Today was the first meeting of the council since the elections and if this is anything to go by, it's going to be fun.
On the face of it, most of the proceedings went to plan. Nominations from the SNP-led coalition for provost, council leader and respective deputes, were all voted in as expected. A call by the Labour group for all votes to be recorded as 'roll-call' (i.e. with individual votes recorded rather than totals) was perhaps a sign that the opposition is playing hard ball, but only time will tell if this becomes a regular feature.
Something else which may become a regular feature is the time-outs; twice adjournments were called - first by the Labour group which insisted it hadn't had enough time to consider proposals presented by the coalition during the meeting, then again by the coalition which wanted to consider amendments to its own motion to accommodate objections by the Labour group.
I hope my own position became clearer to both sides too. Playing hard ball does not endear me to anyone, and I did feel Labour's call for more equal representation on external committees in the interests of more consensual politics didn't sit easily with its own record when in power. I did, however, agree with its argument; but consensual politics is a two way street, and I'll be watching closely to see a commitment to this from both sides before deciding whether the motives are genuine or cynical.
I also don't take kindly to being bounced into making decisions. Politics should be about being in full possession of the facts, listening to both sides of the argument and then making an informed decision. Worryingly, I saw failings here today too. As it's the start of term and a lot of us are new to this game, I'm prepared to cut a little slack. But be warned; put forward a proposal without warning and no matter how sensible it seems on the face of it, don't assume I'll automatically back it.
It was all very enjoyable to be in the thick of it, and I look forward to further installments. However, probably the most exciting thing I did today was to finally start getting in touch with constituents whom I had spoken to on the doorsteps during the election campaign. This is getting off the ground more slowly than I'd hoped in some cases where I need to get some preliminary information from council officials first. However, I managed to phone one person and wrote an initial letter to another with more prepared, and that for me was the main achievement of the day.
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
Monday, 7 May 2012
A kingmaker is born
It's certainly been an interesting week!
I naively thought that after the count on Friday, I'd be able to take a few days' rest. However, given the arithmetic following the Midlothian result (8 Labour, 8 SNP, Independent Peter de Vink and myself) I suppose I should have expected the phone calls from the SNP and Labour groups over the weekend, though being thrust into the position of 'kingmaker' was not something I had really thought much about.
Fortunately, the Greens have been in this position before at Holyrood, where frantic bargaining took place mainly over the budget, but it has concentrated the minds of everyone in the party on the pitfalls and risks associated with delicate negotiations in such circumstances. This has been of enormous benefit - many of us in the party have discussed in depth how we should approach it, and I think as a result we are relatively mature in how to deal with it.
I'm also amazed at how much trust the Green Party puts in its representatives to handle such negotiations - after all, the wrong decision could backfire spectacularly on the party as a whole, and I think that has helped those in my position to be extra cautious about how we proceed.
My decision to back an SNP-Independent coalition was not too difficult to make. I did of course consult with the Midlothian Greens before making any commitments, but I'm very happy to say the position I was minded to take was supported 100% by the membership, which was very reassuring.
During the campaign I was highly critical of how the previous Labour administration had run the council, particularly in its management of finances. To campaign for change, then to prop up what I maintained was a failed administration would be, to say the least, inconsistent. I could not do a deal with Labour. I also believe there is a history of a lack of transparency within the council, and allowing the same people to continue in control may have obstructed change.
On the other hand, I could not stay absolutely neutral. The last thing any council needs - particularly at this time, when people's jobs and livelihoods depend on decisions being made - would be to allow paralysis on the council. With Peter de Vink's decision to back the SNP group in a formal coalition meant that a decision by me to side with Labour would result in stalemate - where even the decision on who runs the council would be made with a cut of the cards.
Looking at the overall results in Midlothian, there was a clear shift away from Labour and the Liberal Democrats towards the SNP and new voices. This was hardly a resounding vote of confidence in the way the council has been run; it was a call for change, not resoundingly for the Nationalists, but change nevertheless. I had to respect that.
Going into a formal coalition with the SNP-independent group would have been risky. Although Peter de Vink and I do share some common ground (particularly in a desire to see more transparency and better financial management), our politics are quite far apart - as I believe are his from the SNP's. The coalition could prove fragile and my ability to remain flexible in changing circumstances could undoubtedly leave me with some interesting options if it all falls apart.
