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.

Baillieston By-Election

The By-Election to replace John Mason MP on Glasgow City Council took place yesterday, and the seat has been held by the SNP. This ought to be something of a surprise as Labour were the largest party in Baillieston ward last year, but the Glasgow East result meant that the SNP were arguably in a stronger position. It was a close one: David Turner was a mere 151 votes ahead of Labour's Andy (Who?) Muir, though this lead had increased to 198 votes by Stage 8 of the count, at which point Muir was eliminated leaving Turner as the only remaining candidate.

The SSP's progress at the Westminster By-Election appears to have stalled, as the party ended up in seventh place, behind the BNP and Solidarity - suggesting that their own demise may be, somewhat exaggerated as yet.

But for now, forward momentum appears to remain with the SNP, and Labour have lost another election in their heartland. Now comes Glenrothes...

Miaow

Having found herself in a tight rhetorical spot, from which backs out gracefully, Kez makes a good point:

It's the kind of playground bully boy tactics that you can expect from by-elections -and the kind I'd usually try to rise above - but this campaign is tribal and the beat of the drums brings out the worst in us all.

Now, I made a point that given the apparent "two-horse race" nature of the campaign, combined with the venom exchanged between Labour and the SNP exchanged over more than seven decades and compressed into three weeks, as well as the high stakes for both parties, egg-throwing is inevitable. And so it has proven. Between Solidarity and the SSP anyway.

From the Daily Record:

"A bizarre fight has broken out between rival socialist candidates in the Glasgow East by-election. Solidarity claimed their candidate Tricia McLeish was 'disciplined' by SSP hopeful and former MSP Frances Curran when they were at school together.

"A Solidarity source said: 'Tricia went to the same school as the SSP candidate. Tricia was younger and was a rebellious mod who was often disciplined by the blazer-clad prefect Frances Curran. Frances clearly showed early signs of collusion with authority. However, maybe the class rebel will win the final victory.'

Curran said: 'I'm not even going to dignify that with a comment.'

Time, it seems, heals no wounds, and perhaps Ms McLeish's defection to Tommy Sheridan's new endeavour has less to do with personal loyalty to the Tanned One and more to do with a grudge against Prefect Frances.

On leeching off the popularity of others

I note with interest the report in The Herald that the new gender-balanced SSP Leadership team of Colin Fox (the National Convener before they changed their constitution, and former MSP for the Lothians) and Frances Curran (former MSP for the West of Scotland who didn't want to return to Holyrood anyway in 2007) have announced that they're in co-operation with the Greens. Now, had this co-operation been in place before the election, it would have yielded them a sum total of no extra seats. So you wonder what either party has to gain.

Certainly, the Green party has nothing to gain from this but baggage: the damaging split the SSP faced in 2006, the Party's playground approach to politics (think of the temper tantrum they held in the Chamber when they weren't allowe to ask a question about the G8; or Rosie Kane's slogans on her hand; or Colin Fox's mediocre singing voice); the hard-left tack that jars with the middle-class guilt which makes up the Party's appeal to soft Labour and LibDem voters.

(And, incidentally, middle-class guilt isn't necessarily a bad thing: rather, it shows that those who are doing OK for themselves - not badly, not magnificently, but OK - care about the world they live in and want to do things to make it better, even if they're not sure how to go about it. Ron Ferguson once wrote, "Three cheers for middle-class guilt" and he had a point.)

So it's no surprise that the Green Leadership is lukewarm to this idea. They say that they'll work with anyone who shares their beliefs on certain issues - hence their agreement with the SNP, though arguably, all that's delivered for them so far is a Committee Convenership - and Robin Harper says that no proposal has emanated from the Green leadership that would sanction joint working on this scale: that suggests that the SSP's claims that talks have been informal are bang on the money: in fact I'd go so far as to speculate that it consists of a drunken chat between Colin Fox and a Green activist in a pub somewhere, with the Green slurring something along the lines of "we could work together on this", only for Fox to hear that as a cast-iron agreement that the two would get hold a joint Conference later in the year - a stance which the SSP Conference has backed, though no doubt caused Greens to choke when they read the online version of the Herald.

