The Strange Case of Steven Purcell

I'll start by going through what we all know:

We know that Steven Purcell has resigned as Leader of Glasgow City Council. We know that despite early indications to the contrary, he has now taken the step of resigning as a Councillor altogether.

We know that Purcell has left the country, though we do not know where. The tabloids can't decide if he's on the other side of the North Channel (in Donegal), the other side of the Atlantic (Florida) or the other side of the world (Australia).

We know that Purcell attended a rehabilitation clinic. We know that he briefly went missing from there last weekend. We know that he was being treated for 'chemical addiction' and we now know that he has taken cocaine. Further, we know all this despite the initial statement citing 'stress and exhaustion' as the reasons for his departure.

We know that Council Deputy Leader Jim Coleman is in charge temporarily. We now know that Coleman refused to put his name to the statement drafted by Purcell's lawyers and PR firm as the Council (or at least, the Labour group) had drafted a different statement referring to the addiction.

We know that the police, specifically the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, turned up at the City Chambers to discuss the risk of blackmail to him, and that following that discussion, Purcell upped sticks to the West End.

We also know that Labour were made aware of the situation in the run-up to the Glasgow East By-Election, but chose to do nothing, save prevent him from being the candidate.

And that's where we are. When it was stress, everyone was wishing him well, singing his praises and hoping for a speedy recovery. Now, it's like they're all talking about someone different. Was this not the same guy who helped to bring the 2014 Commonwealth Games to Glasgow? Apparently not, that was a team effort. Was this not the same guy who was tipped to be a future Labour Leader and First Minister? Apparently not, because we say this about every Leader of Glasgow City Council. Granted, the precedents are Frank McAveety (who got into trouble for choosing eating a pie over Parliamentary duties) and Charlie Gordon (whose approach to fundraising ended up causing the downfall of Wendy Alexander), so if we were shooting for the moon beforehand, we didn't even manage to hit a star on those occasions.

But Purcell was different: he did secure the Games and he did have something about him. While a number of the decisions taken on his watch were unpopular (the school closures spring most readily to mind), he was capable and was highly adept at banging the drum for Glasgow in the way that we expect Alex Salmond to bang the drum for Scotland.

Plus which, I have to confess to a respect for Purcell which I'd imagine not many of you will be surprised by: while there are a good number of 'out' politicians these days, there are very few who would make decent role models - who wants to emulate Peter Mandelson, for heaven's sake? Purcell, on the other hand, managed to navigate the rapids of Glasgow Labour, get to the top there, and seemed more than ready to go to the next level. Even though he attained the Leadership before he came out, he sought and won re-election as himself, and the actual announcement seemed to come and go without any big thing. So of course seeing someone like Purcell getting there and staying there is a boost, a cause for optimism and a reason to be ambitious. After all, if he can get there, why not anyone else? Speaking from my own perspective, there are a couple of practical barriers (being 100 miles away from the border is the primary obstacle) to my wanting to put myself forward for something in the short to medium term, but thanks to people like Purcell, sexual orientation isn't one of them.

So what happened?

Well, at the risk of understatement, it looks like Purcell made some bad choices. Most of us do, but then, most of us don't lead Scotland's largest local authority. So when they caught up with him, as happens to everyone, then they were absolutely going to hit him harder and heavier than usual. And let's face it, a sequence of events which, if some reports are accurate, leads to you leaving the Northern Hemisphere altogether is pretty earth-shattering.

And of course, it seems that Labour were sitting on a timebomb for eighteen months. There was never going to be a good time for this one to go off, but having had that long to draw something up, they've contrived to destroy Purcell when they were seeking to protect him. We've gone from "Leave the man alone!" to "What the hell has happened here?" in one move and it's exasperating, but it's not hard to see why. In fact, the two aren't mutually exclusive: there is nothing that can be achieved by hounding Purcell except prolonging the agony that he's surely in. Rather, the questions are to be asked of his colleagues and basically boil down to, "Who knew what? When did they find it out? What did they do about it?" The answer to the last one is, apparently, naff all. Bravo.

And it was the silence that did it in the end: when the story did finally break, the instinct to circle the wagons took over, but it was done to such extremes that rather than leading everyone to believe that Purcell just needed time, it led everyone to reckon that there was more going on than we were being told. And so it proved. It's like trying to move up (or, indeed, down) a flight of stairs quietly: the steps seem to be creakier and you end up making more noise tiptoeing than if you'd just blundered up normally.

The result? A few days ago, everyone was talking about there being nothing more than a temporary vacancy in the City Chambers, now Purcell is out of politics altogether and probably for good. The Lazarus act required for anything else to happen would have to go beyond even Mandelsonian proportions.

And of course, Glasgow Labour is starting to turn in on itself, with people jockeying for position and various figures looking to hang Purcell out to dry. This suggests that the outlook for the Labour Group could have been ugly whether the former Leader's trajectory was the upward vector we were expecting or the downward vector we got: there doesn't seem to be an obvious successor and given Jim Coleman's caretaker status, Scotland's largest local authority is left basically rudderless for three months, plenty of time for a lot of in-fighting and back-stabbing. Moreover, this happens in the run-up to what has, of late, been a rare beast: a Westminster General Election where Glasgow has the potential to surprise. Can John Mason succeed where Robert McIntyre, Winnie Ewing, Margo MacDonald and Jim Sillars all failed and consolidate a By-Election win against Labour? Can Osama Saeed beat the Labour machine and the hostile press coverage to win Glasgow Central? Can either the SNP or the LibDems get that breakthrough against Labour in Glasgow North? You have to go all the way back to 1992 to find even one reason to be at the count in Glasgow, but this time, we have at least three, and now we're going there against the backdrop of a Council likely to eat itself.

And of course, a potential Scottish Labour leader is now out of the picture, which has broader ramifications at Holyrood: either they have to hope that Jim Murphy loses East Renfrewshire but manages to sweep into the Scottish Parliament next year like an avenging angel, or they have to find the personality that Iain Gray left down the back of a couch somewhere. The former isn't ideal as a) he actually has to lose his seat, which isn't set in stone; b) he would then come in as a loser rather than as a winner, and c) the last person to switch like this was Alex Salmond, and he got the Party Leadership first having announced he was seeking not just to be SNP Leader but also First Minister, then getting step 1 achieved, had more than two years to find and win a seat at Holyrood. Jim Murphy, on the other hand, would have to get elected to Holyrood before even being eligible to stand in a contest to be Labour Leader, which means finding and winning a seat (not easy when the equivalent seat to his own is, notionally, already in the hands of the party he would have lost to by then and the other seats are likely to have sitting Labour tenants), then there has to be a vacancy for the group leadership, which requires Labour to lose the 2011 Election, and only then can he stand, and before he can utter the words 'First' and 'Minister', would have to endure a lengthy period as Leader of the Opposition. So unless Labour manage to pull something out of the bag this Spring, then in three months time, Iain Gray will basically be the uncontested Leader of Scottish Labour. And I really don't think that's good for them.

