The only quibble I would have with your analysis is that while the Cons might have a reasonable chance of winning an any one of the four seats, they would be lucky to get them all at once because there may be local issues that we cannot know about at this time. They should feel quite pleased with the result of their efforts if they only manage three.

One of the third placed nationalists which came close to winning will be in the constituency in which I vote, Argyll and Bute, a three way and formerly a four way marginal.

Everything depends on where any lost LibDem votes go. The Conservative will certainly be in second place. Local information points tentatively to an SNP gain.

Not that that means it will necessarily be close, just difficult to predict the outcome, anywhere between hardly any change and secure SNP majority.

I wouldn’t bet on Glasgow East returning to Labour. The result of the bye-election itself creates other factors favourable to the SNP:

Loss of Labour morale; proof that the SNP is not a wasted vote and wont let the Tory in; party resources more thinly spread; backing a winner; gaining media attention; continuing trends of both parties; mould broken not protest vote; active MP trying harder etc.

I think that the voters in Glasgow East enjoyed kicking the government and will do it again.

Just for fun.

That’s not very scientific, poll based or numerate, but wait and see if I’m right.

So, my account of tactical voting leaves: Labour 23, SNP 20, Liberals 12, Tories 4. So Stuart was not so wrong in predicting a gain for the Liberals but I was right in expecting bigger Nationalist wins based on above average swings in the West, Glasgow, and Central regions.

I am afraid your system still makes no sense. I have little doubt it overstates Lib Dem support and understates SNP support. It seems first you took the general trends and rightly noted an 11.5% swing (i.e., 23 point change in the margin) from Labour to SNP and also a 4 point swing Labour-to-Tory and a 1.5% swing ***Liberal to LABOUR***, then it is not seriously possible that the Liberals will gain a seat and the SNP take fewer than in the general calculation. You are taking tactical voting into account . . . ok, fine. But how much of a swing can there really be from Labour to Liberal in the few seats where the anti-Labour vote won’t actually go Tory or SNP? Only a couple points. And this means the swing Lib to Lab in Lab-SNP marginals must be higher. Yet, it means most importantly that the Lab-to-SNP swing in the industrial heartland must be upwards of 15 points. I don’t have the free time now to make the calculations, but I have no doubt that this would only lead to a higher SNP score than 16 seats.

Remember, the SNP will gain in Lib-Lab and Tory-Lab marginals as well, and can easily zoom from 3rd place to victory in these conditions.

So as we have no borrowing powers as a parliament or the ability to issue bonds, other than coordinating those parts of the government who can borrow to do so in groups so we can get the lowest price and to create a pool of expertise to do better in negotiations what would you have us do.

Despite the criticisms of private profit, the biggest issue with PFI/PPP has been the profits made from interest on the borrowing. To borrow from banks is more expensive that through the PWB ( public works board) and if the borrowing is made by consortium rather than Councils then they add there mark up to.

What the SNP is trying to do is cut out the consortiums role in borrowing by going directly to the banks and by having a centralised specialist team negotiating for groups of Councils to get a better deal for Banks.

As I’ve said before it’s not what we want or would choose but as we can’t borrow or issue bonds what else can we do. As with pretty much every other area all we can try to do is improve on what we inherited with the powers we have.

Ultimately we will be judged on what we have done with the powers we have compared to what others did with the same powers and then what we promise to do with them in future.

One of the reasons we are actually getting so much support from traditional Labour supporters is that not only do they like what we are doing they feel let down by Labour because there is nothing we have done that Labour couldn’t have.

Peter.

The SNP’s opposition to Skye Bridge tolls is popularly trumpeted as an example of how you are ‘in touch’ with the wishes of the populace, but your grandstanding gives lie to your inability to change the way government works with regard to financing mechanisms and the continuing dependancy on PFI, to provide one simple example.

In effect the SNP is just tinkering at the margins and represents just more of the same, when your vote were won with the promise of real change – this kind of approach is inconsistent and is unsustainable over the medium-to-long term. When the hangover kicks in people will be left scratching their heads asking what remedies you offer.

Enjoy this years’ conference while the euphoria lasts, the next few will be very different.