The SSP in this case remind me of a co-worker of mine, X, who has managed to rub the entire office up the wrong way. She is desperate to be everyone's friend, but she takes the wrong approach to making that happen, and the most positive reaction that anyone seems to have towards her is to blank her, but she acts in a way where that is impossible, so disdain is the general feeling towards her. She has a real need to be validated - she burst into tears when she was told that there were no plans to have her analyse the bank statements, then took the huff when she was indeed asked, only for someone else to be asked as well - and has tried all sorts of ways of getting into various social circles.

For instance, the guys in the office tend to go to the pub for Friday lunch, and I'm told that one Friday before I worked there, as the guys headed down the stairs, she ran after them, caught them up and joined them at the pub without an invite (I waited till I was invited before I started going). I'm told the conversation was a bit unsettling, but in January, her interest revived. "I'm inviting myself!" she announced to me, having been angling for an invitation from me for weeks (it wouldn't have been forthcoming as I'm not fond of her, and anyway the guys wouldn't have forgiven me).

"Mm-hmm!" I grunted, while frantically typing an e-mail to the supervisor who was the ringleader of the trip, with the subject heading "AAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Fortunately she proceeded to talk herself out of the idea, and I cancelled the e-mail, and cracked a joke about our not having to pull the treehouse ladder up. She cackled maniacally, and I related the tale to the guys later, who uttered a collective "Oh, Jesus!"

So where am I going with this? Well, the SSP seem to be behaving like X. It's clear that the Greens aren't overly enthused by the idea but the SSP have got it into their heads that the Greens love the thought of being shackled to them, and that their contribution will be valued. All the while, the Greens are silently panicking, ready to make any excuse for this not to happen.

But one word of warning: recently, X has begun to realise that she is not Miss Popularity, and the reaction has not been a good one. She heard another co-worker, Y, announce she was going on a diet, and inferred from that a jibe by Y on X's weight. There followed a blazing row where X effectively pinned Y to her desk, and Y refused to continue any further conversation with her until a manager was present. We now factor into everything we do the possibility that we may offend X.

The SSP could handle a rejection of their overtures equally badly - when being liked is all you care about, to be told you aren't is undoubtedly a crushing blow - and we could have a ding-dong on our hands. Except that there's no manager present to pacify this one.

An arresting development

At about 1:10p.m. today, broadcaster - well, he presents a radio show on an Edinburgh station - former MSP and Leader of Solidarity, Tommy Sheridan, was picked up by three plain-clothes police officers and taken away, in connection with in enquiry into perjury allegations.

This is the latest chapter in a very long-running saga.

For those who don't know the story - i.e. have had absolutely no contact with Scotland at all since late 2004 - here is a quick summary. In November 2004, Tommy Sheridan abruptly resigned as Convener of the SSP. Allegations were then made about a rather colourful private life on the permatanned MSP in the News of the World, and it later emerged that the SSP were aware fo these allegations and forced him to resign. Sheridan successfully sued the NOTW for defammation of character, picking up £200,000 in damages, despite key members of the Party testifying against him. Given that the pro-Sheridan and anti-Sheridan camps gave vidence that contradicted each other's testimonies, it was clear as soon as the verdict was reached that one side had committed perjury, and an investigation was launched. This is the latest chapter in that story.

On the political side of things, following the trial, Sheridan subsequently announced his intention to challenge Colin Fox - his successor as Convener - for Leadership of the SSP, but then decided to lead a breakaway party instead. So Solidarity was born, taking Rosemary Byrne (then MSP for the South of Scotland), the SWP and CWI with Tommy. The election campaign was an acrimonious one, with Sheridan branding the SSP 'scabs' who co-operated with Rupert Murdoch, and SSP players such as Carolyn Leckie referring to Sheridan as a liability. The election, inevitably, proved to be a disaster for both: Sheridan narrowly missed out on re-election; Byrne came nowhere near, and the SSP were wiped out completely. It looked as though Sheridan had won.