One last thing: am I just being insecure/paranoid about some of the press reporting? My hackles were raised when the Scotsman used the word 'lifestyle' in one of its pieces - the L word is one of those god-awful euphemisms and seems like a decent corroboration of the "nudge nudge wink wink you do know he's a poof" approach described in an excellent post by Clairwil. Maybe I'm just seeing a demon that isn't there, but if I'm not, then it seems the press have learned nothing from the outcry following Jan Moir's attempts to dance on Stephen Gately's grave.

I hope Purcell is in Australia because I know that if I were in his shoes it would be excruciating to watch what's now unfolding. The spotlight has been shone on his personal demons, and in the melee that's developing, we're in danger of giving into our own.

A scalp's a scalp, I suppose

Yousuf was rather looking forward to today's papers last night, expecting as he was that they would contain news of an SNP elected representative jumping ship to Labour. Jeff, meanwhile, reckoned that the defector would be in local government rather than at Parliamentary level. And so it proved, with South Lanarkshire Councillor John McNamee switching sides. Here's today's Herald:

Mr McNamee, who represents the Blantyre area, cited the decision to axe the proposed Glasgow Airport Rail Link as a crucial factor in his jumping ship, as well as the impact of the global financial collapse on small nations such as Ireland and Iceland, and the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.

Sounds fair enough. After all, if you don't agree with anything your party has done, then you should leave the party rather than make a continued tired effort to defend what you consider to be the indefensible on the doorstep. Which is why I left Labour, the party of the Iraq War, the preservation of the NHS internal market in the shape of foundation hospitals (Nye Bevan must have been spinning in his grave at that one), the continued defence of Thatcherite housing policies and the advocate of commercialised higher education in the shape of top-up fees, to join the SNP back in 2004. So while I went in the other direction, I can understand why, in those circumstances, he might wish to move. But there's more:

He has also criticised what he describes as the lack of leadership and talent within the SNP at town hall level, describing the two years he has been an elected member as being riddled with in-fighting and that he has been “operating in a political vacuum”.

Hmm. The throwing of the egg. Happens, I suppose. Though the last person to deride former colleagues for lack of talent was David Mundell, the Shadow (or should that be Overshadowed?) Secretary of State for Scotland, in a dossier about the Tory MSP group for David Cameron. That's the same David Mundell who's likely to be passed over for the actual Secretary of State job in favour of one of his apparently talentless colleagues at Holyrood. So it's not a wise move to make, and in any case, what happened to being the change you wished to see? But wait! I'm missing something! This is how the Herald introduces us to Councillor McNamee:

South Lanarkshire councillor John McNamee has quit the party, which had initiated disciplinary procedures against him over concerns over his expense claims and were investigating him over alleged “inappropriate behaviour” at a social function.

Oh dear! Surely Labour are a little bit nervy about taking him on then? Here's the man himself:

“I have spoken to the Labour Party nationally and at local level about what is essentially an internal SNP group matter with no other ramifications and they are easy with that.”

Really? Here's the Herald again:

But the SNP said that Mr McNamee was the subject of “disciplinary procedures” by the South Lanarkshire SNP Group after “concerns were expressed over his expense claims and use of council travel allowances”.

The group was also investigating allegations of “inappropriate behaviour” which Mr McNamee says involved alcohol at a Strathclyde Fire Board event before Christmas, which he attended in an official capacity.

So apart from the fact that he's been accused of fiddling his Council expenses - or taxpayers' money as they are more commonly known - and getting pissed on behalf of South Lanarkshire Council at the Strathclyde Fire Board, basically his problems are, in the world of Labour, for the SNP to sort out. Even though they're problems occurring as a result of his holding public office. Yet still Labour are willing to take this guy on - what would it take for them to get nervy? A Standards Commission investigation? Suspension from public office?

Frankly, I'm staggered that in the wake of the many scandals affecting politicians at the moment, and the Labour 'Star Chamber' that saw MPs deselected for fiddling their expenses, the party is not only willing to welcome him in with no questions asked, but to celebrate the fact. As Stephen says, this isn't news to be joyful about.

But still, when the party is on a downward track (and I'll blog about that later on), a scalp, any scalp, is to be cheered. I hope Cllr McNamee finds himself at home in the Labour Party, and I hope they find themselves comfortable with him.

A Green Gain

As of yesterday, Councillor Debra Storr (one of the Aberdeenshire Four) followed in Martin Ford's footsteps and joined the Greens, though she'll remain in the Democratic Independent Group on the Council. Even so, that gives Aberdeenshire two Green Councillors out of ten nationwide, making Aberdeenshire something of a Green growth area, even if the new officials are coming from defections.

The thing that the LibDems need to be worried about is this: while it is obviously the Trump affair - and the LibDem group's handling of internal dissent surrounding the future of the Menie Estate (which is why they have only themselves to blame for this) - that triggered the move, this may well alert present LibDem supporters to the possibility that the party is less in tune with their values than they thought, and that the Greens are a more logical destination. Certainly as the LibDems professionalise and try to look more like a mainstream party of potential power than a pressure group for - and I apologise for the old stereotype here - beardy sandal-wearers, those who would be more inclined to tell Donald Trump where to stick his golf course, regardless of their facial hair situation or choice of footwear, will have difficulty recognising the LibDems at this time and may feel less than comfortable in the party.

And this is what they want to watch out for: although we can't work out how people might have voted under other circumstances, looking at the swing to the SNP in Dundee East in 2003, where there was neither a strong independent nor an SSP candidate, then looking at the swings against the SNP in the Regional Vote that year, it's not too great a leap to suggest that the SSP under Tommy Sheridan cost John Swinney's SNP about a quarter of the support it could otherwise have got.

If the Greens manage to take a quarter of potential LibDem support in Scotland, the party has a problem next year. For quickness, i've resorted to using Electoral Calculus, but using their present predictions for the Scottish consituencies, and subtracting a quarter of the projected LibDem vote, we see that potential LibDem gain Aberdeen South would stay Labour, while four other seats that the LibDems would hold on the present projection would be lost: West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine and Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk to the Tories, and Gordon and Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey to the SNP. So the defection of two Aberdeenshire Councillors has the potential - and I emphasise that potential is all it is - cost the LibDems their two Aberdeenshire MPs.

