Better Nation

This is a guest post from Aidan Skinner. He’s also not the Messiah.

As a Labour man, you’d expect me to say it’s all Alex Salmond’s fault. Well it is. The Holyrood 2011 campaign is a few weeks old and so far it’s been dominated by one man. Monty Python. The SNP started it with the “What have the Romans ever done for us” party political broadcast. Then Iain Gray joined in, doing his best Terry Jones impression at the Labour conference.

At which point it got silly. STV tried to make up for excluding Patrick Harvie from the debate and by showing him as the messiah in their iconography. The Liberal Democrats joined in by splitting into the Democratic Liberal Party (O’Donnell-Mcdaid) and John Farquhar Munro forming the Popular Front (Alex Salmond for First Minister).

It’s all very reminiscent of days spent setting fire to Space Raiders in student unions to see if pickled onion ones burn better than cheese (they do). As has, unfortunately, been the level of debate so far (reminded me of student days, although I’m sure some would like to set all of Holyrood a light with a Bic). With Labour and the SNP occupying much the same policy ground and dominating the share of the vote it’s all been a bit “I put it to him that he smells and should TAKE A SHOWER”. Policies are being stolen, positions are being triangulated,blusters are being.. blown? Anyway, I don’t think Sunder Katwala’s prediction of a red-yellow coalition is likely, but he does have a point about the virulence of the debate between the two being at least partly due to the broad similarity of the policies and the search for synthetic differences.

Ultimately, though, I think there is one big difference. And that’s the form the two administrations could take, as has been outlined in this blog previously. Another SNP minority government with Tory support is conceivable but I can’t really see Annabel Goldie leading her troops into a tacit agreement with Labour. John Reid’d blow a blood vessel for one thing, and who’d clear that up? The Lib Dems arealso pretty toxic to Labour at the moment, and might not even have enough seats to put together a majority Labour-LibDem government anyway. So perhaps the difference is less one of substance, more who’s going to come to whose painfully obscure indie night. Hopefully now we’re in manifesto week we’ll get some actual substance. They’re rather dry and dull things though, so here’s a handy precis of what you can expect to see from each party:

Tories – due to the mess we inherited from Labour all you can have is dry toast. As the former first secretary to the Treasury said “there is no jam left”.

Lib Dems – at the last election we promised jam for everyone. We didn’t win outright, and due to the mess we inherited from Labour all you can have is dry toast. We still hold to our Liberal Democrat policy of jam tomorrow.

SNP – the London government has imposed budget cuts so all you can have is dry toast. In an independent Scotland we’d be able to use oil revenue to purchase jam for everyone.

Labour – due to the savage and unnecesssary cuts imposed by the Tory-led government in Westminster everyone has to have dry toast. We have however secured a new jam-making apprenticeship scheme so the young people of Scotland can learn to make jam tomorrow.

Greens – our continued dependence on jam is unsustainable. Everyone should begin a transition to rape seed oil spread.

This is a hypothetical situation… don’t worry about the numbers so much. We’ll know soon enough whether the predictions Jeff and I (and Kate, over at A Burdz Eye View) have been making will be on the money or nowhere near.  But I want to cast my eyes and our collective brains to possible outcomes.

It is now 6 May. The results are in. The campaign is (thankfully) over. We now have the following break-down of MSPs:

Labour (or SNP) – 52
SNP (or Labour) – 50
Conservatives – 16
Lib Dems – 7
Greens – 3
Independent – 1

For this analysis, it doesn’t really matter who wins the most seats, but we can run the potential outcomes with both Labour and the SNP as the largest party.

Suppose these numbers are accurate (give or take 2 or 3 seats, which I know could make all the difference, but bear with me). Also, considering that we’ll need a Presiding Officer from somewhere – likely from Labour, since we’ve had Lib Dem, Conservative and SNP MSPs fill the PO’s chair in the first three sessions, the numbers will need revised to account for that.

In this scenario, the only potential winning combination is between the winning or second place party and the third place party (52 + 16 = 68, 50 + 16 = 66). In reality, the third place party is the Conservatives, and formal coalition between them and either the SNP or Labour seems unlikely (verging on impossible). Indeed, any kind of Conservative agreement to sustain Labour in power (as a minority administration) seems unlikely. There is more likelihood that some kind of deal between the SNP and the Conservatives could be done – its unlikely to involve ministerial positions for the Conservatives, but could be a policy-for-power deal: maintaining the SNP in power and passing budgets for the pursuit of several Conservative policies (which we’ll find out more about after the manifesto is published).

But if that can’t happen, or if we’re in a situation whereby Labour win the most seats and the Conservatives feel that, tactical considerations aside, morally Labour have the first opportunity at being the government, what then? Two options, I suppose – Labour minority government (which, if they had the most seats, would be the logical way to go first) or SNP minority government, which has the potential to follow a failed Labour administration.

But here’s something to consider. The vote for First Minister. You only need 2 MSPs to nominate you for FM, and you can be in the contest.