But was it over? Solidarity won one Council seat in Glasgow - Ruth Black - and the SSP still had Jim Bollan on West Dunbartonshire Council. Forecasts of the SSP's demise have not yet come to fruition, and a recent YouGov poll had the SSP on 3% of the Regional Vote - which by my reckoning, would give them one MSP in Glasgow - to Solidarity's 1% - which would give them nothing. And Sheridan's allies, the SWP, have been drawn into a row in England as Respect, George Galloway's leftist party, which was allied with Solidarity, are splitting following a row between Galloway and the SWP Leadership. Now the police have come for Sheridan.

The SSP must no doubt feel vindicated tonight. But can they ever turn that smug sense fo self-satisfaction at events (which they're entitled to) into actual success? Will we ever see SSP MSPs again? Can SSP Parliamentary candidates hold on to their deposits?

And what of Solidarity? If Sheridan goes down, can the party survive?

It seems the story of the Left in Scotland, which I thought had ended - or at least ceased to be significant - will in fact be carrying on into 2008.

PS Anyone looking for an excellent, detailed tracking of the saga as it unfolded should check out Scott's archive over at Love and Garbage.

The crowded Socialist marketplace

The Herald informs us that the pact between Respect and Solidarity, that Scotland was Solidarity's turf and Respect would not cross the border, has expired. This might not necessarily lead to Respect candidates being fielded in Scotland immediately, but the fact is that this represents the fourth Socialist party to organise in Scotland.

Have these people learned nothing? The Solidarity-SSP split deprived the Left of a seat in Glasgow and a unified, single party would probably have attracted more support than the two split parties did, as it would have made a more attractive proposition. Galloway's Respect would have to compete with three parties, who between them took less than 3% of the Regional Vote in May. Solidarity is the strongest of these, woth 1.5% of the vote, Tommy Sheridan and a Councillor in Glasgow. But Solidarity is supported by the SWP, who have backed Respect in England. If they switch, Sheridan is in trouble. Then there's the rump of the SSP, who at least have the saving grace of a Councillor in West Dunbartonshire, and the Arthur Scargill personality cult, the Socialist Labour Party, which will die when he does. Now we can add George Galloway to the mix.

Four parties, fighting for three percent of the vote. I know they don't like market economics all that much, but really, common sense has to kick in sooner or later.

The Left in Scotland

Thw writing was on the wall for the demise of the Left in Scotland: even without the split, opinion polls had the combined SSP & Solidarity showing at around 5% - the sort of level which wold cause a near-wipeout, save for the unified SSP's stronghold in Glasgow. So it proved. The only place where either party had even a sniff at a seat was Glasgow, where Solidarity missed out by a whisker. To make matters worse, the combined vote of the SSP and Solidarity would have been enough for one of them to win a seat at the expense of Patrick Harvie. This goes to prove how damaging the split was: both sides have almost destroyed themselves in fighting with each other, and the electorate's view has been very clear: "A plague on both your houses!". But the Left will re-emerge, in some form.

Solidarity are the likeliest to survive and re-build, as long as Tommy Sheridan is still involved, but will that mean anything by 2011? My guess is that it will: the Party has a Councillor in Glasgow (Ruth Black), so still has a platform to advance Tommy, who took 19.3% of the vote in Pollok in the 1992 Westminster Election, 7.6% across the city in the 1994 European Election, 11.1% in the re-drawn Pollok in 1997, 21.5% in Pollok in 1999 (with the SSP taking 7% across the city on the Regional Vote), and 27.9% in Pollok in 2003 (with the SSP taking 16% across the city on the Regional Vote). So the 4.1% support for Solidarity in Glasgow is the worst level of support that a Tommy Sheridan candidacy has received, well, ever. Even combined with the SSP, he'd only have scored 5.3%. Basically, Glasgow doesn't necessarily like Tommy, but people at least know who he is. So the personality, combined with the chance to develop the Party's organisation over the next four years, and the presence in the City all mean that we haven't seen the last of him.