Then there's 2011. James is excited at the prospect of the North East once again sending a Green to Holyrood. That might not be the only one. If nothing else were to change, other than a loss of a quarter of the LibDem Regional Vote to the Greens (a Scotland-wide swing of approximately 2.8%), the results for the LibDems would be a major problem.

Firstly, that Green North East MSP would be a reality, at the expense of Alison McInnes, the LibDem North East MSP. But the Greens would end up with one MSP in each region, with differing results:

In East Central Scotland, it would be a straight swap: Hugh O'Donnell out, a Green in.

In Glasgow, the LibDem fall in support would cost Robert Brown his seat, which would be gained by the SNP.

The Greens would cost Labour a seat in the Highlands and Islands, as they did in 2003.

Lothian would, unless the Greens started to field constituency candidates in Edinburgh, be the only region to see no change on the notional figures.

the Greens would cost the Tories an MSP in Mid Scotland & Fife.

Labour would lose a notional Regional MSP in South Scotland.

And the Greens would replace Ross Finnie in West Central Scotland.

What this means is that the LibDems would have no MSPs at either Constituency or Regional level in three of the eight regions: East and West Central, and Glasgow. When you add to that to the gaps created where the LibDems have Constituency MSPs but no Regional ones (the Highlands, Lothian, Mid Scotland & Fife and the North East on this projection), that's a lot of constituencies without LibDem representation: in 54 out of 73 notional Constituencies, a LibDem vote will not result in any kind of LibDem MSP - that's exactly three times the number of Constituencies on the new boundaries that won't have access to a Liberal Democrat at Holyrood. By contrast, the Greens, on this supposition, would achieve Scotland-wide representation with one MSP in every Region, despite winning fewer votes and seats than the LibDems. That must surely be a galling notion for the Liberal Democrats.

What I'm trying to say is that a couple of Aberdeenshire Councillors falling out with the LibDems over Donald Trump might not seem like a big deal, but if the idea that current LibDem supporters have, as Martin Ford and Debra Storr feel, a more comfortable home in the Green Party, then the impact they have on the LibDems (and other parties) certainly is a big deal. And the onus is on the LibDems to find a way of keeping the supporters they currently have - before they too are lost.

UPDATE The above figures were worked out on a straight LD-Green swing of 2.8%. Ironically, one quarter of the present LibDem support in each individual region would be better for them, even though some of the swings would be far heavier. On a more localised analysis, Messrs, O'Donnell, Brown and Finnie would retain their seats, and the Greens would not gain an MSP in those regions, but they would cost Labour an MSP in both the Highlands and South Scotland, the Tories an MSP in Mid Scotland & Fife and would eject Alison McInnes. So the biggest casualties of a Green resurgence from LibDem votes could end up being Labour. But the threat to the LibDems is still very real, especially in the upcoming FPP election, even if the Greens aren't the winners from that!

The Granite City Putsch

It seems that the LibDems have ousted their Leader in Aberdeen, Councillor Kate Dean. The councillor has been calling the shots since 2003 if memory serves, presiding over the budget crisis that has brought the Council and Council services to its knees.

This had to happen sooner or later: reports about Aberdeen City Council - and the LibDems in particular - were hostile, yet she was intent on carrying on. Sooner or later, something had to give, and if she didn't jump, she would have to be pushed. It appears that this is what has happened.

Her replacement is John Stewart (this has the potential to be confusing: the LibDem Group and Council Leader, and SNP Group Leader and Council Depute Leader with the same surname). There's an LGBT significance too: the Councils of two of Scotland's three largest cities are now led by openly gay men.

But the political significance takes priority: Dean also led the LD/Tory Coalition that was in charge in Aberdeen between 2003 and 2007. In a sense, her downfall represents a break with the past, and an administration that ended two years ago. As the SNP were in opposition during that time, there was an inherent tension in the Coalition: to blame past administrations for the financial difficulties plaguing the City Council since the election was to blame the Leader of their current Coalition administration.

However, there's another factor: what significance is there in the Labour Group also having a new Leader in Barney Crockett? We do have to bear in mind that the LibDems and Labour combined do have a majority on the Council. Could the LibDems join forces with the party they ousted in 2003?

What we know at this stage is that it's not business as usual in Aberdeen. What we don't know is whether this strengthens the current administration, or whether we're about to witness a change in arrangements. Time will tell, but this one is worth following.

A split in Glasgow Labour?

As Jeff points out today, Steven Purcell's ego is rather getting on everyone's nerves: he's going out of his way to tread on Iain Gray's toes, and is avoiding any discussion of the Glasgow School Closures with Fiona Hyslop, the Education Secretary, deciding that campaigning in the Drumchapel & Anniesland By-Election is more important than the future of education in his city.

But most of all, it's his call for an wage increase for the lowest paid Council workers to a £7 living wage that raised the most eyebrows: here was a leftward tack, the first shot in his bid for the Leadership of Labour in Scotland and a potential tilt at the First Ministership in the future.

Well, I don't think he'll be too chuffed with his City Treasurer, Gordon Matheson. While Purcell is calling for wage increases, Matheson lobbed a hand grenade into proceedings on today's Politics Show by calling for a public sector wage freeze right at the tail end of the programme, arguing that wages make up the bulk of public sector expenditure and the alternative is to cut jobs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is local government not the public sector?

Does that not, therefore, blow Purcell's campaign out of the water?

Has he just been knifed on live television by one of his colleagues?

The answer to all three questions appears to be yes.

Showdown in the City of Discovery

Well, well, well. Following the Maryfield By-Election, which ended the Grand Unionist Coalition's majority on Dundee City Council, I predicted that Councillor Ian Borthwick would hold all the cards, whereas Grogipher - regular correspondent and friend of this blog - suggested that internal ructions in the other parties would prove telling. Give that man a coconut, is all I can say.

Lord Provost, John Letford, has quit the Labour party, and is now an independent Councillor. This now places the parties at SNP 14, Labour 8, Conservatives 3, LibDems 2 and Independents 2. Significantly, the Unionist parties now have fewer members between them than the SNP on its own. More significantly, Councillor Letford has let it be known that he will support the formation of an SNP administration on Monday.

It goes without saying that there is some scepticism regarding his decision: Stuart airs it and, sadly, I am inclined to agree: Councillor Letford claims to have wanted an all-party administration, and to have been unhappy at the SNP being shut out. Yet for six years, he was happy to be the Civic Leader of the Council whose largest political group was isolated. Given the timing of his decision to convert opinions into action, it's hard not to see Letford as a political weathervane.

