³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

It is, I suppose, PR at the public expense. Despite that, I cannot find it in me to take against the notion of a peripatetic Scottish Cabinet.

, the members of Alex Salmond's Cabinet are being paraded around Scotland, a little like a travelling political circus. Stand by Inverness, Pitlochry and Skye. You're next.

The ostensible reason for holding Cabinet meetings around the country is to ensure that the Ministers at the core of the Scottish Government continue to engage with territories and concerns beyond the central belt.

They could, of course, do this by visiting each other's constituencies or by conducting Ministerial visits. However, there is apparently much to be gained from a collective descent.

What will be the upshot? Presumably, such decisions as are taken at these meetings will resemble the conclusions reached in Edinburgh. That is because these verdicts are, one trusts, based upon sound, detailed evidence and consideration - not because the Ministers happen to be in Pitlochry.

Stop, Brian, stop. Desist. Disavow cynicism. This is a reasonable wheeze which might contribute somewhat to public engagement with governmental politics. It's hermless, as we say in the great and noble city of Dundee.

Plus the formal Cabinet meetings are being backed up by local endeavour, including contact with community and voluntary organisations.

This is a Good Thing, as defined by the seminal work on political history: 1066 and All That.

I can recall Michael Forsyth's Grand Committee Road Show when MPs were despatched to similar settings around the country. Dumfries, indeed, featured a visit by the Prime Minister John Major to the Scottish Grand Committee.
Mr, now Lord, Forsyth, was attempting to demonstrate that the Grand, suitably enhanced, could do pretty well everything that might be achieved by a devolved Parliament, sited in Scotland.

This was, of course, a bogus prospectus - neglecting the fact that the devolved Parliament derives a mandate solely from Scotland, rather than a reflection of the UK voting pattern.

No matter. While it lasted, the Grand on Tour was a great show. I remember with particular affection the quantity and vigour of the public demonstrations which accompanied each separate manifestation.

We have, incidentally, lost something in that regard since Holyrood moved to, well, Holyrood.

The Mound was the spot for demos since MSPs had to travel on foot from their offices at the other side of the Royal Mile, braving tourists, pipers, citizens and, occasionally, horses.

But back to peripatetic politics. All the best to the Cabinet on their tour. Hope they have fine weather. Hope that they, singly, contrive to get some time off to rest the intellect - unlike last summer when they were lashed to the mast throughout by Captain Salmond.

The FM will undoubtedly seek to compare this present exercise with the only occasion to date when the UK Cabinet met outside London.

That was on 7 September 1921, in Inverness, when David Lloyd George called an emergency meeting to discuss the Irish crisis. The PM had been holidaying in the Highlands. For the avoidance of doubt, I didn't cover that political gig.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

There is a fundamental contradiction at the core of . (See blogs and umpteen previous comments.)

That contradiction does not lie within the party's attitude towards a potential independence referendum - although that is a key question.

In essence, will defer a decision on that until a Bill is tabled in 2010.

No more "bring it on". Rather "put it off". Doesn't mean it won't be a tough call in 2010.

But does mean Labour won't decide now.

Rather, the immediate conundrum lies in the status and nature of the job itself.

The conundrum is this. Strictly, the job vacated by Wendy Alexander is that of "Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament."

Holyrood spotlight

It is a parliamentary post, not one carrying wider weight within the movement or the party apparatus.

This is particularly insisted upon by Labour MPs who dislike Holyrood's place in the spotlight.

However, if such is the case - and it is - then why is the voting franchise for the coming contest extended beyond Holyrood? To be blunt, why should Labour MPs be enabled to vote for a leader to whom they owe no allegiance?

If the post is "Scottish Labour Leader", in full, then it is perfectly valid, indeed essential, that all wings of the party, including MPs, union and constituency members, should have a say.

If the post is constrained, in effect, to leading the group at Holyrood, then is that not a decision for MSPs to take?

Sound technical? It's not, it's fundamental. The wider question is this: is there truly a Scottish Labour Party to lead? Or simply a branch organisation for the wider Labour Party?

Historically, the set-up north of the Border was the Labour Party (Scottish Council.) There was minimal devolution of policy or administrative power. The leader was the UK party leader. The governing body was the NEC in London.

Least devolved

When Jack McConnell was appointed general secretary of the party in Scotland, he and fellow contenders had to travel to Preston to accommodate UK union leaders who were attending a conference in nearby Blackpool.

Labour legislated for Scottish devolution but remains the least devolved of the UK parties. By definition, that leaves it trailing behind the Scottish National Party in terms of projecting a Scottish dimension in politics.