Socialist Labour are now the second leftist force in Scottish politics. They don't have (and have never had) the electoral success of the unified SSP, or the presence in any Council chamber. They haven't ever had representation in Holyrood either. Their main asset comes from their UK head: Arthur Scargill. As long as he's still going, they're still going. Not necessarily successful, but still going. They might never be successful, but they'll be hard to shift. Until Scargill snuffs it, when they're screwed.

The SSP, on the other hand, are toast. They are now the third force in Socialism, rather than the largest, with major debts, few backers, and no MSPs contributing from their salary. The have one Councillor in West Dunbartonshire (Jim Bollan), but that's it. The only place where the even managed to get 1% of the vote was Glasgow, the Party's original birthplace, and even there they were outpolled by Socialist Labour. And both Christian parties. And the Senior Citizens' Unity Party. And the BNP. They're in real trouble.

Brother, can you spare £27,000?

As well as reporting on the possible defection of a Labour MP, the Sunday Herald also has an article on a £27,000 loan to the SSP by the Party's former deputy Treasurer, Gordon Morgan. Morgan wants the money back in full, and is taking the Party to court to get it.

Morgan apparently started the action when he discovered that the SSP had sold their HQ again to keep themselves afloat. Oh, and did I mention that he has defected to Solidarity?

This is the latest (and perhaps most destructive) skirmish between the parties: Solidarity leaders Tommy Sheridan and Rosemary Byrne withdrew from an agreement to pool the cost of hiring researchers; a Solidarity activist has called on the SSP to disband; the SSP have called on the Standards Commissioner to investigate whether or not Sheridan should have declared a stay in a hotel paid for by a tabloid newspaper. This one, however, is the big one, and could damage the SSP heavily, leaving them with little or no resources to fight the campaign. The SSP simply say that they are 'prepared', claiming that, 'Solidarity think they can ruin us but it won't happen'.

I would say that Solidarity are about to win the battle for the Scottish Left, but I suspect that with the vitriol that's going into this row, there will be no winners, only a lot of disenchanted voters who threw their lot in with the SSP in 2003, but either won't bother voting or will support someone else entirely this time around. And they will be the biggest losers in this affair.

A few continuing stories (Updated)

A quick glance through the weekend's papers (and a look at the TV programmes) tells me that this is a week to look at stories that I've already covered, and how they're progressing.

Firstly, on stock transfer: Malcolm Chisholm has been interviewed today, informing viewers that he has personally visited all of the Council areas where the Council Tenants have been balloted on having their housing transferred over to an association. Obviously, Edinburgh (his home patch) was the first of these. The tenants voted No. He's visited Stirling. They voted No. He visited Renfrewshire. They voted No, which could possibly gift two marginal constituencies to the SNP next May. He's also campaigning in Inverclyde and Highland, no doubt to the abject terror of local Labour parties in those areas. Having admitted that he is now the Zelig of stock transfer debacles, he's effectively cursed any future plans while he's Communities Minister and now seems to have "Sack Me" written on his face.

On party funding there are two interesting stories worth considering: the first is the RMT's decision to end its affiliation to the SSP, as discussed here. They haven't as yet announced their support for Solidarity, but I suspect that this will be a matter of 'when' rather than 'if'. Meanwhile, the £2.4 million donated to the LibDems by convicted perjurer Michael Brown is causing consternation: reports abound that the party will have to return the cash, and the Scottish LibDems have opted against disclosing how much of that money went their way, but seeing as their 2005 Election expenses were more than double their 2001 figures, I'd guess that it was quite a bit. But if there is a forced repayment, it'll leave the LibDems' 2007 campaign in tatters.

