Livingston I Presume, Not

So determined to defend Labour's narrow 405 vote majority in Edinburgh South less than three months ago one of their councillors was seeking the relative security of Livingston.

Having failed to even make the short list to do a wonderful job he has returned tail between his legs to become the candidate in Edinburgh South.

Now he is claiming to ride on the coat tails of the legacy of Nigel Griffiths. "I'm absolutely delighted to have won the selection. Nigel has left a significant legacy of fighting hard for the constituents of Edinburgh South."

I notice he is also claiming like Nigel did in 2005 that it is heading into a close contest with just the Tories. Then Nigel said on an eve of poll leaflet.

Stop the Tories Here!!!

4,000 new Tory voters
have moved into South
Edinburgh

For over 100 years Edinburgh South was Tory.
With boundary changes it it heading Tory again.
You've stopped them once.
Stop them again.

Do you think that Labour really know what is going on in Edinburgh South anymore now than they did in 2005? I don't think so I have seen and heard about so little activity by them on the streets.

We all know how that gloom and doom message panned out. Nigel only just held on and we all know it wasn't the Tories he was trying to stop. But using the fear of the Thatcher years only just got enough people to back him. Surely Labour wouldn't try to fight the ghosts of the past again to try and hold on while they are leaking voters to the Lib Dems?

Oh dear. Nigel's successor is claiming that once again it is between Labour and the Tories while in 2007 the party that gained was actually the Lib Dems, when we were performing worse in the polls.

So Ian go ahead and ignore that your main rival is actually Fred Mackintosh of the Liberal Democrats, I'm sure you'll appreciate him building a fairer Britain for the people of Edinburgh South after you and the Tories fail to win.

Nigel Griffiths - Calendar Boy! Eek! or Oops!

Oops!

It appears that Nigel Griffiths has mailed out a 2010 calendar to the constituents of Edinburgh South which only arrived on Monday, hours after he announced he was resigning. On it he claims he is "Here to help you 365 days a year".

Firstly the first first 31 were clearly not important enough so only 11 months of the calendar are of us. Plus in April when Gordon is expected to dissolve Parliament Nigel will only be here for you if you lucky enough to be enrolled at the international educational establishment he is heading off to in London. So therefore I reckon you may be lucky to have him for 62 days of that particular Calendar.

According to comments it is a glossy affair, as indeed were his 2009, 2008 etc calendars.

Some of the tweets about it were

Neil Pooran: "Bravely tragically, someone was out delivering leaflets for Nigel Griffiths last night" as he posted a picture of the soon-to-be ex-Labour MP's 2010 calendar sitting on his kitchen table.

Jennetw: "Just got 2010 calendar from Nigel Griffiths through my letterbox: 'Working all year round, not just at election time'. Apparently not!"

A Labour party spokesman is trying to fob it off as part of the normal MP communication. If that's the case where is my calendar from Michael Connarty? I suspect this fits into that grey area between communication and campaigning, I hope some mention of it is made on the Edinburgh South Labour election expenses return from the period from 1 January to the start of the campaign.

Brown's AV Proposals Hand Edinburgh South to Lib Dems - Curtice

Last night Eric Joyce asked on Twitter, "AV [Alternative Vote] Voting. Any thoughts?" so I had a little debate with him about how it was change not reform etc. How it still gave too much power to the parties and not enough to the people. he went strangely silent on me when I asked. "Why now? It was discussed pre-1997 by the Blair-Ashdown negotiations. Why wait 13 years?".

I take it Eric's silence adds strength to the argument that Gordon Brown is proposing this now as a political expedient not out of any real commitment. Indeed in this morning's Scotsman John Curtice points out that the Lib Dems are everyone's second favourite, so AV would help the Lib Dems, but only he says in seats where are already a strong second like in Edinburgh South. Indeed he thinks AV would deliver us a dozen or so extra seats.

Of course the other issue is who is going to be second favourites elsewhere. Curtice says:

"The SNP is unlikely to gain much either. The Nationalists cannot be sure of winning more second preference votes from Conservatives and Liberal Democrats than Labour.

"But who do Liberal Democrat and SNP voters prefer more – Conservative or Labour? The answer is clear – Labour. In the ICM poll, 45 per cent of Liberal Democrat supporters said Labour was their second choice, only 28 per cent the Conservatives. Only a handful of SNP supporters in the 2007 local elections gave any support to a Tory candidate.

"So where Labour lie a close second to the Conservatives, the new system could enable them to capture the seat. But the Conservatives are unlikely to gain where they are close to Labour – while of the two parties they are also more likely to be leapfrogged by a local Liberal Democrat."

It is a fault with a majority system such as AV which is not proportional to the voting intentions of the electorate but merely a reallocation of the votes to the next best option.