The overriding concern for me is for stability and an environment where the council can function. I hope to remain on good terms with both the SNP and Labour groups and will endeavour to do what's best for the people of Midlothian, and especially the Bonnyrigg ward, whilst pursuing what I entered politics for - to create a fair and sustainable society which caters for the needs of future generations as well as ourselves.
I naively thought that after the count on Friday, I'd be able to take a few days' rest. However, given the arithmetic following the Midlothian result (8 Labour, 8 SNP, Independent Peter de Vink and myself) I suppose I should have expected the phone calls from the SNP and Labour groups over the weekend, though being thrust into the position of 'kingmaker' was not something I had really thought much about.
Fortunately, the Greens have been in this position before at Holyrood, where frantic bargaining took place mainly over the budget, but it has concentrated the minds of everyone in the party on the pitfalls and risks associated with delicate negotiations in such circumstances. This has been of enormous benefit - many of us in the party have discussed in depth how we should approach it, and I think as a result we are relatively mature in how to deal with it.
I'm also amazed at how much trust the Green Party puts in its representatives to handle such negotiations - after all, the wrong decision could backfire spectacularly on the party as a whole, and I think that has helped those in my position to be extra cautious about how we proceed.
My decision to back an SNP-Independent coalition was not too difficult to make. I did of course consult with the Midlothian Greens before making any commitments, but I'm very happy to say the position I was minded to take was supported 100% by the membership, which was very reassuring.
During the campaign I was highly critical of how the previous Labour administration had run the council, particularly in its management of finances. To campaign for change, then to prop up what I maintained was a failed administration would be, to say the least, inconsistent. I could not do a deal with Labour. I also believe there is a history of a lack of transparency within the council, and allowing the same people to continue in control may have obstructed change.
On the other hand, I could not stay absolutely neutral. The last thing any council needs - particularly at this time, when people's jobs and livelihoods depend on decisions being made - would be to allow paralysis on the council. With Peter de Vink's decision to back the SNP group in a formal coalition meant that a decision by me to side with Labour would result in stalemate - where even the decision on who runs the council would be made with a cut of the cards.
Looking at the overall results in Midlothian, there was a clear shift away from Labour and the Liberal Democrats towards the SNP and new voices. This was hardly a resounding vote of confidence in the way the council has been run; it was a call for change, not resoundingly for the Nationalists, but change nevertheless. I had to respect that.
Going into a formal coalition with the SNP-independent group would have been risky. Although Peter de Vink and I do share some common ground (particularly in a desire to see more transparency and better financial management), our politics are quite far apart - as I believe are his from the SNP's. The coalition could prove fragile and my ability to remain flexible in changing circumstances could undoubtedly leave me with some interesting options if it all falls apart.
The overriding concern for me is for stability and an environment where the council can function. I hope to remain on good terms with both the SNP and Labour groups and will endeavour to do what's best for the people of Midlothian, and especially the Bonnyrigg ward, whilst pursuing what I entered politics for - to create a fair and sustainable society which caters for the needs of future generations as well as ourselves.
Sunday, 29 April 2012
Rain or shine, turnout is just the barometer
There's a routine which plays out at every polling station in the land and which never fails to amuse me. It features a polling agent from one of the parties entering a polling station and when he or she returns, all the other polling agents from different parties cluster round. "Well, what's the figure?", one will say, while they all wait with bated breath. "Eleven point seven per cent" comes the reply. "That's low", "Yeah, eight point nine at Bogend Primary an hour ago". And so the discussion continues.
Turnout is a big issue amongst the anoraks on polling day. In 2007 it was around 53% across Scotland and is anticipated to be anywhere between 25% and 45% on Thursday, depending on whom you listen to, but with postal voters in the ascendancy the figure on the day in any one polling station may tell you little.
I have an issue with people who assert that a high turnout is good for democracy. It's not the figure which is important, but the reason why it is high or low. Turnout, after all, is just a barometer on people's willingness to participate in the democratic process. If we made voting compulsory, as some advocate, this would not in itself instil more confidence in our politicians, but would merely mask people's discontent. When the local and Holyrood elections were held on the same day, the resulting increased turnout at the local election was not a vote of confidence in local politicians - it just meant some people voted in the local elections because they were going to the polling station anyway.