Finally, The Greens will be discussing Coalition options (a subject I like to come back to occasionally) at their Conference next week, with Patrick Harvie taking the initiative by circulating a paper on what part the party could play in propping up any potential Executive next year. Although he's tight-lipped on what policies will have to be part of any deal (though he has re-stated the party's opposition to nuclear power), he did mention his preferred option for how the deal would work. He's seeking the activists' backing for the 'Confidence and Supply' model, where the Greens would take no ministerial seats and would not be expected to support the Executive on most matters, but they would support another party's candidate for First Minister, back the Executive in confidence motions and vote for the Executive's Budget in exchange for concessions on policy over the four-year term.

Harvie says this will allow a more exciting form of politics, where an Executive will have to win an argument before it wins the vote. I think it'll lead to more U.S. Congress-style 'pork barrel' politics, with Executive whips having to negotiate with other parties, and individual members of all political hues (including their own), in order to get votes passed, where the only question Ministers will have to answer from MSPs will be, "What's in it for us?" Or perhaps I'm getting cynical.

UPDATE: According to Kenny Sheerin's blog, the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement has also disaffiliated from the SSP, apparently citing concerns that the party isn't giving enough weight to the Independence argument. However, a number of SRSM members will stay in the party as individuals, so I don't think they're switching to Solidarity.

Money Talks

The financial state of the parties is worth discussing today, particularly in light of the news that Sir Tom Farmer has pledged £100,000 to the SNP. This is undoubtedly good news for the Party in one sense, as it has always been short of wealthy backers, with the obvious exception of Sir Sean Connery, who is still wealthy and is still a backer of the Party, but not in the financial sense. However, you could argue one of the SNP's big selling points has been its lack of wealthy backers as they have hitherto gone to great pains to point this out, and in any case, the Party was trying to raise £1million, and before Sir Tom's intervention, they were only a quarter of the way there with less than six months to go before the formal dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and the start of the official campaign (the unofficial campaign having started last September at the latest). This means that the Party has to up its profile and its fundraising game, or find at least six more wealthy backers now.

However, they should count their blessings that they aren't the Labour Party's financiers, who have had to pull the plug the formal conference in Glasgow next Spring, replacing it with a more 'informal' (i.e. cheap) arrangement, but also deprives Labour of its showpiece rally before the Election. This lack of money in the pot couldn't have come at a worse time for Scottish Labour, who will need to fight a hard (and expensive) campaign. I also suspect that the people at Labour HQ in London hasn't quite realised that Scottish Labour is in a perilous position... Scotland is probably number three on their list of priorities: first place will go to the English local government elections in an attempt to prevent yet more votes ebbing away from Labour in the key marginals in England; number two will be the Welsh Assembly, where Labour lost its majority last year, failed to win it back at the Blaenau Gwent By-Election, and faces a set of opposition parties who are more predisposed to banding together to give Labour a good kicking than in Scotland.

Then there's the SSP, whose troubles of all sorts have been well-documented, particularly where cash is concerned. At Conference yesterday, the RMT representatives hinted at the possibility that the union end its affiliation to the Party over the handling of the Tommy Sheridan saga. Given Sheridan's attempt to appeal to trade unionists (that is when he's not fighting the evil alliance that he claims exists Rupert Murdoch, MI5 and Colin Fox), there's probably a good bet to be had on the RMT switching to Solidarity before the year is out.

Is "Solidarity" in breach of the Trades Descriptions Act?