There are good reasons for this. A party with Socialist roots was perhaps intrinsically suspicious of nationalist or quasi-nationalist politics.

Labour was seemingly dominant in Scotland and was mistrustful of internal change. The temptation of inertia was strong.

Those reasons persist. However, the party has a choice. There always was, to some extent, a Scottish body politic: that is, a broad civic debate in which the interests of Scotland are to the fore and those parties thrive which adhere to those perceived Scottish interests.

That factor is now amplified several times over - not least since the arrival of the SNP in devolved government.

To varying degrees, Donald Dewar, Henry McLeish and Jack McConnell had to glance over their shoulder, had to accommodate London and wider UK party interests.

UK force

Alex Salmond, palpably and gleefully, does not.

There will be those in London who will argue, forcefully, that the party must remain a UK force, that it should not give ground to nationalism. There was and is a case for accommodating that perspective.

But, in current and foreseeable circumstances in Scotland, that perspective foreshadows continuing defeat north of the Border.

Jack McConnell knew that - and sought change, while struggling within the shackles of the compromises involved. Wendy Alexander knew that - and pursued a course which involved greater autonomy for the party in Scotland and its elected leader.

The main contenders in the forthcoming contest know it too.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So what have our political leaders been saying about the events in Glasgow East? Cataclysm? Or small earthquake in Shettleston, not many voted?

Neither, thankfully. The odd indulgence aside, the SNP has, mostly, disavowed bombast - and focused on demanding policy changes on the issues that concerned the voters in the by-election: food, fuel, the economy.

Labour has sensibly rejected any suggestion that this is a minor matter - while, of course, asserting that the constituency will return their way at a General Election.

However, far from resigning, Gordon Brown said he was going to carry on working in the public interest.

Business, as he wisely didn't quite say, as usual.

Why wisely? Because business as recently usual got Labour into this mess - and won't get them out.

David Cameron called for a General Election (see previous blog.) And the Tories and LibDems traded insults over who had trailed the other two most successfully - and why.

According to the Tories, the secondary message from Glasgow East was that the LibDems were bust.

Absolutely. I can just picture voters going to the polls in Parkhead and saying, grimly, through gritted teeth: "Am I ever going to stick it to those smug LibDem ...........?"

According to the LibDems, this was an awful result for the Tories. OK, so they took third place. Big deal. Where's your Cameron bounce?

Children, enough. This result says very little about either of your parties - except that the Tories contrived to resist a squeeze better than the Libs in line with recent polls. Cease squabbling over the scraps.

Oh, and trade union leader Paul Kenny said there should now be a Labour leadership contest. Not necessarily to kick GB out, you understand. No, no. It would help deliver a strong verdict either way. Aye - as they say in Shettleston - right.

PS: Labour's Scottish leadership contest, delayed because of the by-election, will now get under way. Margaret Curran, anyone? Or might she be charged with regaining Glasgow East at the UK General Election, given that her Holyrood seat faces possible amalgamation?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Will there be a UK General Election off the back of the Glasgow East "earthquake"? No. Next question?

If felt unable to go to the country last autumn, he will scarcely be more encouraged as a consequence of defeat in Labour's hitherto third safest seat in Scotland.

It is, however, entertaining to ponder the prospect, posed by David Cameron, the Tory leader.

It is amusing, further, to note that Mr Cameron didn't, to my recollection, issue such an immediate challenge after his own party won in Crewe.

Then, he said that New Labour was over - but that the Tories still had to build support to prove they were worthy of replacing the UK government.

Why the difference? Two reasons. Firstly, the "me too" factor. Mr Cameron wants in on the show, presently dominated, entirely understandably, by the victorious SNP.

As Leader of the Opposition at Westminster, demanding an election is his instant news hit. Secondly, Mr Cameron knows that the PM is damaged yet further by this calamitous defeat - and wants to add to his grief by highlighting that plight.

Remember, though, that the Tories didn't do particularly well in Glasgow East. Yes, they took third place instead of fourth. But that was because the plateau of Liberal Democrat support in 2005 collapsed. The Tories still lost ground slightly in terms of voting share in this by-election.

Can we, however, draw lessons from this result for the general election? Extrapolating the swing, we find that Labour would be left with but a single seat at Westminster from Scotland.

I expect that Tom Clarke would perform personfully in that solitary role, Labour's answer to David Mundell.

Of course, this is nonsense. By-election swings are just that - they do not read through fully to general contests.

