fine, there's another B&B down the road that's conveniently located in the 21st Century. We'll take our money there. We get our room for the night, the guest house owners who see us as paying customers first and anything else second gets our money, and bigots who shut the door on us might have a room unfilled but can rest easy in the knowledge that they've done what they think is God's work. Everyone gets something.

Or do they? Obviously, the bigoted owners don't get the money, but there's another factor: word of mouth. We'll tell our friends: "Can you believe it? They wouldn't let us book a room!" and our friends will be horrified. They'll tell their friends, and so on, ad infinitum. Add to that online reviews: we can now go on tourist and hotel review websites, and make our point there. That puts off other consumers, which hits the B&B owners. This doesn't need a legal ban, it needs concerted and organised consumer action and the message should be a fairly clear one: get with the times, or get out of the business. We have the power to hit them where it really hurts, not on the statute book, but on the balance sheet.

On the other hand, discrimination is discrimination and we're supposed to be beyond that as a society. More worryingly, sympathy for this bigoted position has been expressed by a man who could be a member of the Cabinet in just a few weeks. To put it bluntly, if it's got to the point where businessmen and businesswomen are willing to put their own personal prejudices above a clear business opportunity in the name of a corrupted view of a religion which, quite frankly, has bigger fish to fry than this, and if they're backed up in this restriction of the market with medieval dogma by a senior member of a party that claims to support free enterprise, then something is very, very wrong. While legislation shouldn't be the answer, if this is what we have to contend with, it might be the only way forward.

Meanwhile, we're left with a Tory party whose Spokesman voted for the Equality Act Regulations but doesn't actually agree with them, that doesn't want hotel owners to discriminate but is fine with B&B owners being as bigoted as they wish in the name of God, that claims to have turned its back on Section 28 but then refuses to condemn its Lithuanian equivalent, that happily parades around people like Nick Herbert and Margot James as proof that they've changed, then shacks up with the Polish Law & Justice Party, whose leaders have argued that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be teachers.

In an ideal world, none of this would be necessary: Christianity wouldn't have picked up all this extra baggage that runs counter to the teachings of the Gospels, B&B owners would realise that they're the ones who lose out by not opening their doors to everyone, and LGBT campaigners would get that in cases like this, we can win simply by acting like consumers rather than protesters.

But in this far from ideal world, I'd settle for at least knowing where the Government-in-waiting of the United Kingdom actually stands on gay rights, for good or for ill. Even if it's anti, I'd rather we all knew for sure... before the election!

More on the Telly Box

Thanks to Scott tweeting a link and suggesting that the contents were right up my alley (he is quite correct), I've clocked the draft BBC Editorial Guidance for the upcoming General Election.

Here's something interesting on Page 5:

In Scotland and Wales, the SNP and Plaid Cymru respectively gained substantial electoral support at the last General Election. UK-wide programmes must ensure that, on issues where they have distinctive policies, the SNP and Plaid are given appropriate levels of coverage in items to which the GB-wide parties contribute. In addition, UK-wide programmes should use SNP and Plaid spokespeople on other major election news stories, where appropriate.

Now, this is interesting: is the draft guidance arguing in favour of an SNP (and Plaid) presence in the Leaders' Debate?

UK-wide programmes must ensure that, on issues where they have distinctive policies, the SNP and Plaid are given appropriate levels of coverage in items to which the GB-wide parties contribute.

Here's the key: the word 'appropriate'. Is it 'appropriate' not to have a contribution from either the SNP or Plaid in such a debate? It seems not. Is it 'appropriate' to have an extra programme on the News Channel and BBC Scotland (and, of course, Wales) for the SNP and Plaid Leaders. Again, that's effectively the same as not having them in the UK-wide programme. It goes on:

In addition, UK-wide programmes should use SNP and Plaid spokespeople on other major election news stories, where appropriate.