We now know that Tommy Sheridan is pretty much certain to quit the SSP and set up a new group called "Solidarity". We also know that quite a few activists and SSP Branches are going with him, including the SWP and the CWI (as expected). The most important defection though is Rosemary Byrne's. This gives Solidarity two MSPs, and leaves the SSP with four. You need five MSPs to be given a seat on the Parliamentary Bureau and a slot at FMQs. Neither of them have this, so Tommy has just made both groups significantly weaker. Nor is either group likely to join the group of Independents as long as Brian Monteith is in it. Now, you can't really blame them for this, but it seems a strange position to take when Campbell Martin (who launched recently a broadside at the SNP for being too right-wing) is comfortable enough within the group.

If you want a wager, here's my tip: within Holyrood, it'll be Solidarity who are isolated (though they'll take most of the SSP activists and voters with them over the next few weeks and months), and the SSP will be making doe-eyes at Campbell Martin just to keep them at 5 MSPs. If he has any sense, he'll ignore them: they need him more than he needs them, and while he has nothing to lose or gain right now whatever he does, he'd probably do better next May as an Independent than as an SSP candidate.

In other news, Tory activists in Mid Scotland and Fife have suggested to Party members that the wisest course of action would be to de-select all of the Party's MSPs. This hasn't a chance of succeeding (though a couple might find themselves in the wilderness, as Keith Harding and Lyndsey McIntosh did last time around), but it is slightly embarrassing for Annabel Goldie to have this row played out in public. If they go back to internecine warfare (and it's been ages since they've had enough people to do that), then they can wave goodbye to any prospects of progress next year.

Has Tommy pressed the self-destruct button?

The Herald suggests that he has, with rumours abounding that Tommy Sheridan is to abandon his leadership bid and set up a new party. He's citing the fact that even if he were to win, the United Left faction would constantly try and undermine him. United Left are saying that he knows he can't win. A couple of weeks ago, I would have accepted Tommy Sheridan's reasoning, but events have led me to question that: after all, in the last week or so, we've gone from Tommy standing as long as an overwhelming number of branches support him, to Tommy maybe quitting from politics, to Tommy possibly setting up a splinter party.

So what can we draw from that? Well, the most obvious conclusion is that the levels of support that Tommy Sheridan thought were there for him simply aren't. Secondly, we can actually take the basic premise of his interpretation at face value (even if it isn't the real reason for his move): the SSP has now descended into two rival factions that can't stand each other. Victory for one means the other will seek open civil war, and a stalemate (Sheridan as National Convener, but a United Left Executive), would see the Party grind to a halt. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Sheridan is gambling that regardless of his position within the SSP, he is more popular than his soon-to-be-ex-comrades among the general public, and thinks that in an open contest, he can defeat them. He's probably right, but as I've said time and again, that will leave only a combined total of one for the SSP and the Sheridan Popular Front. And there are no prizes for guessing who that one will be.

A clutch of Sheridans

(Or perhaps the collective noun is a Soviet?)

Anyway, we start with the non-SSP Sheridan, by the name of Jim, who is the Labour MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, and until yesterday was the Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Ministry of Defence. He has, however, quit, citing opposition to Blair's policy on the crisis in the Middle East. In contrast to his recently defamed namesake, Jim Sheridan is (or was) a Blair loyalist, always available for a rent-a-quote about how the Tories/LibDems/SNP/Keep Clackmannanshire Smiling Party (if it existed, he would criticise them) are terrible and will take us back to the dark days. He's now one of the many angry ex-senior Party members on the Backbenches, and he's got an axe to grind. However, in terms of resignations, this doesn't rank up there with Robin Cook's, but Sheridan's previous loyalty to the PM will mean that this is a blow: it's clear proof that Blair is losing the few friends he has left. It's doubtful that this will be the last resignation either.

Now we move on to Tommy, who has backers in Orkney, but might not have them in Glasgow: Rosie Kane is threatening that the Glasgow SSP could move Sheridan down to third or lower on their regional list (first place goes to a man in the Glasgow SSP, second place to a woman). Frankly, I suspect that this is just hot air from Rosie Kane, who must surely realise that the bulk of grass-roots members have so far taken Sheridan's side, and she's simply trying to make life difficult for him while she still can. However, if it turns out that she's right, then it'll totally derail Sheridan's convenership bid (which is her real priority), and probably force him to follow in the footsteps of Dennis Canavan and Margo MacDonald.