Andrew Burns the Labour leader on Edinburgh City Council self deprecates with his blog title Really Bad Blog, but this morning I want to hold him up as a Labour elected representative who speaks sense.

He says seeing as the use of Alternative Vote (AV) for Westminster Elections have now been tabled as an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, he says it is:

"Pretty straightforward to adjust it from a majoritarian to a proportional system ... "

He then outlines almost the wording (bar the use of 2 member constituencies and a few other pieces) that I think a Lib Dem MP should be tabling replacing AV with a Single Transferable Vote System(STV).

STV also gives more power to the people, last night Eric Joyce was bemoaning the fact that 8 MSPs had some say over the voters of Falkirk that he represents. He was also saying that he liked to let the people have their personal say over his re-election. Thing is the bulk of that say is down to the local party, there only is one Labour candidate that the people of Falkirk have to vote for under the AV proposals.

Say if under STV Falkirk and say Livingston and Linlithgow were returning 3 MPs there may well be 2 or 3 Labour candidates for the people to choice from. It would combine the aspect of the people deciding which Labour candidate was their preferred option, plus also decide between the various candidates. This may not be to Eric's liking for his own personal reasons* but suits people like Iain Dale who advocate open primaries. It gives a certain amount of power to the people. It makes peoples votes fairer and is proportional rather than a shifting of the votes.

My current choice of words to explain Brown's position is a misquote of Neil Armstrong. AV is one small step which suits Labour best, where is the giant leap for fairness to the electorate?

In conclusion Curtice sums up Brown's long road to his Damascus moment to change the voting system like this:

"Under current circumstances at least, the attractions of the Alternative Vote for Labour are clear. Its adoption would make it even more difficult for the Conservatives to win a majority, only make it a little easier for the Liberal Democrats to secure extra seats, while Labour's chances of winning a majority might even be enhanced.

"Not so much "new" politics as an old-fashioned political fix."

Brown is fiddling but at least Andrew Burns is man enough to spot the score.

PS On a point of order made by Caron on twitter of course we don't need AV to get Fred Mackintosh as the MP for Edinburgh South. He is more than capable of overhauling that 405 vote margin over Nigel Griffiths Candidate X under first past the post.

Read also: Alistair Carmichael MP on why you should beware of dying Governments bearing gifts. Plus Mark Thompson estute as ever on whether AV is even worth campaigning for.

*Most expensive MP in the House of Commons.

Edinburgh South Labour Excuses Starting Already

In 2005 there were a mere 405 votes between Nigel Griffiths and the Liberal Democrats in 2005. Labour had already lost the Scottish seat that takes up most of the Westminster constituency to Mike Pringle, he went on to increase his majority in 2007. Therefore these quotes from local Labour party members in Edinburgh South make interesting reading:

One Labour Party insider said: "This decision is just typical of Nigel. That is why he will leave no legacy in South Edinburgh. He has put the party in a very difficult position by making his entire campaign centre on his personality. He was a policy-free zone. If we lose Edinburgh South, everyone will know who to blame: Nigel Griffiths."

Another local member added: "He has obviously been working on this for some time, and has now dumped the local party in it before an election."

It appears as if Labour are already preparing the way for an inevitable loss of the seat. They are already apportioning blame. The picture above is a larger that life picture of the MP that adorns his constituency office. Hardly surprising with such iconography that it's corner position is known by some locals as the Kremlin.

So with Nigel out of the picture all eyes are turning to who? I think the only logical answer is Fred Mackintosh for the Liberal Democrats.

The Tories of course are yet again talking up their chances in this seat. But they did the same in 2005 and threw everything including the kitchen sink at this seat and came a lowly third. In 2007 even with the man who eventually became their list MSP who had stood in 2005 their vote on top of what they called strong performances by David Cameron and local activity only rose by 0.6% the Lib Dem vote rose by 2.9%.

I love the fact that Gavin Brown's website from 2007 is still live.

Instead of using bar charts that show data the Tories tried to use actual figures based on electoral calculus figures of a universal swing to count for Edinburgh South. Back then they said (actual return in May 2007 in red):

Share of the vote

Labour - 28.98% 29.1%

Conservatives - 26.14% 17.2%

Lib Dems - 21.39% 35.0%

SNP - Not worthy of mention 18.8%

Oops that appears a big ask for the Tories, especially when you consider that this Lib Dem vote in the smaller Scottish constituency is actually over 1000 more than Gavin himself managed in the last General election. Even the additional 5,000 or so votes that the Tories brought to the table leaves them over 1,000 short without counting in the fact that Lib Dem voters also vote in the additional parts of the constituency in their thousands. It's hardly a surprise then that Iain Dale in his seat by seat study didn't think his party would take South.

