Process stories don't win (or lose) elections...

... but they do keep journalists and politicians happy. It wouldn’t be an election campaign without some sort of ‘scandal’ involving a candidate.

Over the past few days it’s been the turn of the Tories and the Liberal Democrats to both see their Holyrood campaigns take a stumble.

In both cases the parties have seen candidates resign just before nominations close, citing reasons such as no longer supporting the party or complaining about organisation.

This is of course manna from Heaven for political opponents or journalists who will not be slow to comment or write about it. But is it really relevant?

It’s unlikely to that too many members of the public will have been transfixed by these stories. It’s less likely still that the average person in the street could even name the main protagonists in these affairs.

In general terms such individual issues will not significantly influence any campaign result. The fact is that the public is not too transfixed with the minutiae of politics, even if those deeply involved may often forget this.

The only potential impact on the elections is simply as part of a negative narrative for a party. The public might not be aware of extreme detail in election campaigns but they can tell which parties seem stable and which ones don’t.

Thus if these matters keep being reported it could eventually see the Tories and Lib Dems suffer, but not for these alone. What’s more likely – and surely the reason for these stories in the first place – is that both parties will already struggle due to their role in the UK government.

The Tories and Lib Dems - the latter particularly will not suffer at this election because of internal manoeuvres. However they might do so based on the fact that they are having to take unpopular decisions on a UK basis.

Doing well in the polls is a virtuous circle; in other words by doing well you keep doing well because people don't want to jeopardise this. However disunited parties that are already facing problems will find that other challenges are never too far away.

In other words despite the excitement and false outrage often expressed about process stories it will still be real world issues that the public cares about and votes based upon.

Scottish Conservatives conference: The rise of the Right?

Any discussion of the Scottish Conservatives' electoral prospects always has to invoke several key words: Margaret, Thatcher, toxic and brand amongst others.

There is certainly some truth to this. The Conservatives remain the only party to ever get more than half the vote in Scotland (during the 1950s) and yet now struggle to elect even one MP.

However their ongoing troubles surely have to mean that there is more to it than this. Certainly that they could do more to rectify their fortunes anyway.

One suggestion often mooted is a name change and a formal break with the UK Conservative and Unionist Party. It may be that this would be of some use.

Nevertheless surely one of the big problems which has lead to their decline is a lack of identifiable policies. The Conservatives, so resolutely opposed to devolution, have actually been its main beneficiaries.

Without a Scottish Parliament the Tories would be little more than a handful of councillors and one MP. Instead they have a profile through their 17 MSPs.

But beyond representing the Conservative brand what has having these MSPs really achieved in a substantive policy manner? They may point to the odd Budget victory in Holyrood but that's really it.

Scottish leader Annabel Goldie at least signaled a willingness to think about this at their weekend conference when she mooted possible tax cuts, albeit without specifying how they could be paid for.

The most obvious question is why it took the Tories so long to come up with this rather obvious idea, especially when earlier in devolution the parliament was almost awash with additional money.

There was an online debate this week between Gerry Hassan and Matthew Taylor about the state of Scottish politics and political discourse; it was hard to refute some of Taylor's points about the supremacy of one ideology in Holyrood.

There is little doubt that the Scottish Parliament is dominated by the centre (left), if you count the SNP, Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and Margo MacDonald. If that is what the people want then it is of course acceptable.

However whatever people believe about the Scottish people and their character it is surely unlikely that this one country is so out of kilter with the rest of Europe as to have no major right-wing (in economics, not social policy) party playing any government role at any time.

This partly results in the alienation we see between parties and the electorate. For all the heat between them the genuine policy and ideological differences between Labour and the SNP are minimal (with one obvious exception).

Therefore voters might wonder if it really is essential for them to participate in the democratic process if either way someone similar will get in.

If voters had another option - or at least could hear part of the other debate - perhaps it would spur other parties into genuinely having to defend their own positions and goals rather than hide behind the effective consensus we have now.

This is not even to say that my personal view or wish is to see an economically right-wing government elected; far from it in fact.

Politics is worse for us all when effectively we have only different shades of vanilla to choose from. If we want the parties that currently dominate to have the best policies then they should face some challenge from alternative viewpoints.

The rise of the Conservatives, or an equivalent, isn't something I'd vote for. But for our overall political discourse it would be something to welcome.

Old Firm and the media, part 2

A short post to pose a quick question, following on from earlier comments about the media and the Old Firm.