Finally, there's Gail, who insiders are tipping to make a bid for election herself (though she's probably more likely to appear on Richard and Judy than on any ballot paper). However, she could well find herself second on the List at this rate, defeating Rosie Kane. Perhaps the Sheridans are on the verge of becoming a Socialist version of the Ewings?

Fox on the run?

The SSP's Orkney Branch has been the first to nominate (or at least, announce that they've nominated) Tommy Sheridan for the post of National Convener at the Autumn Conference.

Meanwhile, Colin Fox's line is still that the Party should judge him on his record (which isn't all that good, frankly, as I've said before). I saw his interview on Newsnight Scotland last night, and I think the strain (well, it might just be Tommy Sheridan's press offensive, but Fox seemed on the defensive) might be getting to him, judging by his comments about having "stood up to Tommy".

It would be interesting to see how many psychiatrists were watching that interview. And perhaps more interesting to see if any of them have offered Fox their services this morning.

Let Battle Commence!

The meeting of the SSP Executive Committee has been and gone, and they've taken the decision to back the SSP members who testified against Tommy Sheridan. This isn't all that surprising, as most of the witnesses were on the EC (and, indeed, most of the EC members were witnesses).

The committee claim that the prosecution witnesses were "dragged before the court", "defended the honesty and integrity of the Party" and that they should be "commended and supported rather than vilified".

Colin Fox, for his part claims that he wants a challenge so that he, and the other candidates (i.e. Sheridan), can be judged on their records. Well, let's look at that record: Tommy Sheridan, who was the SSP's first MSP, who led the Party in the 2003 Election which saw 6 MSPs returned, and who took on and defeated News Group Newspapers, versus Colin Fox, who shed half of the SSP's vote in the last Westminster election, who has presided over vicious in-fighting, and who has chosen to back those SSP members who are still attacking Sheridan, despite the fact that a court of law has cleared his name!

Fox has made a mistake by citing records: even on that score, he looks like he's going to get steam-rollered by Sheridan. Indeed, the whole Executive Committee has slipped up: it's almost as if they want to be voted out at Party Conference.

I fancy a bet that the "United Left" (the name of Carolyn Leckie's faction within the SSP) Party will be fielding candidates next May, separately of the SSP.

Sheridan victory

As I'm sure most of you will be aware by now, Tommy Sheridan has won his defammation action against the News of the World (though they are going to appeal the decision), but as you might not know, STV have reported that he will be challenging Colin Fox for the Convenership this Autumn.

Of course, he'll win. And his supporters will win elections for all the key positions in the SSP, so don't be surprised if the Party has a new Treasurer, Secretary and Policy Co-ordinator by the end of the year. The problem is, where next for his MSPs?

Carolyn Leckie, his opponents' main cheerleader and founder of the United Left group within the SSP, has said that she's prepared to go to court and defend herself against perjury charges. Given that the jury chose not to believe her, she's in trouble, and that's before you consider her re-election prospects.

Rosie Kane was part of the attack on Sheridan. Unfortunately for her, the Glasgow SSP delayed their List selection until the end of these court proceedings, so she may have a rough ride internally, let alone at the Ballot Box. Her one saving grace that might keep her #2 position is the fact that she does still appear to have allies following this fiasco: the sheer number of key Party figures who testified against Sheridan might save her.

Colin Fox is doomed: he effectively sided against Sheridan during this affair, and has had a poor run as National Convener. He now looks set to lose that post, and deprived of the 'prominence' that should bring him (though let's face it, he was never that prominent), he's pretty likely to lose his MSP status in May.