Therefore the Labour insiders quoted above are clearly preparing themselves for a Fred Mackintosh win on May 6th. It's not all down to Nigel being a policy free zone, it is also because Fred has been to parts of the constituency that haven't seen a Tory candidate on their doorsteps in recent times, if at all. The Tories as in 2005 think they can rely on their heartland parts to the West of the constituency leaving out some of the tougher areas.

Fred doesn't take the people of Edinburgh South for granted, nor does he neglect them. Indeed many of the people in locations overlooked by the Tories still remember how the Conservatives ruined Scotland and didn't care. So Annabel Goldie's recent comments about how David Cameron and reign in Downing Street without Scotland will just bring back echoes of that.

Nigel may well have dumped the local Labour party in it, although it would appear that the local people were already making their mind up that Nigel would have to go. He lost 6% of his vote in 2005 and that was before the additional scandals of the last few years.

So even Labour in Edinburgh South are looking towards a Fred Mackintosh win there by the sounds of things, lining up their excuses already.

Edinburgh South Labour Looking for Candidate as Livingston Announce Theirs

On the day that Edinburgh South Labour Party start the hunt for their candidate for a candidate to replace Nigel Griffiths MP, Livingston have announced that Graeme Morrice will be their third candidate in three consecutive Westminster Elections in 5 years. The former council leader will step up to the plate to replace the disgraced Jim Devine who was deselected before the party's 'star committee' over his expenses. He beat fellow councillor John McGinty, community education officer Gordon Connolly and Haackney activist Adenike Abimbola-Akindele to the selection. I don't rule out seeing the latter appear on the Edinburgh South shortlist, it would only be the sixth that I know of.

Meanwhile trade unionist Michael McCann has been unveiled as the Labour candidate in East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, after former defence minister Adam Ingram (whose career had a rather big part in last nights Channel 4 Drama Mo).

Standing Down and Defection

First up the rumours that Edinburgh South MP Nigel Griffiths was going to step down have been confirmed. In what was the Lib Dems number 4 target seat across the UK and top against Labour the former deputy leader of the house was defending a 405 vote majority. Unlike John McFall who announced his retirement at 65, Nigel at 54 is announcing his next career as a director of an education institution.

However, even before his sex scandal on Remembrance Sunday in the House or the expenses claims Labour's popularity in the area was declining. That was evidenced when the former leader of the council Donald Anderson stood in the Holyrood seat in 2007 to try and reclaim it from Mike Pringle only to see a swing from Labour the Lib Dems as Mike increased his majority. I don't see how anyone this close to an election can eat into the growing popularity of the Liberal Democrat candidate Fred Mackintosh, which may have also been a reason for Nigel jumping before the electorate pushed him.

Last night Yousuf hinted that there would be a SNP defection to Labour. It led to both Jeff and Will speculating that is was only a councillor and as Jeff said that maybe someone that 'the SNP would be better off without'.

Well it appears that everyone is right, South Lanarkshire councillor John McNamee who the Herald describe as a rising star of the party is the defectee. He cites the dropping of GARL (Glasgow Airport Rail Link) and the inadequacies of the SNP at town hall levels. Though the local party are investigating him after "concerns were expressed over his expense claims and use of council travel allowances" as well as his "inappropriate behaviour" at a Strathclyde Fire Board event before Christmas.

Sounds to me like he is the ideal substitute for Nigel Griffiths, in that case. Hardly one for Yousuf to have been so joyful about.

Although with 5 retirements in the last five days is there a sign outside the Labour whips' office saying retirees queue here?

Fe Fi Fo Fum Labour Feel the Breath of the Lib Dems Now

The latest opinions polls do not make good reading for Labour. The one in the Independent on Sunday in particular with the Conservatives on 38%, Labour 23% and the Lib Dems just behind them on 22%. So the Lib Dems are right behind Labour on share of the vote.

However, while the share may have us equal the seat share shows the ridiculous nature of our electoral system. According to Electoral Calculus returns for that vote share 358 Conservatives, 198 Labour and 68 Lib Dems. One percentage point should not equate to 130 MPs and almost three times as many. That clearly shows how Lib Dem votes are not fairly accounted for in the current First Past the Post Voting System.

Just as a little experiment I decided to keep the Tories in 38% an swap share from Labour to the Lib Dems find out the level of parity. The result is that it only happens at Lib Dems 28% (120 seats) Labour 17% (118) a full 12% swing still required to get parity in seats from being right behind Labour in share of vote. It would apparently give the Tories a 108 seat majority but with the vote shares reversed the Tories would have a 14 seat majority Con 332, Lab 242, Lib Dem 45.

Is it any wonder that have to work so much harder to get any vote than the other parties seem to have too. It's because that vote on the national scale is not quite the same value.

On a plus side for us North of the Border Electoral Calculus on the current figures gives Edinburgh South, Edinburgh North and Leith, Aberdeen South and Glasgow North to the Lib Dems. The Tories will on these figures make gains in Scotland just don't believe them south of the Meadows.