The general media reaction to the last "shame game" was condemnation and apparent soul searching to ensure "never again".

Why then this morning, ahead of tomorrow's CIS Cup Final between Celtic and Rangers, do we have newspapers attempting to create an angry atmosphere before a ball has even been kicked.

To wit The Sun have a story about a 21-year old Celtic player laughing at Rangers' Thursday European defeat and have described it as "stoking up the heat". Scraping, barrel and bottom are the words that spring to mind.

A cynic would think that some newspapers want trouble at tomorrow's game. Surely not?

SNP conference: 'what have the SNP done for us?' is the wrong question

This week it's conference time in Glasgow as the SNP turn up for their last big rally before May's elections.

Of course saying 'turn up' is a tad unfair as the conference is being held at the SECC, just a short walk across a bridge from the Govan constituency of Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.

It appears there is something of a mixed atmosphere around the event. On the one hand politicians and activists are gearing up for the election and wanting to remind people of what they have done for Scotland, thus they have launched this party political broadcast:

With that record surely all is rosy? Well no, and that's the problem as several other bloggers have discussed. So what does this mean for the SNP?

Opinion polls can and do lie (or at least get it wrong) so the fact that most are currently going against the SNP is not the end of the world for the party. However it does begin to point towards a trend which spells electoral defeat.

The SNP's problem - certainly based on the tone they are seeking to strike in the party political broadcast - is the same one that pretty much all governments face; "why don't the public love us and see how well we've done?"

The Scottish Government led by Alex Salmond does have much to be proud of. The fact alone that the sky has not fallen in under an SNP administration will be of great use to the SNP in future campaigns.

The SNP can - and obviously do - point to a number of policies which will resonate with the public, the council tax freeze being an obvious example (and one that Labour are keen to associate themselves with by replicating).

However the rest of the listed achievements have this problem; once you start making up large lists, with various big numbers and statistics to impress the watching public, then you know you are on pretty shaky ground.

All governments, whatever their political hue, can point towards a large number of things they have done; given that the Scottish Government has a budget of around £30 billion it would be amazing if they didn't!

If memory serves Labour did something similar at the last UK and Scottish elections and a lot of good it did them. If you have to forcefully remind voters of your achievements then this means they've already disregarded them.

And if they have overlooked or forgotten them it's usually because some other problems which they believe dwarf your achievements have arisen. The credit crunch and its fallout is the obvious one - and not the SNP's fault - but those are the timing breaks of being in government.

It's also not quite as simple as this. Even if the credit crunch had never happened and Holyrood administrations were still enjoying the huge budget increases of the early devolution years the SNP would still have disenchanted some voters, as all governments do.

When Labour were re-elected post-1997 (at a Scottish and UK level) it was either done on the basis of policy promises for the years ahead or because of the disarray of their political opponents. Neither of these are true for the SNP now.

Labour's strategy of keeping a relatively low profile - along with announcements designed to trump the SNP (to wit, the council tax freeze) - means a worried or disenchanted public may look elsewhere for political comfort, even if they do not think the SNP government has done a terrible job.

So considering all of this if the SNP really want a chance of re-election - and they certainly do have a reasonable foundation to launch such a campaign on - they have to consider what their X-factor is.

Promoting your achievements could also be read as resting on your laurels; the public are not interested in what you've already done for them (especially if they aren't happy with all of it), they want to know what you are going to do next.

With the Holyrood coffers looking fairly empty it's not clear what this is. And it's surely likely that if the SNP had a big surprise in their armoury they would announce it as their conference 'starting gun' (although they could still finish with it tomorrow to lead next week's media agenda).

All that has been announced so far could, confusingly, be termed negative positive policies. For instance promising not to introduce tuition fees for universities may get public support but all it's doing is continuing a current policy rather than changing anything.

None of this is to say that just keeping a low profile and tracking the SNP's main commitments will be enough to win it for Labour - they too would benefit from a big defining policy - but given that they currently seem to be winning there is less of an onus on them to do this.

Delegates at conference will no doubt enjoy the weekend and the political broadcast will cheer them up as they celebrate what their government has done. But conference good wishes and feelings do not win elections.

It is easy to forget that this is still the first ever SNP government and thus they are still in a learning process. Whilst they have been in power four years this is their first ever re-election and they will be learning much of this as they go along.

Simply standing on your record - especially against the backdrop of cuts and financial uncertainty - is not always enough to win. The SNP's broadcast was titled 'what have the SNP (Scottish Government) ever done for us?' That's not the question the public are interested in.