Rosemary Byrne backed Sheridan, but she may still get caught in the crossfire: she won the last available List seat in 2003, and only a small drop in votes will see her lose that. That leaves Frances Curran, who was the quietest of the three SSP MSPs in United Left. I haven't got much to say about her, other than the fact that, like the others, she's in trouble.

And beyond Holyrood, there's the wider Party to think about. A major fault-line has been exposed in a Party that was always based on a series of disparate groups, few of whom actually got on with each other in the first place. It was only the personality of Tommy Sheridan that kept them together, but he's now in the unhappy position of having very public enemies. So while the trial may have ended, the internecine warfare has, I suspect, only just begun, and it will leave a nasty taste in the mouth of the left-wing electorate, who might decide instead to vote Green, SNP (in places), or even for Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party as an alternative (if it's still going). Nor is there really anything to stop George Galloway's Respect Party sweeping in to fill the vacuum, should the SSP collapse.

Which means that by next May, we could well be back to seeing Tommy Sheridan ploughing a lone furrow.

Off-Beam

The SSP have decided at their conference (what do you mean, you missed it?!) that they're going to concentrate on the Regional vote in 2007, except where circumstances are favourable to a Consituency candidate. I'll be keeping my eye on some of the arguments used to justify an SSP Constituency candidate, of which there will no doubt be many, most of which will be hilarious. However, the rationale of the scheme (if it works) is that it might boost the SSP's Regional Vote performance, and give them more MSPs.

Of course, following Thursday's fiasco, it's not entirely clear that anyone will be able to get into the Parliament, seeing as the Tories spent Thursday morning with the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, and not for the first time.

The Best of the Rest

Tory Deputy Leader Murdo Fraser has failed in his bid to be selected for Perth, where his Party came close to beating Roseanna Cunningham of the SNP in 2003. However, Brian Monteith's suspension and resignation from the Party has created a vacancy in Stirling, where the Tory maverick had initially been selected as the candidate. As regular readers will be aware, Ian Davidson will not be the candidate in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (and is, I assume, frantically searching another constituency), while positioning has begun in Edinburgh Pentlands, where former Leader David McLetchie is likely to stand down.

LibDem MSP Donald Gorrie is standing down, and his likely replacement at the head of the List in Central Scotland is his assistant, Hugh O'Donnell. Jim Wallace's former special adviser Liam McArthur will be fighting his ex-boss's seat, while the Party is sharpening its knives in Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber. Lobbyist Craig Harrow is the likely candidate, and the LibDems reckon they have a good chance of unseating Fergus Ewing of the SNP following their recent victory in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey in the Westminster Election. Further, East Dunbartonshire Council Leader John Morrison has ruled himself out of the running for Strathkelvin and Bearsden. The LibDems' victory in East Dunbartonshire last May makes this seat another mouth-watering prospect for the Party, although the Jean Turner factor could well upset the balance of power here once again.

And finally, the SSP have delayed their selection process for the Glasgow List pending Tommy Sheridan's libel action. However, there are reports of in-fighting, which may jeopardise his #1 ranking, which he enjoyed in 1999 and 2003. This could end up going to the Party's other MSP in the city Rosie Kane, who was #2 on the List in 2003.

SSP finances

The SSP doesn't quite know how to handle money. First, Tommy Sheridan and Rosemary Byrne have to take out personal loans to keep the party afloat, then they submit their accounts late (how long does it take to tell the Electoral Commission 'We have no money'?), and now this:

There is a £16,966 hole in their accounts. The 2004 accounts have been signed off five months late by their accountants (Trots with accountants! What is the world coming to?), who could not conduct a full audit as the party didn't have all the paperwork necessary. The money was, it seems, paid to a former party official who went into hiding after a rift with his ex-colleagues. Problem is, there's no paperwork. No invoices, no receipts.

The upshot of this is that the Electoral Commission are going to be monitoring the SSP's finances for a year to keep an eye on them.