Jeff, as it happens, goes further and argues Councillor Letford's move to political independence is anti-democratic. He's right: Letford was elected on a Labour platform, but the reality of our system is that with the exceptions of European elections and the List component of Holyrood elections, it's the person who gets elected rather than the party. Granted, the party is what gets them elected most of the time, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the individual candidate who gets the victory at the end. And even in the two exceptions I noted, those returned can do their own thing once they're Parliamentarians: Dorothy-Grace Elder, Margo MacDonald, Campbell Martin, Brian Monteith, Tommy Sheridan and Rosemary Byrne can all attest to that. So it's a pretty barmy system.

But we know that: while the Maryfield By-Election which triggered this whole situation was a clear SNP win, its consequence was to leave the electors of that ward with no representatives from any party other than the SNP. Given that even in the By-Election which saw the SNP vote increase, 52% of voters cast their first preference for a candidate from another party, they have the right to feel a little aggrieved when STV is meant to be a proportional system.

And even if Letford were to resign, democracy would have come late to Dundee City Council, with the most popular party excluded completely from administration by a convoluted arrangement in which even the official Labour/LD coalition had fewer Councillors than the SNP group before the By-Election and defection. In short, the situation was barking mad to begin with, and subsequent events have merely continued in that vein.

Indeed, they look set to get even stranger. Doubtless as a nod to Councillor Letford, the SNP have said that 'quasi-judicial' Convenerships such as the Licensing Board will not necessarily be in the hands of the administration-designate, which will be content to restrict its control to the policy committees. They propose letting Letford keep the LP's office, with Ian Borthwick as Depute. The latter would prefer an all-party administration but agreement appears to have been reached. And unless it's a formal Coalition with the two independents, the SNP still do not have 'control' of the Council even after the administration is formed: were the two independents to vote with the Opposition on any policy, that would make 15 Councillors to the SNP's 14: a defeat.

Labour, of course, are smarting somewhat from this: to a degree, they have resigned themselves to Opposition but intend to propose Councillor Borthwick as Lord Provost and SNP Councillor Liz Fordyce as Depute. She has told them where they can stick that idea, but they may still proceed with it. Further, the Labour Group Leader, Kevin Keenan, has suggested that the Tories join the formal Labour-LibDem Coalition. Which would still be in opposition so is a bit pointless really.

The Tories, however, are up for this idea but only if it's called a Dundee Unionist Alliance. Which is fine until you realise that the Unionist-Nationalist dimension of Scottish politics is basically meaningless at Council level. And a refusal to work with the SNP flies in the face of their professed sympathy for Councillor Borthwick's idea of an all-party administration. They also don't want to be seen supporting the SNP but have no problem about supporting Labour, who their party will be casting as the enemy at the next Westminster election.

As for the LibDems, they "will not be participating in discussions taking place in smoke-filled rooms". Well, leaving aside the fact that there aren't any smoke-filled rooms anymore - not public ones, anyway - this seems equally rich as they were quite happy to prat about in one of the most contrived political combinations in Scottish local government.

So no one seems to come out of this shining. But if the vox pops in the Evening Telegraph are anything to go by, Councillor Letford may be the villain of the piece, but locals seem content to let the administration that he will be supporting have a fair crack of the whip.

And that's where we are: in less than a week, Dundee will have a new Council Leader. Whether or not things settle down, however, is another matter entirely.

What next for Dundee?

The SNP has won the Maryfield By-Election on Dundee City Council, with an increased first preference vote share and a small swing from Labour. Dundee, of course, became an SNP City at Holyrood last year with Shona Robison holding Dundee East and Joe FitzPatrick gaining Dundee West. And the SNP are the largest group on Dundee City Council, but control was in the hands of a Labour/LibDem Coalition that relied on Tory backing.

Between them, the three parties had fifteen seats out of twenty nine. They now hae fourteen, and have therefore lost their majority.

The SNP had thirteen seats. They too now have fourteen, drawing the party level with the three Unionist parties combined.

(Incidentally, this should serve as a warning to Councillors just over the boundary in Angus, where the opposition to the SNP - which previously controlled the Council - pulled a similar stunt and formed the Angus Alliance: yesterday saw a 3% swing away from the combined first prefernce vote share of the three parties in Dundee so this would be a good time for Alliance Counciilors in Angus who got in on transfers to start checking the arithmetic again!)

The SNP have, therefore, suggested that it would be sensible for them to assume control of the Council. If one of the Unionist parties breaks away (and it's a big if), then it's a done deal. Otherwise, it now all hangs on Ian Borthwick, the sole Independent.

My guess is that it will indeed come down to Councillor Borthwick: simply consider the hostility to the SNP from the other parties that must surely be the cause for the current administrative arrangements.

Firstly, the Grand Unionist Coalition that it's rumoured was attempted by Gordon Brown and Ming Campbell couldn't be formed at Holyrood. In Dundee, they appeared to manage it without any prodding from UK Party Leaders.

Secondly, we're told so often about how Labour hate the Tories and how a vote for anyone else would let them in and that would be a disaster. In Dundee, Labour see Tory support for their administration as a good thing. One wonders if they'll mention that in their election literature.

Thirdly, the Tories take the view that the Labour Government at Westminster is bad enough without it being coupled with a Labour-led Government at Holyrood. In Dundee, this distaste for Labour does not extent to the Council Chambers.

Fourthly, the Tories spent eight years ripping the piss out of the Labour/LibDem Coalition at Holyrood. In Dundee, they've been propping it up.

Fifthly, the LibDems chose Opposition over joining any Coalition at Holyrood in 2007, and even spurned Labour, their long-standing partner. The most likely reason for this was Labour's second place: the absence of a Parliamentary majority even with the combination of the two parties was another possible reason. In Dundee, the two parties combined actually had fewer Councillors than the SNP alone after the May elections, and still pressed ahead.

Basically, unless Councillor Borthwick actually joins the Grand Unionist Coalition in Dundee, it looks like the city is heading for a minority administration. The question now is whether it will contain one party or three.

And the next two years of Dundonian politics rest in the hands of one man: Councillor Borthwick. We shall see what he decides.

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...

Inver-Mess

Readers in the North will have heard a strange noise today. I suspect it would have sounded something like this:

PPPPTTTTTHHHHHHHRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHFFFFFFFFFPP!!!!

It was, it transpires, the sound of the administration on Highland Council deflating, as the SNP Members walked out. I recall the Aviemore SNP Conference, when the Independent Councillors who turned up to welcome the Party to their balliwick painted a rosy picture, with the two sides working together and enjoying it.