Simply, they want to know "what are you going to do next?"

Old Firm and the media: one finger forward, three fingers back

Twenty two men kicking a ball about a field continues to dominate headlines around Scotland. Today a summit will be convened by First Minister Alex Salmond to discuss the ongoing fallout from last Wednesday's Old Firm game.

So what does today's summit hope to achieve and what practical actions might it recommend? Moreso than that what might other aspects of society (i.e. the media) that have an impact but won't be discussed today be prepared to do?

Trouble and disorder surrounding Old Firm games is of course not new and has a long history. The ban on alcohol at football grounds goes back to a riot at the 1980 Scottish Cup Final and even this was not the first instance.

Concerns are not restricted to the football grounds themselves; the real reason there has been such a reaction to last week's game is worries about the effects it has on wider society. For instance the police claim domestic violence increases after these games.

We should also be careful not to take a hyperbolic approach to such matters. The head of the Scottish Police Federation's claims that it's not safe for anyone to walk down any Glasgow street after such an Old Firm game, which is a patent exaggeration.

The main possibilities which could realistically happen today relate primarily to alcohol and television coverage. Thus a suggestion is to close pubs before and after the game or to stop the games being televised.

To achieve this the government and police would have to be prepared to take on the alcohol lobby and it's unclear they will be prepared to do so. As much as anything else would the public tolerate this, whether or not they are actually interested in football?

The government would also have to contend with media and non-Old Firm football opposition. Stopping these games being televised would be massively unpopular with companies such as ESPN or Sky but would also see a big reduction in the amount these companies pay to cover Scottish football.

It's an interesting aside that there has been little comment from non-Old Firm teams about issues of the past week, including from some chairmen not normally known for their reticence. Is this because they realise the financial penalties such actions could have for them too?

Another idea, but this time linked to timing, is to move the games from the weekends (where people have longer drinking times) to midweek (where they have less time because of work). This sounds all very well in practice but ignores the fact the game in focus took place on a Wednesday.

The ultimate reasons for these problems have been discussed many times but it's debatable how genuinely understood they are. Many will cite religion, nationalism or other factors but, particularly in the case of religion, such factors have seen a declining influence in society in recent years.

In some regards the actions of many at Old Firm games reflects Jim Sillars '90 minute patriots' comment about nationalism in Scotland except in this case it's more '90 minute bigots', with people who would never act in a certain way outside a football stadium doing so for the game's duration.

The real trouble occurs when people - usually who don't attend games - don't realise the football finishes at full time and so carry on disorder in their homes or wider communities. And it's these people that are the great conundrum in this debate because in most cases it surely isn't religion fueling this.

So what is it then and what can realistically be done? The points above will certainly be discussed and may have some merit but there is one element missing; the role of the media throughout the whole process and particularly in the run-up to such games.

The airwaves and news pages have been full these past few days with commentators and journalists quick to condemn all involved in Wednesday's problems. They have not been slow to point fingers but as the old adage goes each time you point one finger, three are facing back at you.

If the media persist (for purely commercial reasons) in ramping up the excitement and fervour in advance of Old Firm games using sensationalist headlines and language then they can hardly absent themselves from any responsibility from negative outcomes.

So what about this for a suggestion for all those people that suggest 'something must be done'? Limit the coverage from now on. Don't mention (unless in passing) Old Firm games until two days before and even then limit it to one page and factual points e.g. who's likely to play, etc.

Similarly with after game coverage. Instead of banner headlines and prolonged outrage and some refereeing decision or otherwise contentious matter limit coverage solely to a match report and that's it.

And yet who really sees this happening? The same people that profess revulsion towards the Old Firm appear to forget this when their readership or listening figures come into it, which does then make their faux outrage much harder to tolerate.

Trouble at football is not limited to Scotland, anyone who watched the Liverpool-Man United game at the weekend would testify to that. And nor is violence after games the sole preserve of Scotland either; witness what happens at some Italian games for instance.

None of this means that we should do nothing about genuine concerns and legitimate which have been raised; in that regard today's summit could be interesting. The fact is that expectations have been raised and so the police and government surely cannot have no outcomes from the day.

But away from this it would be worth seeing how the media are prepared to play their part. A week on Sunday the Old Firm meet in a cup final; the manner in which the media cover and build up this event will say much about what they are prepared to do in all of this.