To be fair, the SNP are making no such claim - while, reasonably, delighting in a little mild sport at Labour's expense.

However, add Glasgow East to Crewe and to Henley, where Labour came fifth, and you produce a potent stew. Folk are plainly deeply discontented with the UK Labour government - and have deftly discerned the various ways to express that.
Is that solely down to Gordon Brown? No. It is a factor of the political cycle - they've been in power for more than a decade.

It is a factor of the news cycle - voters are collectively bored with them, just as they were with John Major's Tories.

It is a factor, above all, of economic difficulties. Folk are upset and looking for someone to kick.

Would changing the leader have made any difference? Don't think so. Do you seriously imagine that, in Shettleston, they were saying: "I won't vote for Gordon Brown. If only David Miliband were in charge.....where's that James Purnell....."

There is, however, an aspect where the leadership matters - and matters hugely.

If Gordon Brown isn't, solely, the problem, is he perhaps the solution? Does he have the answers, the qualities that matters to reverse this decline for his party?

If the party concludes that he does not, then there may be substantial pressure for him to step aside.

In which case, Britain would have the third Prime Minister from a single party within a single Westminster term. Which would not be credible. Which would mean a general election. Which Labour would not want. Which is why, further, it may well not happen, however grumpy individual Labour MPs may be.

Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, this blog should be read alongside my overnight contributions - which majored upon the SNP. More to come later.

PS: One or two of you may have been wondering why I wasn't on telly overnight, confining my musings to this blog and the wireless.

Snag is I sustained a few bumps and bruises from a minor accident towards the end of my holiday.

I stumbled on a stair and came into conflict with a tiled marble floor, losing narrowly after a recount.

Nothing too drastic. A slight fracture to the radius on my right arm (don't we all become medical experts with only the slightest provocation.) Plus a black eye, with five stitches above it.

Hand me that parrot and I could star in Treasure Island. But, for now at least, I am perhaps less than televisual. (What do you mean - so what else is new? Take that person's name.)

Actually, I have form in this regard. Prior to a previous General Election (think it was '97), I sustained a cut on the right side of my bonce following a clash on the football field with my late, great amigo Kenny Macintyre. (Yes, chums, I used to play football.)

I spent most of the campaign squinting sideways, but meaningfully, at the camera.
This time, I thought it best to spare the viewers. On Monday, I resembled the creature from the Black Lagoon.

As of today, the mood is Peter Lorre after an especially testing session with the gendarmerie.

For a few days at least, catch me on the wireless - and, of course, here Online.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Many congratulations to John Mason, in Her Majesty's House of Commons, not currently assembled.

Mr Mason, in case it had escaped your notice, belongs to the SNP and is a forceful advocate of independence.

Consequences? Conclusions? For the SNP, a stunning victory: up there with Hamilton and the two Govans.

Remember too that those earlier successes were recorded by charismatic, leading figures in the Nationalist movement.

That is not to decry Mr Mason's achievement. Quite the reverse. He faced a tough Labour opponent, a huge challenge - and he has won.

Helped, of course, by a powerful party machine which now frequently outguns Labour.

For Labour? An appalling result in a constituency they have held in various guises virtually since their party came into existence.

Tough fight

As I said earlier, I think they will blunder if they lump the blame solely on the PM. Yes, the folk in the east end may be less than impressed with Mr Brown - but they don't appear to think much of the rest of Labour either.

Will it, nevertheless, add to the pressure on Gordon Brown? Of course. Frankly, though, I don't expect him to stand down any time soon.

He already knew he faced a tough fight. It will, however, increase the trepidation around him.

Other thoughts. The Tories will be pleased to have moved into third place - although still at a lowly level.

Cameron factor? Don't think so. Not in the East End. Feisty candidate, perhaps. Plus folk seem to warm to Annabel Goldie.

For the Lib Dems, a poor night, slipping back into fourth place. Tells them what they knew: that they have to step up a gear.

Any message for independence? Not directly, I would suggest. People seemed more immediately concerned with food prices, fuel costs and the like: turning their anger on Labour.

Put off

However, at the very least, they were not deterred from voting SNP by Labour's reminders of the candidate's fundamental objectives.

Independence didn't seem to scare them as it might have done in the past. Doesn't mean they vote for it in a referendum - but might mean they aren't fundamentally opposed.

Further, they were not put off by a year or more of SNP government in Scotland. Quite the reverse. They are prepared to listen to - and vote for - an SNP offer.

That could be highly significant in the longer run, particularly if Labour continues to struggle.

