If the Labour Group on Midlothian Council is intent on seeking my support to get back into power, it is most certainly going the wrong way about it.
Today's full council meeting appointed the replacement Council Leader and Depute, following the resignations of Lisa Beattie and Jim Bryant from those positions respectively.
I had signalled my intention in advance to vote for the replacements nominated by the SNP Group, as my earlier agreement with them is still in force, and despite a few misgivings about how things have been handled, I see no reason to change it just now.
I cannot say I yet have total confidence in the SNP-led administration, but what I do know is that if today's performance by Labour is anything to go by, they'll need to change their game plan if they have any hope of me changing sides.
Labour Group Leader Derek Milligan started by referring to the SNP/Independent/Green coalition. Thankfully this was corrected by the Provost, but why do such a thing if not to provoke a reaction and risk alienating me still further? In a fit of what seemed entirely false indignation, and supported in turn by other Labour councillors, he then claimed the Labour Group knew nothing of the Depute Leader's resignation and demanded an hour's adjournment to consider his group's nominations.
Firstly, even a three hour adjournment wouldn't change the fact the numbers didn't stack up in their favour - except of course they probably knew Peter de Vink had to leave shortly and were maybe hoping one of the SNP councillors would somehow expire during the course of the meeting.
Secondly, why did they need an hour to discuss their nominations when they had presumably thought through their options when they first proposed them on 22nd May? Had they lost confidence in their own nominees in the meantime?
More succinctly, it was pointed out by Owen Thompson that the procedural niceties that the Labour Group were insisting must be carried out to the letter were largely ignored by their own administration when in office. Insisting that Council needed more time to consider nominations to Cabinet is one thing, but then when the Coalition responded by agreeing to defer a decision until the next Council meeting, they then complained that the Cabinet would as a result be operating in a vacuum (mainly during recess). A better example of sheer bloody-mindedness would be hard to find.
Other than where my agreement with the SNP Group is in force, I remain neutral and will vote on an issue by issue basis. Labour accuses me of continually siding with the Nats whilst never giving me a good reason to do otherwise. Two months ago I told them that if there is an issue coming up on which they want my support, they should approach me beforehand and discuss it. I'm still waiting for the first knock at the door.
Tuesday, 3 July 2012
Thursday, 28 June 2012
Leading from the front
What makes a good political leader? This question came to mind when I heard about the impending, then confirmed, resignation this week of Midlothian Council leader Lisa Beattie.
Whether at Council or Parliamentary level, a political group wants - needs - its leader to be assertive, confident and demanding. Indeed, without such qualities, the right questions will not be asked and effective scrutiny may be lacking. However, within a political group, a completely different skillset is required, necessary to hold together and balance the differing views contained within it.
This is a difficult balancing act to maintain and has been the downfall of many a politician and there are precious few who can pull it off successfully. Lisa is an experienced, very hard working and effective councillor, but if media reports and rumours are to believed, it would appear that it was an inability to fully connect internally which is her Achilles' heel.
There is no doubt that the SNP-Independent coalition is light on experience - only 3 of the 9 councillors were in office before May 3rd. I fully expected two of them, Owen Thompson and Bob Constable, to be in the forefront of the administration. I expected Owen at the very least to be Depute Leader of the council, given his past role as SNP Group leader. When that didn't happen, the alarm bells rang for me. The Labour group on the other hand has bags of experience and without the right people in place who know where the ambushes are going to take place, the SNP were on a hiding to nothing. And at this week's Council meeting it showed.
Full credit to the Labour Group - they saw the weaknesses and exploited them. Their criticism of how the resignation announcement was (or wasn't) made was spot on, and highlighting the lack of transparency evident to date was entirely justified. I do, however, feel their indignation excessive - the coalition has admitted it could have done some things better, but there still seems no sign from Labour that it's willing to sit round a table and discuss things rather than simply voting en bloc against everything.
The coalition needs to get its act together and learn quickly from its mistakes. Whilst it has indicated a willingness to reach consensus in a number of areas, in others it has not - particularly a move to a 6-week meeting cycle without proper consultation across the whole council. Consultation will be even more important if the administration is not at ease with itself. It only takes one by-election and everything is up for grabs.
Whether at Council or Parliamentary level, a political group wants - needs - its leader to be assertive, confident and demanding. Indeed, without such qualities, the right questions will not be asked and effective scrutiny may be lacking. However, within a political group, a completely different skillset is required, necessary to hold together and balance the differing views contained within it.
This is a difficult balancing act to maintain and has been the downfall of many a politician and there are precious few who can pull it off successfully. Lisa is an experienced, very hard working and effective councillor, but if media reports and rumours are to believed, it would appear that it was an inability to fully connect internally which is her Achilles' heel.