So here's how I read it. The Debate will be UK-wide. The Debate will, in and of itself, be a major election news story. The SNP and Plaid do have distinctive policies on a number of issues that may, conceivably, be raised at that debate - unless the BBC stick solely to issues handled by both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Accordingly, it is entirely appropriate to have a place for one or both of the SNP and Plaid in that debate.

And, those lamenting that Alex Salmond isn't going to be a candidate in the General Election should note that it invites 'spokespeople' - not necessarily candidates! And who better to act as a spokesperson than the Party Leader?

Further, those concerned that inviting the SNP and Plaid means inviting the Greens, UKIP, the BNP, Respect and the entire Northern Irish political spectrum should take a look at the following. Firstly, also on Page 5:

In Great Britain, in the context of a General Election, no party other than those mentioned above [Labour, the Tories, LibDems, SNP and Plaid] has demonstrated that it has substantial electoral support.

Now, the Greens, UKIP and BNP may all have cause to dispute this, and the BBC does confer upon them a sort of "Best of the Rest" status, but the Corporation's attitudes are clear: on UK-wide issues where they have something to say, the SNP and Plaid are to be given a voice.

Similarly, this comes on Page 7:

UK-wide programmes which report on the election as it affects Northern Ireland should give similar levels of coverage to the four largest parties: the Democratic Unionists, Sinn Fein, the Ulster Unionist Party (standing as UCUNF with the Conservatives) and the SDLP. If British Conservative spokespeople are used to discuss issues directly relating to Northern Ireland, outlets should normally also ensure that the other three larger Northern Ireland parties (ie DUP, Sinn Fein and SDLP) are included.

Accordingly, if the Debate steers clear of NI-specific issues (or, one suspects, if the UCUNF pact breaks down), there's no need to invite the respective Leaders as they too are kept in a separate bracket to the others.

In short:

1. The BBC guidelines make it hard to justify the absence of the SNP and Plaid on the BBC Debate.

2. The BBC guidelines do not rule out the presence of Alex Salmond as the SNP's representative.

3. The BBC guidelines show that inviting the SNP and Plaid does not force them to push the number of participants into double figures.

Basically, this paper highlights a need for the two parties to be involved and sweeps the rug from under the key points of contention that may prevent that from happening.

However, another key word in all of this is 'draft'. It's possible that this thing could be re-drafted, particularly with a view to detailing the BBC's approach to the Debate. But if these are the guidelines adopted, then the BBC will in effect be in breach of its own rules if the participants in its Leaders' Debate are restricted to Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg.

2010: The Year of If

You know it's going to be an uncertain year when it starts with people arguing over whether or not we've started a new decade. So if we can't settle that, then any predictions are built on pretty shaky ground. Which is why I'm calling 2010 "The Year of If", as you'll be able to see things mapped out, but they'll all be conditional on less certain events.

SNP

So what does 2010 hold for the party of the Scottish Government? I'd say further progress, and the question is how much. You would expect the SNP to take advantage of Labour's decline - and it will - but Labour will attempt to paint the election as a choice between Brown and Cameron. Now, personally, I'd have thought that such a choice would have voters flocking to other parties in their droves, but a particularly polarising campaign could restrict the amount of opportunities open to the SNP. Similarly, you might expect the party's right flank (and seats in Tayside) to be vulnerable to the Cameron effect, but seeing as it hasn't materialised in Scotland, my money's on the SNP seeing off a Tory challenge. And on the one hand, the LibDems and SNP occupied similar political ground in 2005 but the LibDems had the benefit of a wider media profile, but the LibDem political ground has shifted and that gives the SNP a little more breathing room. So in the General Election, the SNP will advance, and the only question is how far. The 20-seat target set just under two years may have provided a hostage to fortune, but there's no doubt that SNP tails are still up.