For now, though, congratulations to the winner. And that is John Mason. Of the Scottish National Party.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The polls have closed. .

First and best info, of course, here on the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳.

First, a little background. Labour comes to this Scottish Westminster by-election - on the back of two catastrophic defeats in England.

They lost - with a 17% swing to the Tories.

And they came an .

But . Where they normally weigh the Labour vote.

In various guises, it's been Labour since 1922. Since the Labour movement started winning at all, they've won the east end of Glasgow.

Artificial result

To win tonight, the SNP needs to record a voting swing from Labour of just under 22%.

That's huge - but they've done it before. Winnie Ewing took Hamilton in 1967 with a swing of nearly 38%.

That's artificial, though. The SNP was starting from zero - because the party didn't fight the seat in 1966.

But in 1973, Margo Macdonald recorded a swing of nearly 27% to oust Labour.

Then in 1988, Jim Sillars - now Margo's husband - took Govan for the SNP with a massive swing from Labour of 33%.

Scotland, he declared, was on the march.

Those are the famous SNP victories from Labour. Repeat that level of performance tonight - and the SNP will win.

But. More commonly, the SNP has forecast victory - and even recorded a good showing - only to fall short in contests with Labour.

Big swings

In 1978, Donald Dewar held off a Nationalist challenge to win Glasgow Garscadden.

The same year, George Robertson entered the Commons by defeating the SNP in the iconic seat of Hamilton.

In 1989, a year after Jim Sillars' Govan triumph, Alex Neil registered a 15 point swing from Labour in Glasgow Central. But it wasn't enough to win.

There were two by-elections in Paisley in November 1990. Two strong SNP performances. Two seats held by Labour.

In 1994, Monklands East - perhaps the most bitterly fought by-election in Scotland. A swing to the SNP of nearly 20% - but Helen Liddell held the seat for Labour.

Paisley South, November 1997, decent swing to the SNP - but Douglas Alexander won for Labour.

1999 - and it's Hamilton again. Hamilton South. A swing of more than 22% to the Nationalists.

Labour holds

Not enough on the night - although it would do this evening for the SNP.

Glasgow Anniesland in 2000 after Donald Dewar died. Falkirk West in 2000. Livingston in 2005. All Westminster seats with a strong SNP challenge. All held by Labour.

So the question tonight for the SNP is not: Do you feel lucky? The question should be: Is this Govan or Garscadden? Hamilton '67 or Hamilton '99?

.

Read the rest of this entry

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I feel bereft. Here I am back from annual leave and the Glasgow East by-election is all but over.

Except of course for the small matter of the election itself. The opportunity for the people of the constituency to cast their vote.

Campaigning must be endlessly frustrating for politicians. On the streets and on the doorsteps, people display an exasperating desire to talk about their own concerns, the practical matters which afflict their lives.

By contrast, candidates would far rather talk about the issue which they regard as germane: that is, the fact that their opponent is the living embodiment of all evil.

On the scorching beaches of Crete, where I have been lounging, the Glasgow by-election was, of course, the permanent topic of discussion.

However, to fill in the few gaps which remained, I have trawled the internet: including catching up on televised debates.

Echo opinion

A few things occur. Just as in Dunfermline, it would appear that the physical state of the constituency is a relevant factor.

In the Fife contest, the candidates were only too keen to echo street opinion that the centre of Scotland's ancient capital was slumbering towards hideous decay.

By contrast, in Glasgow East, it has become fashionable to insist that the area has many good points and that those who would decry it are simply lackeys of the effete southern media.

Secondly, many of the issues which have been raised are, strictly speaking, not the provenance of this by-election. That is because this is a contest for a seat at Westminster, not Holyrood.

Whoever is elected, consequently, will not be dealing directly with devolved matters such as policing, crime, schooling and health.

The third factor helps explain why those issues have been so prominent, other than the tedium of basing a by-election purely upon reserved issues such as tax and benefits.

Practical result

That is because the people of Glasgow East are being invited to choose, at least in part, not just between candidates but between governments.

I suppose that is inevitable when the lead party, Labour, forms the UK Government and the closest chasing rival, the SNP, forms the Scottish Government.

To that extent, this is a referendum between Gordon Brown and Alex Salmond or, more precisely, that is how the outcome may be interpreted.

The purist in me would point out gently that the practical result of this contest will be no more than the return of a representative to Westminster.

However, politics is seldom pure and the Glasgow East verdict may well have considerably wider repercussions.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

This is, as Labour is painfully aware, no way whatsoever to run a by-election.