Turns out it wasn't like that. The SNP were frustrated that the Independents were too independently-minded and would just ignore collective lines if they disagreed. Meanwhile, the Independents weren't overly keen on following SNP policy.

The final row came when Isobel McCallum suggested that the SNP's Pauline Munro wasn't the best possible representative of Highland agricultural interests in Europe. The SNP felt that this wasn't a polite way for their Coalition partners to talk about their Deputy Leader. They wanted McCallum out of the picture. The Independents decided to make her their Group Leader. That was that.

So what went wrong? Well, remember that before 2007, there wasn't really an administration in the sense of the word that most political followers south of the Highlands would understand. Committees and consensus were the order of the day, with most Councillors being independent, the idea of there being an administration and opposition, of fixed, disciplined political groups wasn't really valid. But in May 2007, the Independents lost their majority and there were now only 35 out of 80.

So the Independents started talking, and did a deal with the SNP, forming a Coalition that would run the show. Thing was, this wasn't how they did things. An administration requires a cohesive group, and an element of party discipline. This is the exact opposite of 'Independent'. So a Coalition administration, which is what the Highland Councillors were attempting, was always going to struggle. Either the Independents had to be less independent, or they had to stick to the old system and find a way to allow party politics into it. Neither was going to work very well. (Though, having said that, in 2007 Independents lost their majority in Argyll & Bute and Moray, and formed administrations which haven't yet collapsed - so are they vulnerable to or is this just a Highland thing? Time will tell.)

But to expect an organised political group of any party hue to let them behave like a rag-tag band of individuals is far too much to ask. The Independents weren't a group and didn't work out positions as a group - hence the SNP exasperation.

Having said that, were SNP expectations too high? Did SNP Councillors not suspect that turning a group of independent thinkers into a disciplined political fraction ready to support their administration through thick and thin was not going to be easy? Did it not occur to someone in the group that Independents are called that for a reason?

No, I think both sides didn't get the task. The Independents weren't ready for a modern, partisan administration, yet wanted to retain control so went with a formula they weren't familiar with. Conversely, the SNP assumed that a group of Independent Councillors could act like a group of SNP Councillors, or Labour Councillors, or LibDem Councillors, or Tory Councillors. Realism on both sides somehow went out the window.

So where does the Council go now?

There are 34 Indies, 21 LibDems, 17 SNP Councillors, 7 Labour and one non-aligned member, so as things stand, it's a minority Independent administration. They could always stick with this, and make deals with parties on an issue-by-issue basis: a deal with any one party could carry them over the line and get their policy through. But they'd have to act as a group, something which just isn't happening now.

They could attempt to form another Coalition, with one of the other parties. But again, the group discipline issue comes up, and why would either the LibDems or Labour want to touch them with a ten-foot pole knowing what they'll be up against? And why would they want to take part in administration which is already committed to a four-year policy slate which involves a rival party's policies and not theirs?

They could try to ditch the administration altogether, and go back to the old ways. But how do they deal with the fact that partisanship is the way of the majority of Councillors? When you're used to consensus based on free-thinking, how do you fit three organised groups with a planned set of policies and a central structure into that?

Or the LibDems, SNP and Labour could get together, and oust the Independents. But the four-year policies are still in place. And you have to get the three parties working together until 2011, so what happens when the Westminster election comes about, and a LibDem Council Leader stands alongside LibDem MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, while he's attacking SNP Council Group Leader John Finnie, the Party's candidate for that seat? And besides, as I argued in a previous post, with LibDems taking flak in Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen City and Edinburgh, why would any group, other than the SNP in Aberdeen and Edinburgh, and the Aberdeenshire Tories (they're tied in to agreements), want to support LibDem Councillors right now?

So there are four possible outcomes off the top of my head. And none of them work.

Midlothian goes Labour

Labour now have majority control on three Councils, following the defection of Midlothian LibDem Katie Moffat (Midlothian East) to the party. This gives Labour ten seats on the Council, to the SNP's six and the two remaining Liberal Democrats.

This is a (rare) piece of good news for Labour, and it's something that various Edinburgh Labour bods have been quick to pick up on, as 1) Midlothian is next door, and 2) the LibDem-SNP Coalition in the Capital has a majority of 0, and the difference between success and failure can be the Lord Provost's casting vote. One LibDem in Edinburgh going the way of Councillor Moffat would place the Council Leadership in the minority and it would be a very vulnerable target.

But what of Midlothian? Well, with it looking like the next Local Elections will be in 2012, rather than 2011, anything could happen, but Midlothian Labour now needs the ugliest of turnarounds to take place for their position to change. In Westminster terms, this seat was solid Labour anyway - it would take a Crewe & Nantwich-style change for the LibDems to take the seat (and something more for anyone else), and the for the LibDems, a Crewe & Nantwich-style performance is not on the cards anyway (least of all in Crewe & Nantwich). For Holyrood, Cllr Moffat's ward is in the proposed new North Midlothian & Musselburgh seat, where the LibDems do not appear to be competitive. However, the Westminster election is two years off, the Holyrood election three and the Council vote four, so it's maybe not wise to draw conclusions about prospects then from this event.

However, if a such a malaise has hit the Midlothian LibDems that their Councillors are defecting to Labour at a time when everything else seems to be going wrong for Gordon Brown's party, then clearly things aren't so great in Midlothian LibDem circles. And that means that although the headline is good for Labour, the implications are awful for the Liberal Democrats. Particularly when you consider the following: which two Councillors in Edinburgh get the most flak? Leader Jenny Dawe and Education Convener Marilyne MacLaren - LibDem. Whose name gets mentioned the most in reports when Aberdeen City Council are taking the heat? Council Leader Kate Dean - LibDem. Which group on Aberdeenshire Council tore itself apart over Trumpton? The LibDems. So in local government terms in the last twelve months, the LibDems are connected more than any other party to the biggest shite/fan interface situations. Now they are starting to lose Councillors to Labour, whose UK Government Ministers appear to be striking a similarly hapless pose.

What I'm saying is this: the LibDems have managed to lose a Councillor in Midlothian, where they're in Opposition and so can't fluff things. No wonder Edinburgh Labour is excited. And frankly, the way things are going, non-LibDem Councillors across Scotland might want to sit up and take note too.

Stirling Efforts

The Lab/LibDem Coalition in charge of Stirling Council has fallen following a no-confidence vote. The SNP motion passed by 11 votes to ten, with the Tories supporting the SNP, and one (suspended) Labour Councillor, Gerard O'Brien, AWOL. SNP Councillor Graham Houston has now taken over as Council Leader, leading an SNP minority administration.