At Holyrood, things may not go so smoothly. For the Budget, there's no hope of co-operation with Labour (they'll vote the Budget own over GARL) or the LibDems (regardless of what's in there, they'll do anything to annoy Alex Salmond). But the Tories will, for now, be amenable as their present consideration is that they do not want to put Labour into Bute House just as they're trying to eject Labour from Downing Street. That will stand, but once the Tories are in Downing Street, the landscape will change, relations may sour as the two Governments get into confrontations. So it will, once again, hinge on the Greens and it is in the interests of the SNP to listen to them very carefully.

However, with the exception of the Budget, co-operation will be thin on the ground as parties first get into Westminster election mode, then shift gears and get ready for the 2011 Election, so unless the SNP Whips know something the rest of us don't the Referendum Bill is vulnerable. But with a referendum enjoying popular support, and with the opposition policy of "Not this referendum Bill and not now" being vulnerable to fairly obvious cries of "What Referendum Bill and when?", a reverse will work in the SNP's favour.

Labour

Can you hear the ticking of the Great Clock? It's just a couple of minutes until midnight now. I see no way back for Labour and their only consolation is that the defeat might not be as bad as it might have been. But what made the Tory wilderness years so bad, and the start of Labour's time as Scottish Opposition so cringeworthy wasn't the defeat itself, but the party's reaction to it. Firstly, the jockeying for positions began before the election took place, so the parties went into the contest divided. Secondly, the parties turned completely inward and started rowing with each other in the aftermath. If Labour can avoid that, they might be back on their feet by 2011.

But the signs aren't good: Charles Clarke's trying to get Gordon Brown booted out again, there are rumours that Lord Mandelson is Unhappy. So it all hinges on a good clean Leadership contest after the election, with principles and policy at the heart of it. Unfortunately, it's going to boil down to cliques and the losing side will spend the next Parliamentary term huffing and sniping at the new Leadership, as now.

This will provide a double-edged sword for Labour at Holyrood. On the one hand, MSPs will get caught up in the in-fighting and if the new Leadership isn't enamoured with Iain Gray then he has a problem. On the other hand, if he backs the right horse, he might just cement his position. On the one hand, the departure of Jim Murphy as the effective Leader of Scottish Labour (he will either lose his seat or become Shadow Work & Pensions Secretary) will bolster Gray's profile and make him the face of Scottish Labour. On the other hand, that will force him to up his game, and if he messes up, he has no backup and no support. In a year when Iain Gray will be trying to convince us of his First Ministerial qualities (not starting sentences, "If I was First Minister..." would help), he won't need the chaos that will be going on all around him.

Conservatives

This should be a year to celebrate for the Tories, yet victory will come with a bitter aftertaste. Firstly, the enormity of the challenge they face will become very clear very quickly - I expect George Osborne's net approval rating to be something along the lines of -50% by Christmas. Secondly, the polls suggest that we're not heading for a 1997-style landslide (the Tory majority will be around 20 seats). Thirdly, this means that Cameron will have to choose between ignoring his right-wing backbenchers and losing votes in the Commons or losing the centre ground, costing the Tories votes and seats in the next Election, which may be sooner than we think - late Summer 2012 or early Spring 2013. So it will not be a happy return to Government for the Tories.

Of course, if the Tories at Westminster think they have it bad, try being a Scottish Tory! It's fairly obvious that David Mundell will not find himself Secretary of State and the words "Lord McLetchie of Morningside" appear to hove into view. Further, Scottish Tories will find themselves under pressure: on the one hand, relations between Cameron and Alex Salmond won't take long to degrade as the two Governments will blatantly wish to pull in opposite directions. On the other, the Tories will still want to keep Iain Gray out of Bute House.

This will have the greatest impact on the MSPs, who will be forced to pick one side or another: they'll either have to row with their own party, or be branded apologists for the new anti-Scottish Tory Government. But there is a way out: the election looks like yielding the slimmest of slim pickings and you will probably be able to count the Scottish Tory delegation to Westminster on one hand. The Cameron effect has never taken hold in Scotland and there are signs that Annabel Goldie's habit for keeping the ship steady and doing acceptably but no better than that is starting to wear. It may be that the Scottish Tories are de-merged with the UK Party and an arrangement not overly dissimilar to UCUNF in Northern Ireland is established, or it may be that Annabel Goldie is ditched and replaced with Murdo Fraser, with Derek Brownlee as his Deputy. Or, indeed, it may be both.