When attendance at a football match is low, it's not the fans who are blamed for apathy, but the teams for offering little prospect of entertainment. When a film flops at the cinema, it's not because people can't be bothered venturing out in the rain. If you run a market stall and no-one buys anything, perhaps it's because you're what offering is not what people want, and so it is with politics.
If we want people to come back to our political market stalls, we need to offer the punters what they want, and more critically, provide an after-sales service which encourages them to come back again next time.
There are two types of non-voter; those who really are apathetic about the whole political process and those who would vote if there was someone standing they perceived as worth voting for. To distinguish between these, I would advocate an extra option on every ballot form - the often suggested 'none of the above'. If this non-candidate is elected, the seat remains vacant - and allows people to see what it's like not to have someone to represent them (maybe the difference wouldn't be noticeable in some cases). If a sufficient number of such vacancies are returned on a council, a full rerun of the election would be triggered. Only in this case would I support compulsory voting.
I believe that people get the politicians they deserve. If they vote for numpties, then don't be surprised if numpties get in. If politicians promise the earth and fail to deliver, who is to blame if they are then re-elected? People often tell me they are voting for X to keep out Y; that is not a positive choice and voting for 'none of the above' would work equally well as well as being a more transparent representation of voter intentions. It would concentrate the mind wonderfully, both of those standing for office as well as those going into the polling booths, and you never know, it may encourage more people to get involved in politics to help fill the perceived void.
So if turnout is low on Thursday, we shouldn't blame the voters who have failed to turn out, but the politicians who have failed to deliver.
Turnout is a big issue amongst the anoraks on polling day. In 2007 it was around 53% across Scotland and is anticipated to be anywhere between 25% and 45% on Thursday, depending on whom you listen to, but with postal voters in the ascendancy the figure on the day in any one polling station may tell you little.
I have an issue with people who assert that a high turnout is good for democracy. It's not the figure which is important, but the reason why it is high or low. Turnout, after all, is just a barometer on people's willingness to participate in the democratic process. If we made voting compulsory, as some advocate, this would not in itself instil more confidence in our politicians, but would merely mask people's discontent. When the local and Holyrood elections were held on the same day, the resulting increased turnout at the local election was not a vote of confidence in local politicians - it just meant some people voted in the local elections because they were going to the polling station anyway.
When attendance at a football match is low, it's not the fans who are blamed for apathy, but the teams for offering little prospect of entertainment. When a film flops at the cinema, it's not because people can't be bothered venturing out in the rain. If you run a market stall and no-one buys anything, perhaps it's because you're what offering is not what people want, and so it is with politics.
If we want people to come back to our political market stalls, we need to offer the punters what they want, and more critically, provide an after-sales service which encourages them to come back again next time.
There are two types of non-voter; those who really are apathetic about the whole political process and those who would vote if there was someone standing they perceived as worth voting for. To distinguish between these, I would advocate an extra option on every ballot form - the often suggested 'none of the above'. If this non-candidate is elected, the seat remains vacant - and allows people to see what it's like not to have someone to represent them (maybe the difference wouldn't be noticeable in some cases). If a sufficient number of such vacancies are returned on a council, a full rerun of the election would be triggered. Only in this case would I support compulsory voting.
I believe that people get the politicians they deserve. If they vote for numpties, then don't be surprised if numpties get in. If politicians promise the earth and fail to deliver, who is to blame if they are then re-elected? People often tell me they are voting for X to keep out Y; that is not a positive choice and voting for 'none of the above' would work equally well as well as being a more transparent representation of voter intentions. It would concentrate the mind wonderfully, both of those standing for office as well as those going into the polling booths, and you never know, it may encourage more people to get involved in politics to help fill the perceived void.
So if turnout is low on Thursday, we shouldn't blame the voters who have failed to turn out, but the politicians who have failed to deliver.
Thursday, 26 April 2012
Number crunching
A week to go and into the last lap. I had planned a stall in Bonnyrigg for market day, but even my enthusiasm for politics wanes a little when it's belting rain and blowing a gale. However, I did go out and deliver the last 300 cards through letterboxes and noted in passing that none of my opponents had ventured out to the market either, so a no-score draw there.
I've now finished canvassing - having covered just under half the ward in five weeks. Last night was my first "Sorry son, I've goat a postal and ah've already voted", a sure sign of diminishing returns for effort this late in the game. However, week of poll cards have now arrived and are ready to go out to targeted addresses in the last few days before polling.
