Glasgow North-East Autopsy

Some rambling (and largely non-partisan) thoughts on the election outcome:

I’m not surprised by the overall result. The SNP would have needed a hell of a campaign to take Glasgow North-East and they were hobbled from the get-go by the minor scandals regarding both their first and second choice candidates.

It is true Labour heartland. It also has a widely documented history of ‘tribal Labour’ voting and Willie Bain is a local candidate and comes across as having his head screwed on well (the same things John Mason had going for him last year). It makes for a some fascinating sociology reading, in particular if you look at the whole of Glasgow – ‘tribal Labour’ voting occurs in all parts of Glasgow and at all levels, however I digress.

The degree of Labour’s majority is surprising. At a time when Labour are faced with a strong opposition in Westminster, quite a lot of media hatred and an SNP government in Holyrood, I would have expected a much smaller majority, reflecting dissatisfaction with the economy, employment, the war and so on. Instead, the dis-satisfied seem to have stayed at home.

This is fascinating. I am no expert at political prediction, but I think it’s clear that the SNP, Lib Dems and Tories will face very nasty odds in Glasgow in 2010. I suspect the SNP may well lose Glasgow East. On the other hand, it will be interesting to see if they make in-roads in the South-Side of Glasgow, building on Nicola Sturgeon’s win in Goven in 2007.

Regarding the BNP, there seems to be something funny going on here. In 2005, the BNP fielded 119 candidates in the Westminster election. They polled on average, 1,620 votes each. In Glasgow North-East specifically, the BNP achieved 920 votes. The result of 1,013 votes does represent a nearly 2% increase on that result. I may well be taking this too lightly in this case, but there does not appear to be sufficient data to indicate a trend in support of the BNP yet (this may change in 2010). I will say, however, that I don’t think we should under-estimate the potential of the BNP, but I’m not sure the amount of coverage the BNP is getting, dealing with the problem that the party poses is justified. It may be much better for the parties to work together to deal with the problems that cause people to look to the BNP – low employment, social deprivation and poor education.

I am still slightly surprised by the performance of the Socialists (SSP, Solidarity and Socialist Labour) and the celeb candidates. I was expecting Jon Smeaton to do better, thanks to putting Glasgow on the map as the only city in the world where a burning terrorist is likely to be headbutted and sat on. It’s disappointing that there is no sign of a real socialist alternative coalescing in Scotland again. The SSP and Solidarity are continuing to just split what few votes they get.

Finally, a very poor show for the Tories and the Lib Dems. However, Glasgow constituencies are generally a two-horse race between Labour and either the SNP or the Lib Dems. It’ll be interesting to see if the Scottish Lib Dems make in-roads in Glasgow in 2010 – they were ahead of the SNP in some constituencies in 2005 and could well build on that with a good campaign. Taking some Glasgow constituencies would also help replace the more northern constituencies which the SNP are slowly chiseling away from long-term Lib Dem control.

An interesting result in all, and I’ve not even touched half of the issues involved. I predict that the 2010 election may will make for some interesting viewing. I’m not sure that Big Eck will get his 20 seats, but I don’t think David Cameron will get his 8 seats either. I think the biggest loser in Scotland come 2010 will be the Lib Dems as the face competition from the SNP, the Tories and Labour. We’ll have to wait and see…