Particularly a Westminster by-election which, let us remind ourselves, could help determine the political future of the Prime Minister.

All week, Labour in Scotland has been quietly tipping that Councillor George Ryan would be the candidate in Glasgow East. The selection, it appeared, was a formality. Solid, local man, we were assured. Sorted.

Come the selection meeting on Friday night. No George. The selection is postponed, confirming, if confirmation were needed, that the other two on the shortlist were makeweights. No George, no selection.

This morning, Saturday, Councillor Ryan formally withdrew, citing reasons of family pressure.

For pity's sake, did nobody in Scottish Labour think to ask the putative candidate, in considerable detail, whether he was ready to step up to the plate?

Given the significance of this contest, did nobody ask him in absolutely explicit terms whether there was any obstacle to his seeking nomination? Or did they ask and receive assurances which subsequently proved to be worthless?

Labour can, of course, recover from this. At the very least, however, they have started this contest in a fine guddle. And they have lost a vital weekend to parade their candidate - in a campaign which they chose to truncate.

Who next, then? Councillor Steven Purcell, the leader of Glasgow City Council, was heavily tipped. He will not be the candidate.

For why would you give up the certainty of leading Scotland's largest council for the hideous rigours of a by-election which Labour might lose, effectively blighting your own career?

No such qualms, it would appear, will deter Margaret Curran MSP.

She has announced she wants her name on the shortlist of contenders.

She is from the East End, she is the MSP for Baillieston, in the East End. She is also a putative candidate for the vacant leadership of Labour in the Scottish Parliament.

Why would she stand? To help her party out of a self-dug hole. To earn the undying gratitude of the PM, should she win.

Should she lose, presumably she would continue as an MSP, thwarted but gallus.

What if she wins? Would she then resign from Holyrood and cause a further by-election in Baillieston?

Labour declines to speculate on that issue for now, saying that she is only a potential name on a shortlist.

However, given Labour's pursuit of Alex Salmond over being both an MP and an MSP, it might be rather difficult for Ms Curran to retain a dual mandate. It might, I would suspect, be raised once or twice during the contest.

Again, what a way to run a by-election.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Stand by, mes citoyens. They're coming to get you in Glasgow East - and this time it's electoral.

Look out the snake oil. Dust down the megaphones - those silent ones from the Tory stunt at Holyrood would do splendidly. It's by-election time.

Prepare for the customary blend of unctuousness, bogus indignation and enforced camaraderie that characterises an election campaign.

Ach, I don't mean it, really.

Best of luck to all the candidates. Hope your hustings are packed - and the first question is a patsy.

Hope it doesn't rain too much. Hope every voter tells every one of you that it's in the bag.

The first launch today was . SNP next, then Labour, then the Liberal Democrats. Then such others as might enter the field.

So familiar ground. But there's also a rather different - and intriguing - element to this by-election.

It's a Westminster contest and so, primarily, Labour start on the defensive: facing questions about their record in government.

But Labour intend to return the favour to Scotland's domestic SNP government: spotlighting their record.

From the SNP, then, expect to hear talk of the 10p tax guddle, the changes to incapacity benefit, the cost of food, the cost of fuel.

My guess from touring the constituency is those issues will attract an attentive audience - from those who are prepared to listen to politicians at all, that is.

From Labour, expect a raft of complaints against the SNP government.

Expect them to field a concerned citizen grousing about police numbers. Expect a student complaining about debt. Expect a young couple seeking that promised assistance for first-time home buyers.

Government versus government. Now that is a little different.

On the face of it, the SNP would seem to have the advantage in that particular clash.

The problems associated with the UK Government are causing discontent and grief right now. The Scottish Government remains relatively popular - while the negatives are, so far, sins of omission.

That is, partly, a factor of time: the SNP has been in power for a year, Labour for a decade.

Labour will also counter with a narrative of efforts to improve the East End: featuring, substantially, the coming Commonwealth Games.

Other thoughts. Never forget that Labour starts here with a huge lead.

Secondly, this is not Govan: there is little history of substantive SNP support, except in pockets.

Thirdly, neither the Tories nor the Lib Dems are prepared to concede ground to the second-placed SNP. They will fight hard.

There's another factor at play here which is much more nebulous. There's unhappiness aplenty in this constituency: discontent with the lack of jobs, the prevalence of drugs, the influence of gangs.

But does that turn to anger - or resigned despair?

Anger could provoke voters to turn actively against Labour, even to the extent of generating the 22 per cent swing required for an SNP victory.