Liberal Democrats

This might be the year to be neither the Tories nor Labour, but the problem is that for too long, the only thing to stand out as far as the LibDems are concerned is Vince Cable's knack for prophesying economic doom. Aside from that, they've got nothing to go on and if the election polarises, it's the LibDems who have the most to lose, with their voters picking a side. How well they survive depends on how well they stand out and I don't have much hope of them doing that.

And at Holyrood? More obscurity, I'm afraid, and it'll be self-inflicted. At least their friends at Westminster do occasionally produce a distinctive policy or two, but Tavish Scott et al need to be told that hating Alex Salmond isn't a policy. What do the Scottish LibDems have to say on tax? "We hate Alex Salmond". Education? "We hate Alex Salmond". Health? "We hate Alex Salmond". Crime? "We hate Alex Salmond". The constitution? "We hate Alex Salmond". Fine, we get that you don't like the FM. But a political party needs to be based on something more than a visceral hatred of another man and with LibDems sounding more and more like they'd rather people voted Labour than LibDem just to dish out a bloody nose to the SNP, it does make you wonder if they could do to just merge with Labour and have done with it. But even Labour have the occasional flash of a policy. Tavish Scott offers nothing and I don't see a change in approach or emphasis a this year. Or, for those post-2011 optimists among us, next year either. They might, at some point, attempt to bring a Minister down. Then they'll blame the Tories for not playing when they fail.

Greens

This is the year of groundwork for the Greens, and with a very real possibility of Caroline Lucas entering Westminster this year, this is a chance for their profile to skyrocket. Of course, Robin Harper is to stand for the Greens in Edinburgh East - he won't be successful, but there's method in this: possibly a Green Constituency candidate in Edinburgh Central as well as Glasgow Kelvin in 2011, which is the year that counts for the Scottish Greens.

But it will come down to Patrick Harvie to back or bin the Budget, once again. After last year's fiasco, everyone will be wiser to proceedings and that will be to his benefit more than anyone else's. This will give him extra traction come 2011.

The one note of caution is this: beware another Green false dawn! In 2005, the Scottish Greens fielded 19 candidates and kept three deposits, so over-inflated expectations along the lines of every candidate keeping their deposit are to be avoided: that isn't likely to happen. The 2009 result became a disappointment when it shouldn't have been - that's the risk the Greens face this time as well. An otherwise respectable result may seem like a setback, simply because it seemed like momentum was building.

Glasgow North East: The aftermath

Well, we've had a few days to ponder the result. Congratulations are due to Willie Bain; clearly Labour have a lot to celebrate, and the SNP a lot to be disappointed about. One thing I would suggest though is that despite it being nigh-on-impossible to talk about swings and trends given the particular nature of this By-Election, and the sheer number of candidates, this is probably broadly in line with what you might expect in a General Election for a seat with Glasgow North East's history, twelve years into a Labour Government, so I don't envisage the result here next year being overly divergent from the result we've just seen.

Of course, the turnout is nothing short of appalling: less than one third of voters bothered to show up, a record low in Scotland for a Westminster By-Election, and the largest dip in turnout in four years. But should we be overly surprised? Firstly, Glasgow North East is not an area in which voters head to the polls in their droves so it's a bit rich for politicians of all hues to muse about voter engagement in places like this now: this is a long-standing problem and it says volumes about how places like Glasgow North East are viewed if they've only just noticed it. Besides, recent By-Elections - Glasgow East and Glenrothes - saw massive levels of interest and only very small reductions in turnout. But By-Elections before that - Dunfermline & West Fife, Livingston and the Glasgow Cathcart By-Election for Holyrood - saw double-digit drops in turnout. What we're seeing, therefore, is a reversion to type. Sadly, it's come in a place where voter interest is already low.