The SNP have now realised that this is a STV poll and their second leaflet rectifies the problems of the first, even to suggesting a first preference split between their candidates depending on which polling station you go to. Thanks, but I'll not be taking your advice. They've also cottoned on to Labour's spurious claiming of the credit for the new Lasswade High School - the Labour leaflet incidentally using Midlothian copyrighted photos of the school without permission, to add insult to injury.
It's still difficult to say how this ward will go. Last time, Labour polled four and a half times my first preference votes, and the SNP nearly three times, so it's a big gap I need to make up. Assuming I get the 100 or so transfers I got last time from the Socialists (who aren't standing), the ratios are still 3.9 and 2.5 respectively.
However, turnout will no doubt play a big hand in the result. In 2007 the turnout in the Bonnyrigg ward was 56.38%. The most people seem to be predicting this time is 45%, as the Holyrood election is not taking place the same day. That would represent a drop of a fifth in the number of those going to the polls.
However, a drop in turnout will undoubtedly affect Labour more than the Nats, given the way the Labour administration has run the council and the disaffection their councillors here seem to have attracted.
Assuming the drop in turnout affects Labour and SNP equally, but without affecting my vote (which is much more likely to hold up), the ratios would then fall to 3.1 and 2.0 respectively, which is looking much more promising, but with a bias in lower turnout towards affecting Labour more, I would imagine a more realistic ratio of 2.5 for each. Given each will get at least one councillor elected in this three member ward, they will need at least double my vote to take that third spot.
That makes transfers all the more important, and anyone I've spoken to on the doorsteps who have said they are voting for someone else, seemed willing to give me a second or third preference. Add to the mix some of the Labour vote going to Jackie Aitchison, and the election seems wide open. My guess is I need 1,000 first preferences to win, from the 'notional' 750 last time (including Socialist transfers). With our much stronger campaign this time, and my much higher profile in the community, I'd say that is very much achievable. A week tomorrow we will know, and I'll be watching the weather forecast for Thursday very carefully.
I've now finished canvassing - having covered just under half the ward in five weeks. Last night was my first "Sorry son, I've goat a postal and ah've already voted", a sure sign of diminishing returns for effort this late in the game. However, week of poll cards have now arrived and are ready to go out to targeted addresses in the last few days before polling.
The SNP have now realised that this is a STV poll and their second leaflet rectifies the problems of the first, even to suggesting a first preference split between their candidates depending on which polling station you go to. Thanks, but I'll not be taking your advice. They've also cottoned on to Labour's spurious claiming of the credit for the new Lasswade High School - the Labour leaflet incidentally using Midlothian copyrighted photos of the school without permission, to add insult to injury.
It's still difficult to say how this ward will go. Last time, Labour polled four and a half times my first preference votes, and the SNP nearly three times, so it's a big gap I need to make up. Assuming I get the 100 or so transfers I got last time from the Socialists (who aren't standing), the ratios are still 3.9 and 2.5 respectively.
However, turnout will no doubt play a big hand in the result. In 2007 the turnout in the Bonnyrigg ward was 56.38%. The most people seem to be predicting this time is 45%, as the Holyrood election is not taking place the same day. That would represent a drop of a fifth in the number of those going to the polls.
However, a drop in turnout will undoubtedly affect Labour more than the Nats, given the way the Labour administration has run the council and the disaffection their councillors here seem to have attracted.
Assuming the drop in turnout affects Labour and SNP equally, but without affecting my vote (which is much more likely to hold up), the ratios would then fall to 3.1 and 2.0 respectively, which is looking much more promising, but with a bias in lower turnout towards affecting Labour more, I would imagine a more realistic ratio of 2.5 for each. Given each will get at least one councillor elected in this three member ward, they will need at least double my vote to take that third spot.
That makes transfers all the more important, and anyone I've spoken to on the doorsteps who have said they are voting for someone else, seemed willing to give me a second or third preference. Add to the mix some of the Labour vote going to Jackie Aitchison, and the election seems wide open. My guess is I need 1,000 first preferences to win, from the 'notional' 750 last time (including Socialist transfers). With our much stronger campaign this time, and my much higher profile in the community, I'd say that is very much achievable. A week tomorrow we will know, and I'll be watching the weather forecast for Thursday very carefully.