In 2007, after a limited deal was worked out between the SNP and the Greens, well short of even “confidence and supply”, the Greens did not put forward a candidate for First Minister and cast their votes for Alex Salmond on both the first round (when there were four candidates) and in the run off between Salmond and Jack McConnell (incidentally – Margo abstained on both votes).

In 2003, however, there were SEVEN candidates for First Minsister:  Dennis Canavan (Ind), Robin Harper (Green), Margo MacDonald (Ind), Jack McConnell (Labour), David McLetchie (Conservative), Tommy Sheridan (SSP) and John Swinney (SNP), with Jack McConnell taking all Labour and Lib Dem MSP votes, totally 67 and being elected as FM.

I guess the point is this: how desperate will Labour or the SNP be to stop their rival taking office? Meaning – if neither can secure a formal coalition or agreement with any of the other parties to take them over the threshold, might either consider voting for another party to take office, to buy time? Specifically, if the Greens had 3 MSPs, or indeed Margo found an SNP MSP to nominate her, might either party consider voting for either Patrick Harvie or Margo MacDonald as First Minister?

It sounds far-fetched. In fact, it sounds downright loopy – a political party sacrificing itself and its own opportunity to put another party in office without an agreement in place. And, of course, many of you will think – this being a Green-leaning blog – that I’m “punting the party line” or making the Greens out to be in a more powerful position than they perhaps will be.  You’ll have to trust that isn’t what I’m up to.  Its just that, from some of the sheer loathing I’ve heard expressed from SNP and Labour activists in the early days of this campaign, I’m willing to believe that both parties would rather see any other party in power than their bitter rival, despite whatever policy and/or ideological positions they share.

Thus, if neither can make a formal agreement (either for full coalition or for support as a minority administration) with the Conservatives or the Greens, would they then vote for someone else as FM? This is where the numbers are important. If you are the larger party, there is no way you’d consider it.  But if you were the second party – and you have 50 MSP votes – you could direct them to vote for the Green candidate for FM which, with their 3 votes, would surpass the leading party’s 52.

In fact, this is perhaps more likely (if it is likely at all) to come from the SNP than Labour. Given the primacy of the constitutional issue (above all else) for them – to spin a Stephen Noon question around – would the SNP prefer a pro-union Labour party in government to a pro-independence Green First Minister?  If not, this is a course of action which might help them out in stopping a Labour First Minister after the election (if the numbers worked out).

No mistake – this is a desperation play.  And I doubt very much that any party would go for it.  But two things it has in its favour: it buys time beyond the 28-day period in which a First Minister has to be elected in order to conduct coalition discussions and it would stop a detested rival from taking power.  We can perhaps add to that a potential third advantage to those who would vote them in – the “temporary” First Minister would have all the responsibilities of governmental office, meaning that whoever put them there might be able to escape some of the political backlash for any unpopular governmental decisions made in the time period.

Unlikely – yes.  Something to consider?  It probably already has been…

The Scotsman got YouGov to ask a lot of questions last weekend, and one on coalition partners went largely unnoticed. The results are on page 4 of this pdf – it’s the same poll which put the Greens ahead of the Lib Dems for the first time.

The respondents first got a forced choice between Labour and the SNP, which showed – SNP 44%, Labour 42%, Don’t know 13%. As those who watch the cybernats’ attempts to bait me on Twitter know, I’m firmly in the third group.

Anyway, the next question asked people if their preferred party did not win enough seats to govern on their own, which other party would be your preferred coalition partners, with these overall results:

Minority: 20%
Lib Dem: 16%
Green: 14%
Tory: 13%
Labour: 13%
SNP: 13%
Other: 3%
D/K: 8%

It seems likely that the relatively stable experience of the 2007-2011 session has made minority more popular, although the SNP having one party they could rely on throughout every Budget vote is not a luxury a Labour minority administration could expect.

Given that an outright majority is as likely as a Lib Dem surge, it’s pleasing from a Green perspective to see a seventh of punters prepared to see us in office, if a bit surprising to see the Lib Dems come out marginally ahead there. Only 5% of this sample were voting Lib Dem, but more than three times that have them as their preferred minority partner. They may be too toxic to vote for, but there’s presumably enough residual sympathy to give them the equivalent of a higher ranking under STV. Alternatively, if you’re a die-hard big-party supporter who doesn’t pay too much attention to politics, they perhaps just look like the least worst of the parties you’re familiar with.

Anyway, this is just idle speculation. The real, if slim, purpose of this post is the party-by-party preferences at the bottom of that page.

The symmetry is extraordinary. 11% of Scots are Labour voters who would prefer a SNP Deputy First Minister, and 11% vice versa. 7% each are Labour or SNP voters who would prefer Tavish as DFM, and 6% each are Labour and SNP voters who’d put Patrick into that position.

In one sense it makes sense: on recent form there is little by way of a left-right ideological dividing line between Labour and the SNP. There’s only one question which divides them here: those who want Salmond to stay on as FM are twice as likely as Gray’s supporters to want to see Annabel take a Ministerial Mondeo. Just a straw in the wind, and 8% to 4% is barely outside the margin of error, but still perhaps reflective of that close working relationship the SNP and the Tories have had throughout this session.