A few things occur:

1. This could have been a chance for SNP Councillors to put into practice their new-found freedom to enter a formal Coalition with the Tories: the SNP have seven Councillors and the Tories four. That chance has not been taken.

2. Nevertheless, you have to imagine that where the two parties are concerned, nudges have been nudged and winks have been winked: the SNP are not even the largest group on the Council, as Labour have eight Councillors, so the SNP really, really, really need the Tories in Stirling.

3. But could they become the largest party? Councillor O'Brien - the Depute Provost, incidentally - is not exactly Mr. Popular with the Labour Group, and there are persistent mutterings that he might make the switch, putting the SNP on eight to Labour's seven. Is a defection on the cards?

Clearly Stirling is one to watch.

Jumping from one sinking ship to another?

Via Tartan Hero, we learn that Solidarity's one Councillor in the whole of Scotland - Ruth Black, a Glasgow Councillor - has surprised people not by standing down from the Council as some had predicted, but by defecting to Labour. This now increases Labour's majority on the Council - and is a small publicity bonus for Stephen Purcell at a time when Labour as a whole are not coping well either in Scotland or the UK.

However, it does spell the end for Solidarity. Their leader will soon be in the dock (and will be defended by Donald Findlay, whose other clients include Luke Mitchell - found guilty of murdering his girlfriend - and Peter Tobin - found guilty of murdering Angelika Kluk then discovered to be a serial killer - so Tommy Sheridan's omens are not favourable), and they now have no elected representatives. The SSP, who looked dead and buried in May, now outstrip Solidarity by having a Councillor and a Convener who has not been charged with perjury.

Perhaps my title was a tad melodramatic: at Westminster, Labour have had several crises to go through but have until 2009-10 to patch things up, Wendy Alexander has bought time with the Electoral Commission inquiry which won't report back until the new year (and Tory attacks on her are blunted by the news that David Cameron took £7,000 from other donors who are not on the UK electoral roll), and obviously, Labour are a Councillor up. Labour certainly have a future and in Scotland that depends largely on what the Electoral Commission says about Wendy Alexander. But the worst case scenario is that they lose their leader. At the moment, Solidarity may be teetering on the brink of oblivion, losing their Councillor to Labour and their Leader to a perjury trial.

Time is the greatest healer

In the midst of the party funding row, the SNP has decided that local Councillors are free to form formal Coalitions with any party or individuals they wish to. While the word 'Conservative' is not mentioned, that is the implication: hitherto, pacts with the Tories have been banned by the SNP, at every level. This raises the possibility that joint SNP/Tory administrations will, in the future, emerge in some Council chambers. As far as I am aware, it will apply only to Council chambers.

The reaction from Labour and the LibDems will be predictable: "Tartan Tories!" they will scream. They forget that both parties have been more than happy to team up with the Tories if it nobbles another party. They forget that Blair required Tory support for his last set of education proposals in England, and also for Trident. They forget that Labour won in 1997, 2001 and 2005 by looking Tory, sounding Tory and acting Tory. But that won't stop them.

And the SNP have little in the way of alternatives: there is the deal with the Greens, but that amounts to two MSPs, so the support of another party is still needed. And the only places where there are Green Councillors are Glasgow (where Labour has a majority anyway), and Edinburgh (where the only mathematically viable pacts are either LibDem-SNP, with the Lord Provost's casting vote - which is what has happened - or LibDem-Labour). Meanwhile, the SNP and Labour have developed an attitude bordering on mutual contempt so pacts between them at any level are unlikely and very, very rare, and at Holyrood, the LibDems still think they are in Coalition wih Labour, though Councils are, of course, a different story.

So on that basis, the SNP were always going to have to consider lifting that ban on working with the Tories, as it was cutting off one of the few potential avenues. As you can probably tell, I'm a supporter of this being made possible (though I reserve the right to go 'Unnhh?' if and when it happens somewhere), mainly as this was brought in during the Thatcher years, 20 years have passed since then, and the world is a different place.

I am not a fan of Thatcher: I remember - just - her time in power: I was born a few months before her second win in 1983 and remember vividly her loss of power. I remember very little of the actual Government, but I do recall what life was like. I remember us switching between my father having a job, but us still struggling to make ends meet, and him not having one, in which case my mother would walk an hour to a call centre for an eight hour shift (when the others would only need to work for four), then walk an hour back and have to buy enough food to sustain three of us on a meagre budget while my father walked the fifteen minutes to the pub, where he would proceed to drink his giro money. Thatcher talked about how everyone should own their own home; we lost ours in 1986. So readers will excuse me for not being well-disposed to Margaret Thatcher.

But here's the thing: the grounds for the ban was that Thatcher and the Tories were 'anti-Scottish'. I have always found that short-sighted, and it conjures up images of Thatcher kicking off her Cabinet meetings with the question: "Right, boys, how can we stick it to the Scots this week?" But I was in Northern England at the time, and I wonder if those that brand Thatcher anti-Scottish forget that England, Wales and Northern Ireland were all hit too. I don't think she set out to "stick it" to anyone, and I don't think she was 'anti' anyone. The problem wasn't hatred or vindictiveness, it was ignorance and indifference, she governed for her people and her places. Scots were not her people, and Scotland was not one of her places, but many others weren't either. Now, the inability to govern for everyone in the countries she governed is awful, but I just don't buy anti-Scottishness. Scotland was hurt. Everyone was hurt. Industries died everywhere. Jobs were lost everywhere.

Poll Tax riots were not simply a Scottish phenomenon, either, and the fact that she still pressed ahead with the introduction of the Poll Tax in England and Wales after its disastrous reception in Scotland is the most damning indictment of her Premiership: the inability to realise that a mistake has been made and it's time to hit the brakes. Either she was that out of touch by that point that she just didn't understand why the Poll Tax wasn't working, or she just didn't care. Whichever is true, it should tarnish her reputation forever.

So, given that, why am I pro the possibility of SNP-Tory pacts in local Councils? Because time has moved on. 20 years ago, the Tories look unassailable, in Government forever, no matter how much Scots wanted them out, and willing to inflict their own disastrous policies on a nation that simply didn't want them. In 2007, the possibility that the Tories may once again form a Westminster government is only just beginning to re-emerge after ten years (well, since Black Wednesday and Maastricht, really, but they had already formed and were in a Government, so we'll start from when that ended). Twenty years ago, there wasn't a Scottish Parliament, so whoever had power in Westminster had power over Scotland. Now, the most the Tories can hope for at Holyrood is a chance to tip the balance one way or another from time to time - as they do now, and it'll probably be another twenty years at least, if that, before we can consider the possibility of a Tory First Minister.