Then there's Labour: clearly their campaign hit all the right buttons. Remember Dunfermline & West Fife, when Labour dismissed the loss as a reflection of local issues? They've learned from that, finally. It's always about local issues and after their success in Glenrothes, Labour have learned to tap into that. The campaign may have been somewhat unsavoury, but it was successful, and to obtain a majority of votes - however few votes may have been cast - does represent a good result. It shows that in places like this, Labour still have a core vote that they can motivate to get out. Predictions that they can use this as a way of turning back the blue tide next year and win a fourth term do seem wide of the mark, and I would expect Labour to be toast in many of their key marginals. Nevertheless, their core supporters are still happy to show up, so a Labour apocalypse is not necessarily on the cards - something that may well worry the LibDems, who are hoping to make gains from Labour in the North of England.

And what of the SNP? Clearly the post-mortem is ongoing but for now, that 20-seat hope is receding into the distance: turnout was low and it's clear that many people saw a reason not to vote Labour, but the SNP did not offer sufficient reasons for those disaffected voters to back them, or indeed, anyone. This is why I disagree fundamentally with Gordon Wilson's analysis: going nasty won't serve any purpose and won't attract anyone. People who live in areas that seem to have been let down by their politicians already know the problems. They know the stats, because they live them. They know that 74 years of representation hasn't turned Springburn into a land of milk and honey. What they want to hear is, "What are we going to do about it?" That didn't come through. Gordon Wilson's idea of street-fighting Labour won't work as people aren't daft: they'll see the world around them and if they're still willing to vote Labour, slagging them off to high heaven won't change their minds. Nor will it attract those who are not: they already know that Labour hasn't delivered, but telling them what they already know won't work. The opposite of his suggestion is the right path: the SNP need to be relentlessly positive. The message in Glasgow East was bright: "Your vote will count!", "When the SNP wins, you win!", "Winning for Glasgow!" and so on. Labour responded with venomous attack after attack. Who won, Gordon? The party with the bright, positive message. Draw your own conclusions.

Then there's the Tories. They can be relieved to keep their deposit, but the message coming from a party that aspires to govern the whole UK has been horrifying: Scottish Tories saying that there just aren't that many Conservatives. What happened to reaching out to other people? George Osborne saying that this contest - and this seat - isn't relevant. What a disgusting message! That throwaway comment is probably the biggest recruiting sergeant that Scottish Labour could have hoped for. Still, despite the Leadership once again showing itself to be the biggest bunch of tosspots in politics, Ruth Davidson came out of this election with a great deal of credit, and should, if she wishes, be destined for progress. Bill Aitken may well have one or two more terms in him, but in the short term, the neighbouring regions to Glasgow might make an attractive prospect for an upwardly mobile, young candidate such as her: with the redrawn Eastwood notionally Tory, and the party only just missing out on a third regional seat this time, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a third Western Tory seat is still on the cards for 2011, and that she could pick it up. Nor is it overly fanciful to suggest that Davidson could feasibly displace Margaret Mitchell in East Central Scotland. She is the positive of their campaign.