Saturday, 14 April 2012
Canvassing update
With less than three weeks to go to polling, I've now been canvassing for three weeks. Response on the doorsteps has been magnificent, though I'm still in my 'core' areas. That will change next week when I move into opposition territory. However, even in those areas I've already been doorknocking with questionnaires a year ago and the reception then was surprisingly good.
Labour are canvassing like there's no tomorrow (maybe there isn't for them) - certainly a lot more than in past years, so it looks like they recognise they are in real danger of losing a seat here. However, the impression I get from people they've canvassed is that with two councillors, it's a bit late to start talking to their constituents now. I'm also getting a lot of non too complimentary comments about Derek Milligan on the doorsteps. I do wonder if the tide is turning on him.
The SNP campaign is a dog's breakfast. Leaflets appeared late - and instruct people to vote for their candidates with two 'X's. Even discounting this, they haven't directed people to split their first preference votes between the two candidates, which will result in Bob Constable getting nearly all of them and Thomas Munro going out early on in the count.
Anyway, I must get on. More doors to knock on ...
Labour are canvassing like there's no tomorrow (maybe there isn't for them) - certainly a lot more than in past years, so it looks like they recognise they are in real danger of losing a seat here. However, the impression I get from people they've canvassed is that with two councillors, it's a bit late to start talking to their constituents now. I'm also getting a lot of non too complimentary comments about Derek Milligan on the doorsteps. I do wonder if the tide is turning on him.
 |
| SNP leaflet advising people to spoil their vote |
Anyway, I must get on. More doors to knock on ...
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
Missing the bus
On Monday, First Bus announced the closure of its Dalkeith depot, the withdrawal of nearly all of its services in Midlothian and the loss of up to 200 jobs.
There had been rumblings of service cutbacks in an earlier statement but I don't think anyone locally was expecting anything on this scale. The job losses are a particularly hard blow in the current economic climate, but I'm sure many more people face the risk of not being able to get to their work and have no alternative except perhaps to take two or more journeys via Cameron Toll or the city centre using a Lothian bus service - if indeed their community will now be served at all.
And this is why the cuts will hit so hard. Faced with unbeatable competition on routes run by publicly owned Lothian, First has retreated to cross county routes and those which connect communities not served directly by buses going to and from the city - the 141/142 being the main route, but others such as the 92A which currently provides the only direct link between Bonnyrigg and Gorebridge.
I have a certain sympathy for First's predicament - public transport has been a low on the SNP Scottish Government's priority list and bus operators like First will not run services at a loss over a prolonged period. However, First is not entirely blameless.
In 2008 I travelled to Falkirk to meet with Paul Thomas, Managing Director of First Scotland East. This followed critical comments I had made in the local press about First's apparent lack of a strategy in Midlothian. Our meeting was cordial, but I put across a number of points which although accepted at the time, were sadly not taken on board (if you forgive the pun).
Firstly, I said that passengers need to know that a service they intend to take when applying for a job will still be around in a few months' or years' time. Apart from the 141, First has continually re-routed, removed and introduced services - initially in a predatory manner designed to take passengers from Lothian routes. The ill-fated X77 ran in competition to Lothian's 31 for a while - but who wanted to take a decrepit, cold, dimly lit boneshaker when a 31 would be due along shortly? And that was another thing - running the X77 (and others) two minutes ahead of the Lothian service was, to say the least, cynical.
Another issue was frequency. At the time, the only direct link from where I live to Dalkeith or Straiton was the hourly 141. I could time my journey to leave, but if I missed the return there was an hour wait, and with First's refusal to join the Bus Tracker system, how do I know if I've missed it or it's running ten minutes late (in 2008 he said First were negotiating to join Bus Tracker).
If a bus runs every 15 minutes or less, then people will risk taking the journey. Any more and they may prefer, as I did, to travel to Dalkeith or Straiton via Cameron Toll on Lothian.
Fares are another issue. I understand that bus operations need to be financially viable. For a while, First undercut Lothian's fares on on X77 and 86A but not on those where there was no competition. Given the stark contrast in fares in places like East Lothian and Aberdeenshire, where First has a monopoly, what would have happened to those fares should Lothian have removed the 31 or 3? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that one.
Some local communities are already organising to try to reverse the decision. Personally I think it's a waste of time. My experience of speaking with the bus companies, and I've also met Lothian's Operations Manager Bill Campbell a number of times, is to suggest viable routes and extensions to existing routes, then to publicise any new ones or changes in the community, as I have done through our community council's newsletter.