And in local government now, only two Councils have Tory Leadership: Dumfries & Galloway - a Tory/LibDem Coalition - and South Ayrshire - a minority administration. Though Tories do form part of administrations in other places: they support the LibDems in Aberdeenshire, they're part of the "Angus Alliance" (everyone but the SNP), they support Labour in East Dunbartonshire, Falkirk (with Independent support) and South Lanarkshire. They support Independents in Moray and the Borders (with LibDem backing). And they vote to prop up the minority Labour/LibDem administration in Dundee.

In any case, the fact this has been raised shows that SNP Councillors feel they can make common cause with their Tory counterparts. There is no way that would have been possible twenty years ago.

I will never have time for Thatcher or her cronies, but they are not the Tories we have to deal with now. Thatcher, for instance, is a shadow of her former self, rumoured to be on the bottle, rumoured to be half-mad, with failing health. The rest of her people have simply sunk without trace, save the odd appearance on Question Time. Why hark back to them, when they are not there to deal with anymore?

It's time to move on.

To watch out for this week

This week, a little bit of electoral history is going to be made in the Midsocket & Rosemount ward on Aberdeen City Council: the first STV By-Election to replace a Councillor since the introduction of the new voting system for the recent election.

The By-Election is to replace the late Tory Councillor John Porter, who had been a Grampian Regional Councillor from 1978 all the way through to Grampian Regional Council's abolition. After that, he won a seat on the unitary Aberdeen City Council.

Porter topped the poll in this ward in May, with 1,503 first preference votes, or 1.11 of the quota. Bill Cormie of the SNP was elected in second place, with 1,431 #1's, 1.05 of the quota. Labour's Jenny Laing came third with 1,144 #1's (0.84 of the quota) and was elected at Stage 6. Both LibDem candidates, outgoing Councillor Steve Delaney and Jim Donaldson, missed out, though Delaney would have been elected had more of Donaldson's transfers gone his way. The SSP's Christine Chandler came sixth, and was excluded at Stage 3.

So nominally, the Tories are in the lead here on first preference votes, with the SNP second. Technically, in terms of first preferences, the LibDems come third with a combined total of 1,200 votes (671 for Delaney and 529 for Donaldson), and Labour are fourth.

There are six candidates: John Munro Corall is looking to become the SNP's second Councillor in the ward, the LibDems' Steve Delaney is looking to return to the Council. Fraser Forsyth is the Tory looking to hold the seat. There's an Independent in Dennis Forbes Grattan. The SSP are not challenging this time, but Solidarity are with Stephen Hadden looking to become the party's second Councillor in Scotland. Allan McIntosh is Labour's man.

Remember though that a candidate will need a clear majority of votes: coming first on its own will not do, so transfers will be important - no party came anywhere near 50% in May - and this will, I suspect, be the Tories' downfall, allied to the fact that Porter will have had 29 years to build up a personal following in at least part of the ward while Forsyth will not have that benefit. Delaney's prospects will be enhanced by the fact that he is his party's sole standard-bearer this time around, so it's a battle between him and Corall for #2 votes from Labour and Tory supporters.

One week since polling

Two conflicting rumours are now coming to the fore over the Presiding Officer post. The first is that it's Margo to the rescue, and the Independent will take up the job for about a year to allow the parties to sort themselves out. The second is that David McLetchie has been appointed to the Parliamentary Bureau in place of Bill Aitken so that Aitken is free to stand for Presiding Officer.

While I'm on the subject of the Bureau, what of Alasdair Morgan? He's the SNP representative on the Bureau temporarily, but The Herald reports that Bruce Crawford is likely to be the SNP's Minister for Parliament (I was expecting Crawford to be appointed to the Bureau rather than Morgan). I think he's being moved to another Parliamentary post, a key Convenership, the Corporate Body, or (and this is my favourite) Deputy Presiding Officer. We shall see.

In any case, focus today has shifted southwards, with Blair about to announce his departure in at 12 o'clock today, and while Holyrood can't agree a Coalition, a number of Councils have done.

We know already that Labour control Glasgow and North Lanarkshire. We know that Independents control the three Island Councils. Argyll & Bute will be run by a Coalition of Independents and the SNP, with 26 out of 36 seats. The SNP and LibDems have agreed a Coalition in East Lothian, with a combined 13 seats out of 23, and Moray will be run by a Coalition of Independents and Conservatives, with 15 seats out of 26.

West Dunbartonshire again

Via Grant, we learn that Martin Rooney has indeed been deposed with a month and a half to go until the Election.

It seems a bit pointless, but it's a mark of how the Labour group there has imploded, with ex-Labour and rebel Labour Councillors co-operating with the SNP - how often does THAT happen?! - to get rid of Rooney and replace him with Denis Agnew, a former Labour Councillor.

In my post about the Tories, I said how Labour's bloggers were on-message. Seems that's not the case in local government!

West Dunbartonshire: a land of impeccable timing

In that the local Labour group on the Council, which has been riven with difficulties, appears to have finally pressed the self-destruct button. The Herald reports that four of their number have sided with the opposition to attack the new Leader, Martin Rooney, to keep the group's former Deputy Leader, Jim Flynn, in place as Housing Convener, and elect a number of opposition members to key positions.

The next move will take place within the next couple of weeks, as the SNP Group have called for a full Council meeting, and it's likely that a motion of no-confidence against Rooney will be tabled. According to the Herald, Rooney can only count on the support of six Councillors. There are sixteen in the Labour group: four have voted against him and the rest stayed away from the meeting.

But the rebels have another target in their sights: step forward one Jackie Baillie, the MSP for Dumbarton who criticised the former Leader and the way the Council was run. The Labour rebels want revenge and their aim is to force her resignation. They won't get it, and it'll have zero effect on her bid for re-election: it'll take a swing to the SNP of just under 12% to oust her (not likely), and even if an independent candidate emerges, a 50:50 split of her votes would see either her or the challenger elected.

Even if the Labour turmoil affects the Scottish Parliament poll, Baillie was an innocent party: she spoke out against the former administration following a damning report from the Accounts Commission and allegations that key spending decisions had been made in secret by a small group of Councillors, so any attacks on her can be viewed as an attempt to 'shoot the messenger', and she'll come out of the row in a fairly positive light, I suppose.

The Council poll, however, will be interesting to watch. Particularly as polling day is just nine weeks away.