As for the BNP, remember that they already had a base here, and a sense of grievance to play on, so there's a danger in talking them up, particularly those muttering about a BNP MSP. The swing in Glasgow North East, if replicated in Glasgow region, still has them falling well short of picking up a seat. Of course, that hasn't prevented the usual BNP-related hysteria from springing up - firstly, blame has been heaped on the BBC for inviting Nick Griffin onto Question Time. Again, I think that viewers saw Griffin in the light that they wanted to see him anyway so that's not it. Rather, the BNP came forward with an anti-politician diatribe at a time when politicians are held in low regard. And what we had was both Willie Bain and Ruth Davidson almost apologising for seeking office, and going to all sorts of lengths to say how they weren't politicians. That probably played into the BNP's hands: if politicians are bad, the BNP were the full-fat, red meat option. In any case, talk once again has gone onto how to 'defeat' the BNP. Sadly, I don't think it's that simple: the BNP's message plays well with the darker side of the human psyche and prejudice and discrimination aren't new ideas thought up by the BNP. They've been around with us forever and Nick Griffin's cronies merely exploit them. Trying to 'defeat' human nature will fail: rather, actually doing constructive things for the area is the answer. if people think they've got a bad lot, if they see others who they think are doing better, then obviously parties like the BNP will flourish. Better to, you know, take positive action in areas like Springburn to imporve everyone's lives. Then the whole reason for voting BNP vanishes.

Tommy Sheridan, meanwhile, did surprisingly well, when you consider that he's not quite had the same traction of late and the combined Solidarity/SSP vote was at more or less the same level as the unified SSP vote share in 2005 so the rot may have been stopped for now. Of the leftist parties, it's Socialist Labour who have the least to celebrate, as it hit home just how artificial their performance of 2005 was. Nevertheless, for Sheridan, this is quite a coup: you would have expected the SSP to run him far closer here as his stomping ground was the other side of the city and this was Rosie Kane country once upon a time. So perhaps, just perhaps, reports of Solidarity's demise are, as yet, exaggerated. It all depends on the outcome of his perjury trial.

And what of the LibDems? Well, this was nothing short of a humiliation, and it's telling that once again, they have to rely on SNP-focused Schadenfreude to get them through this one. Of course, I've been through why I find it odd that they'd happily cheer the success of such an illiberal party as Labour over one with which they have so much common ground, but then, it's hard to make sense of spite and after all the crowing we've heard from them I have absolutely no qualms in saying that they deserve to be humiliated for the third By-Election in a row, with the ignominy of not even reaching half the required vote to retain their deposit and coming behind a bunch of swivel-eyed fascists proof positive of how they have nothing relevant to offer anyone. They have kept blaming the media for portraying this as a two-horse race: that didn't stop Ruth Davidson keeping her deposit. They'll blame the attention lavished on the BNP, but Eileen Baxendale was a presence on every major By-Election programme. Doubtless they'll refer to their lack of a candidate in the last Westminster election, overlooking the fact that they fielded candidates in this area in 2007, who kept their deposit. They have no excuses, and when they crow about the SNP's result in Dunfermline & West Fife, where the SNP talked up its chances only to come third, it's worth remembering that in the SNP vote actually went up there, to around 20%, so saying that parties outwith the Top 2 are doomed to humiliation in By-Elections doesn't wash - the LibDems couldn't even manage 3%. Rather than being smug at the SNP's failure to win in that By-Election, they should reflect on the fact that the SNP succeeded in doing something that has eluded the LibDems in every Westminster By-Election after that one: keeping its vote, keeping third place, and keeping its deposit. Granted, Dunfermline & West Fife represents a zenith in LibDem fortunes - they'd better hope for their sake that this was the nadir.

The Greens, meanwhile, should probably be disappointed that they've not manged to make further inroads, particularly after such a strong performance in Glasgow in the European elections. But I've said before and I'll say again that the Greens thrive on middle-class guilt (which can be a powerful motivator for positive changes so that's far from a criticism) and this would appear to be in short supply in Glasgow North East.

So to sum up: a good night for Labour, an OK night for Tommy Sheridan, a credible but not overly credible BNP result, something to hold onto for the Tories as long as they keep George Osborne away from any microphones in the future, nothing much to shout about for the Greens but solid under the circumstances, a disappointing night for the SNP and a humiliation for the LibDems.

One last thing, which I've been sitting on for weeks: John Smeaton was never going to give Labour a kicking. At no point were any Labour activists ablaze and jumping out of a burning jeep. Thank you very much, I'm here all week.