There is no doubt that the SNP-Independent coalition is light on experience - only 3 of the 9 councillors were in office before May 3rd. I fully expected two of them, Owen Thompson and Bob Constable, to be in the forefront of the administration. I expected Owen at the very least to be Depute Leader of the council, given his past role as SNP Group leader. When that didn't happen, the alarm bells rang for me. The Labour group on the other hand has bags of experience and without the right people in place who know where the ambushes are going to take place, the SNP were on a hiding to nothing. And at this week's Council meeting it showed.
Full credit to the Labour Group - they saw the weaknesses and exploited them. Their criticism of how the resignation announcement was (or wasn't) made was spot on, and highlighting the lack of transparency evident to date was entirely justified. I do, however, feel their indignation excessive - the coalition has admitted it could have done some things better, but there still seems no sign from Labour that it's willing to sit round a table and discuss things rather than simply voting en bloc against everything.
The coalition needs to get its act together and learn quickly from its mistakes. Whilst it has indicated a willingness to reach consensus in a number of areas, in others it has not - particularly a move to a 6-week meeting cycle without proper consultation across the whole council. Consultation will be even more important if the administration is not at ease with itself. It only takes one by-election and everything is up for grabs.
Thursday, 31 May 2012
It's Time...for Green Nats to come home
It's now almost a week since the 'Declaration of Cineworld', the start of a 29 month march to independence or somewhere else. To be honest, I can't get too excited about it all.
They say that if you can keep your head when everyone about you is losing theirs, then you don't understand the gravity of the situation. Maybe in my case that's true, but the whole independence thing never has set the heather on fire for me.
To set the record straight, I am in favour of independence. It's just that when the planet is being trashed in the way it is, diverting all your energy into how our own little patch of it is run shows you have your priorities all wrong.
It's clearly stating the obvious to say that's not how SNP members see it. What perplexes me though is how Green Nationalists see it. I, and many fellow Greens, often come across SNP members who say they are really Green but we need an independent Scotland first, to facilitate a Green and fair society. Once we've got that, they say, we'll happily join you.
First off, I dispute this premise. Post-independence, the same people will be living in Scotland and making most of the decisions. Perhaps we will still cut subsidies to public transport and be just as obsessed with road building in an independent Scotland as we are just now. Perhaps the Donald Trumps will still get their golf courses and trash SSSIs along the way. True, we could get rid of Trident and pursue a wholly non-nuclear future, but exporting our oil instead of burning it looks more to me like sleight of hand than the hallmark of a Green economy.
Moreover, if the Green Nats are true Greens, surely now is the time to come home. Arguably, their being in the SNP has helped to build up that party to its current position of dominance, enabling it to force through a referendum. But what now? If they join the Greens at this point, they can still campaign for a Yes vote as we are doing. If independence is achieved, they say they intend to join us anyway; if the vote is for the status quo, it could be a generation before their objective is achieved. What state the planet by then?
I'll probably get round to signing the Declaration of Cineworld sometime over the next two years. I may even find the time to share a platform with the Nats to explain to people why I think Scotland should be independent. But my arguments will not focus on some hazy Green Utopia vision of the future, because a Green future for Scotland is something we can and should be fighting for right now, and should not be dependent on what's printed on the front of my passport.
They say that if you can keep your head when everyone about you is losing theirs, then you don't understand the gravity of the situation. Maybe in my case that's true, but the whole independence thing never has set the heather on fire for me.
To set the record straight, I am in favour of independence. It's just that when the planet is being trashed in the way it is, diverting all your energy into how our own little patch of it is run shows you have your priorities all wrong.
It's clearly stating the obvious to say that's not how SNP members see it. What perplexes me though is how Green Nationalists see it. I, and many fellow Greens, often come across SNP members who say they are really Green but we need an independent Scotland first, to facilitate a Green and fair society. Once we've got that, they say, we'll happily join you.
First off, I dispute this premise. Post-independence, the same people will be living in Scotland and making most of the decisions. Perhaps we will still cut subsidies to public transport and be just as obsessed with road building in an independent Scotland as we are just now. Perhaps the Donald Trumps will still get their golf courses and trash SSSIs along the way. True, we could get rid of Trident and pursue a wholly non-nuclear future, but exporting our oil instead of burning it looks more to me like sleight of hand than the hallmark of a Green economy.
Moreover, if the Green Nats are true Greens, surely now is the time to come home. Arguably, their being in the SNP has helped to build up that party to its current position of dominance, enabling it to force through a referendum. But what now? If they join the Greens at this point, they can still campaign for a Yes vote as we are doing. If independence is achieved, they say they intend to join us anyway; if the vote is for the status quo, it could be a generation before their objective is achieved. What state the planet by then?
I'll probably get round to signing the Declaration of Cineworld sometime over the next two years. I may even find the time to share a platform with the Nats to explain to people why I think Scotland should be independent. But my arguments will not focus on some hazy Green Utopia vision of the future, because a Green future for Scotland is something we can and should be fighting for right now, and should not be dependent on what's printed on the front of my passport.
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
First council meeting
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)