Of course it would help if the Scottish Government showed a bit of vision and put resources into stimulating demand and investment - not just giving money to bus companies, but giving local councils resources to build more bus shelters, bus lanes and install tracker systems. However, with priorities like building new bridges and motorways, it will have little money left over for preparing for the time when either oil costs so much or congestion such a problem that people will be looking for alternatives.
You could even say the Scottish Government has missed the bus on this - we certainly will in six weeks' time.
There had been rumblings of service cutbacks in an earlier statement but I don't think anyone locally was expecting anything on this scale. The job losses are a particularly hard blow in the current economic climate, but I'm sure many more people face the risk of not being able to get to their work and have no alternative except perhaps to take two or more journeys via Cameron Toll or the city centre using a Lothian bus service - if indeed their community will now be served at all.
And this is why the cuts will hit so hard. Faced with unbeatable competition on routes run by publicly owned Lothian, First has retreated to cross county routes and those which connect communities not served directly by buses going to and from the city - the 141/142 being the main route, but others such as the 92A which currently provides the only direct link between Bonnyrigg and Gorebridge.
I have a certain sympathy for First's predicament - public transport has been a low on the SNP Scottish Government's priority list and bus operators like First will not run services at a loss over a prolonged period. However, First is not entirely blameless.
In 2008 I travelled to Falkirk to meet with Paul Thomas, Managing Director of First Scotland East. This followed critical comments I had made in the local press about First's apparent lack of a strategy in Midlothian. Our meeting was cordial, but I put across a number of points which although accepted at the time, were sadly not taken on board (if you forgive the pun).
Firstly, I said that passengers need to know that a service they intend to take when applying for a job will still be around in a few months' or years' time. Apart from the 141, First has continually re-routed, removed and introduced services - initially in a predatory manner designed to take passengers from Lothian routes. The ill-fated X77 ran in competition to Lothian's 31 for a while - but who wanted to take a decrepit, cold, dimly lit boneshaker when a 31 would be due along shortly? And that was another thing - running the X77 (and others) two minutes ahead of the Lothian service was, to say the least, cynical.
Another issue was frequency. At the time, the only direct link from where I live to Dalkeith or Straiton was the hourly 141. I could time my journey to leave, but if I missed the return there was an hour wait, and with First's refusal to join the Bus Tracker system, how do I know if I've missed it or it's running ten minutes late (in 2008 he said First were negotiating to join Bus Tracker).
If a bus runs every 15 minutes or less, then people will risk taking the journey. Any more and they may prefer, as I did, to travel to Dalkeith or Straiton via Cameron Toll on Lothian.
Fares are another issue. I understand that bus operations need to be financially viable. For a while, First undercut Lothian's fares on on X77 and 86A but not on those where there was no competition. Given the stark contrast in fares in places like East Lothian and Aberdeenshire, where First has a monopoly, what would have happened to those fares should Lothian have removed the 31 or 3? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that one.
Some local communities are already organising to try to reverse the decision. Personally I think it's a waste of time. My experience of speaking with the bus companies, and I've also met Lothian's Operations Manager Bill Campbell a number of times, is to suggest viable routes and extensions to existing routes, then to publicise any new ones or changes in the community, as I have done through our community council's newsletter.
Of course it would help if the Scottish Government showed a bit of vision and put resources into stimulating demand and investment - not just giving money to bus companies, but giving local councils resources to build more bus shelters, bus lanes and install tracker systems. However, with priorities like building new bridges and motorways, it will have little money left over for preparing for the time when either oil costs so much or congestion such a problem that people will be looking for alternatives.
You could even say the Scottish Government has missed the bus on this - we certainly will in six weeks' time.
Friday, 30 March 2012
Bonnyrigg candidates announced
Nominations have now closed and for those with an ear to the ground, the ballot form for the Bonnyrigg ward will hold no surprises. Once again the Lib Dems are not standing and this time none of the socialists or anti-cuts candidates are present.
Jackie Aitchison, as expected, has resigned from the Labour Party to stand as an independent. This is no surprise, given how he has been treated, and it will be interesting to see how much his personal vote holds up. More interesting will be what he says and does during the campaign, and should he fail to be re-elected, where his lower preferences go. His resignation also means that Labour goes into the election without holding an overall majority on the council.