The alternative emotion could see Labour, perhaps grudgingly, returned.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I know, I know. "". Usually seen as a euphemism. Happens on this occasion to be true.

Nicol Stephen has four young children - and has wrestled with the challenge of providing a stable family life while operating as leader and serving his Aberdeen constituency.

He tried. The family moved to Edinburgh in order to permit a more stable domestic life.

But he then faced criticism, orchestrated or otherwise, about his main base no longer being in the constituency.

They then returned to living in Aberdeen. Or, more precisely, Mr Stephen's wife Caris and the four kids returned to Aberdeen.

Mr Stephen split his time between Aberdeen, parliament and leadership duties.

Here at Holyrood, there has been almost nothing but sympathy for Nicol Stephen's decision.

Most have sensibly confined themselves to wishing him all the best in his efforts to ease domestic stresses and strains. One or two have, unwisely, added riders about the supposed irrelevance of the LibDems.

From me, best wishes to the Stephen family - and all families seeking a happier, better life for themselves.

So who takes over? Tavish Scott is favourite although he has yet to declare and is stressing his determination to consult first.

However, he stood aside when Mr Stephen replaced Jim Wallace - and I have no doubt that he will stand this time. He brings experience, drive, charm and a hard-headed approach to politics.

Ross Finnie - a former cabinet colleague of both Nicol Stephen and Tavish Scott - is giving it serious thought. Well liked and well respected, he'll get a decent vote if he chooses to stand.

Mike Rumbles was first into the frame - and will stand on a ticket of, among other things, reopening a debate within the party as to whether to endorse an independence referendum or not.

That stance will win support in some quarters of the LibDems. Glance at the title of the party. Liberal and democratic.

They are institutionally inclined towards both discussion and plebiscites.

Mr Rumbles stresses he supported the policy as advanced by Nicol Stephen. However, he would welcome an opportunity for the wider party to debate the issue.

Tavish Scott took the toughest line against supporting a referendum during the brief talks with the SNP about a putative coalition.

He argues that, if the SNP win a majority, then they should have their referendum and hope for fine weather. But other parties who support the Union should not assist them in their task.

That will be an intriguing element of the debate within the Liberal Democrats - just as within the leaderless Labour Party.

Alex Salmond must daily wonder if he is dreaming.

A final thought. This resignation is, in two ways, a result of electoral defeat or, more precisely, the loss of office.

Ministerial rank is more appealing than opposition. And, as a minister, you have a team of supporters and a government car to lessen the trials.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Do you live in the East End of Glasgow? Specifically, do you live in the Westminster constituency left vacant by

Do you have a problem that requires attention? Do you have a pet project that needs support? You do? Then advance it now, with gusto.

Better get on with it, though. For the next three weeks, the people of Glasgow East can expect to receive close, loving attention from our political parties.

Indeed, Labour has, quite understandably, suspended its Holyrood leadership contest to devote every breathing moment to the by-election.

Equally, any initiative announced by any politician will be scanned for its Glasgow East content. Indeed, it's started already.

Labour says the streets of Scotland will be flooded with desperate criminals if/when the Scottish Government responds positively to the .

And you know what? It would appear these brutes will gather, in particular, east of Parkhead. That is, in Glasgow East.

Spirited debate

The SNP responds by suggesting that the good and sensible people of guess where are suffering from excessive fuel costs.

These are both reasonable hits: in each case, dealing with a policy in the hands of, respectively, the Scottish and UK Governments. That is, the SNP and Labour.

Perhaps, however, we might be spared the more hysterical attacks. Such as the suggestion from Labour that Angus Robertson of the SNP had compared Glasgow East to the Gaza Strip.

He did no such thing. I heard the discussion on Good Morning Scotland between Mr Robertson and Labour's David Cairns. A good, spirited debate it was too. If not good-spirited.

Mr Robertson used the Gaza Strip as a point of contrast: suggesting that it was unacceptable that the Glasgow East constituency had a lower life expectancy.

You may think the point of contrast was ill-chosen. But contrast it was. Just as Tony Blair was making a point of contrast - not comparison - when he said it would be wrong if the Scottish Parliament had less power to tax than the average parish council.

Stop it

Mr Blair did not say the Scottish Parliament was like a parish council. Angus Robertson did not say Glasgow was like the Gaza Strip.

Stop it, guys. And, before the other parties come over all saintly, stop and think. You're every bit as capable of such tosh.

It impresses nobody - least of all in Glasgow East where they want to hear answers to real problems, not linguistic tricks.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?