There's no such thing as a 'safe' seat

I've started thinking about this, particularly after the Markinch and Woodside East seat on Fife Council underwent a 30% swing to the SNP on Thursday. Labour won the seat in 1999 with 43%, then increased their share (and poll) in 2003 to 58%. The SNP's John Beare this week took the seat with 56% of the vote. If that's not worth analysing in detail, I don't know what is.

I suppose the first point worth making is the background: Markinch & Woodside East (also known by the quasi-Stalinist name of Ward 52) is in the Holyrood Constituency of Central Fife. This is held by Labour: it was Henry McLeish's seat, and it's now occupied by Christine May. However, her position is far less secure than the late Cllr Rougvie's was: the SNP challenger is Regional MSP Tricia Marwick, who needs a swing of 5.4% to take the seat. With a high-profile candidate, and no doubt a lot of effort going into what is the SNP's top target in Mid Scotland and Fife, it's not hard to see why the SNP put in a strong performance. But it doesn't explain the 30% swing.

Perhaps it's disaffection with the administration, and Labour is almost a piñata for the voters of Fife here: you have a Labour government at Westminster, a Labour-led Executive at Holyrood, and a minority Labour administration in the Council. But the Executive can't take much of the blame as the junior coalition partner, the LibDems, managed to gain an extra 10% of the vote compared with 2003. Further, tactical voting doesn't explain the whopping shift to the SNP, who even if they are the By-Election specialists, will normally view half of that swing as an excellent result.

The Labour Conference can't have helped: most of the activists who you'd have expected on the doorsteps would instead have been in Manchester, and while Labour got plenty of publicity, most of it wasn't good. Cherie Blair's alleged outburst and Peter Mandelson's backhanded compliments towards Gordon Brown can't have put forward a positive image. But does that explain why more than half of previous Labour voters switched?

Maybe the late Councillor Rougvie had a large personal vote: he did win the seat from the former LibDem Councillor for Cadham/Markinch/Star, after all. Similarly, the SNP didn't stand in the old ward, so perhaps those LibDem voters would have backed the SNP candidate in such circumstances. But the 1995 LibDem vote was only 40%, and the winner had a majority of just 17 over the Labour candidate. Similarly, the combined SNP/LibDem vote in 1999 was 50%, over Labour's 43%, and more than half of that combined vote went to the LibDems, so it's not just a case of unwind. And how do we explain the collapse in the LibDem vote in 2003, to just 6%?

I think the trend is broader: since its creation in 1974, Central Fife has been Labour. Fife West, its predecessor, was Willie Hamilton's seat since 1950, after he won it from the Communist Party, whose candidate held the seat since 1935. Labour held the seat between 1910 and 1931. So with the exception of the 1931-35 Parliament (when the seat was Conservative-held), this part of the world has been unashamedly Left wing since 1910. And even before then, its MPs were Liberal. Of course, until recently, political allegiance has been comparable with supporting a football team: it's something you inherited rather than something you chose. But the Labour of 2006 isn't the Labour of 1950, and the people who wanted that now find that it's gone. Similarly, younger voters are more fluid with their allegiances. That means that the days of weighing Labour votes are surely over.

And this has been coming for a while: Northern England saw a number of formerly safe Labour seats go LibDem in 2005. Strathkelvin & Bearsden had been Labour's sixth safest seat before Jean Turner won it (something Elaine Smith, MSP for Coatbridge and Chryston, who will face an independent health campaigner should bear in mind). It happened to the Tories in 1997: Eastwood needed a 22% swing to be anything other than Tory, and the constituency (and its successor, East Renfrewshire) has had a Labour MP since that election.

I'm not saying that Labour are on course for a Tory-style wipeout, or that the SNP are heading for a 1997-style landslide: what I'm saying is that the last ten years are proof that no party can take its votes, or its seats, for granted. Every seat has to be defended robustly now, and other parties have to contest every seat with everything they've got. If that doesn't happen, then the losing side will have only themselves to blame, and turnout will stay low.

But if it does happen, then the voters will actually face a real contest next May. Of course, not everyone's a winner: a few MSPs may find that their blood pressure goes up, and a few more than we expected might have to visit a JobCentre after the election, but I think this By-Election has proven that every seat is worth fighting for. That makes the candidates worth voting for.

And that's how you drive turnout up, because if the candidates and activists aren't out there fighting for every vote, how do you prove to people that their vote counts?

A brief return to South Ayrshire

The Tory putsch on South Ayrshire Council is now complete: Conservative Councillor Winifred Sloan is the new Lord Provost, thus cementing Tory control, and guaranteeing it regardless of the outcome of next month's By-Election. Even if Labour (or another party who opt to remain aloof from the Conservatives) win on 2 February, there will be 15 Tories on a Council of 30, and it's the Provost who has the casting vote.

Regardless of what you might think, you can't help but be impressed by the Tories' killer instinct. By moving now, they guaranteed their victory. Now, if they gain North Carrick and Maybole East, they have a clear majority (which we knew anyway). If they don't, their ownership of the casting vote keeps them in control.

When newsmakers talk, they talk to me!

I'm going to award myself a pat on the back and a fish supper for this: a man purporting not to be related to the new leader of South Ayrshire Council, despite having the same first name, surname and enclosing some South Ayrshire Council-related press releases and a link to Councillor MacDonald's website - www.gibsontmacdonald.co.uk - has been in contact with me to introduce himself an some of his policies (OK, it's not quite the same as getting an exclusive interview with George Bush the such like, but for a site that's less than a month old, I'm chalking this up as an early success).

I think it's fair to say that the good Councillor has decided to swig from a poisoned chalice: his administration has pledged to clear the Council's projected £15million defecit. This means that it's curtains for the Council's Environment and Infrastructure Department, which according to projections, had it not been broken up by the Council on Friday, would have overspent by £1.66 million.

Of course, the reality is that he needs the voters of North Carrick and Maybole East to be favourable to him by returning a Tory in February. If they vote Labour, then he's in real trouble (they're back to the 15-15 stalemate and a Labour Provost holding the casting vote). If they vote for someone else entirely then he might just get away with it (though there will have to be concessions to the new Councillor).

But what's really surprising is that the LibDems haven't put a link to the By-Election (due on 2 February, and bound to get ugly) on their website. Normally when a sitting Councillor dies, they announce the impending vote before rigor mortis has set in. Perhaps they don't quite know how to deal with a resignation like Andy Hill's?

P.S. The good Councillor made the time to describe this humble site as 'very neat and crisp'. Say what you like about the Tories (and I frequently do), they can be charming.