For the SNP, sitting councillor Bob Constable, being above his little known running mate Thomas Munro on the ballot form, I would expect Bob to be re-elected early on in the count. In 2007, Bob received 400 surplus votes and was comfortably elected on the first round of counting. That won't happen this time and Munro will naturally pick up most of Bob's eventual surplus if he can avoid an early exit.
The Conservative candidate Emma Cummings is from Gorebridge and completely unknown in the ward. I am surprised local Tory stalwarts Marnie and Bill Crawford are not standing this time, or at least finding someone a bit more local to fly the flag. However, given a complete lack of activity from the Tories here over the last five years, they must know they have two chances of success - fat and slim - and perhaps it's a case of giving future hopefuls a bit of electioneering experience. Who knows?
The Labour ticket, however, is much more interesting. Sitting councillor and council leader Derek Milligan must fancy his chances now he's above his running mate on the ballot form (I could say more, but space doesn't allow...). Louie Milliken is very much a newcomer and, surprisingly for Labour in what used to be a stronghold for the party, has had little involvement as far as I'm aware, in the community.
Labour looks likely to lose one of its two seats in Bonnyrigg this time. Derek Milligan is the marmite of Bonnyrigg politics - you either love him or hate him, and his name has certainly cropped up a few times on the doorsteps, without my prompting, I should add! The spread of first preferences between these two candidates will be interesting to say the least; however, I do expect alphabetical order to play the biggest hand and Derek will get back in.
So my guess is Bob Constable will be elected early on, followed by Derek Milligan. Without Labour backing, I can't see Jackie surviving. Which means the final place will be between myself, Thomas Munro and Louie Milliken. In local elections, visibility and community activity over a period of time count for much more and personality over party label also plays a part. Turnout will be lower, which will probably hit the Labour vote more than most, and these elections - being separated from the Holyrood vote which took place on the same day last time - will not be clouded by national issues.
On that basis, therefore, I have grounds for a good deal of optimism. However, there's all to play for and I'll be taking nothing for granted over the next few weeks.
Jackie Aitchison, as expected, has resigned from the Labour Party to stand as an independent. This is no surprise, given how he has been treated, and it will be interesting to see how much his personal vote holds up. More interesting will be what he says and does during the campaign, and should he fail to be re-elected, where his lower preferences go. His resignation also means that Labour goes into the election without holding an overall majority on the council.
For the SNP, sitting councillor Bob Constable, being above his little known running mate Thomas Munro on the ballot form, I would expect Bob to be re-elected early on in the count. In 2007, Bob received 400 surplus votes and was comfortably elected on the first round of counting. That won't happen this time and Munro will naturally pick up most of Bob's eventual surplus if he can avoid an early exit.
The Conservative candidate Emma Cummings is from Gorebridge and completely unknown in the ward. I am surprised local Tory stalwarts Marnie and Bill Crawford are not standing this time, or at least finding someone a bit more local to fly the flag. However, given a complete lack of activity from the Tories here over the last five years, they must know they have two chances of success - fat and slim - and perhaps it's a case of giving future hopefuls a bit of electioneering experience. Who knows?
The Labour ticket, however, is much more interesting. Sitting councillor and council leader Derek Milligan must fancy his chances now he's above his running mate on the ballot form (I could say more, but space doesn't allow...). Louie Milliken is very much a newcomer and, surprisingly for Labour in what used to be a stronghold for the party, has had little involvement as far as I'm aware, in the community.
Labour looks likely to lose one of its two seats in Bonnyrigg this time. Derek Milligan is the marmite of Bonnyrigg politics - you either love him or hate him, and his name has certainly cropped up a few times on the doorsteps, without my prompting, I should add! The spread of first preferences between these two candidates will be interesting to say the least; however, I do expect alphabetical order to play the biggest hand and Derek will get back in.
So my guess is Bob Constable will be elected early on, followed by Derek Milligan. Without Labour backing, I can't see Jackie surviving. Which means the final place will be between myself, Thomas Munro and Louie Milliken. In local elections, visibility and community activity over a period of time count for much more and personality over party label also plays a part. Turnout will be lower, which will probably hit the Labour vote more than most, and these elections - being separated from the Holyrood vote which took place on the same day last time - will not be clouded by national issues.
On that basis, therefore, I have grounds for a good deal of optimism. However, there's all to play for and I'll be taking nothing for granted over the next few weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)