The gap between the SNP's 2007 manifesto and their achievements is a rich seam of opposition taunts for Alex Salmond. It even inspired the LOLITSP to do a notorious impersonation of Andre the Giant (pictured left carrying the Governator) and tear up said manifesto at FMQs.Your Local Income Tax, they shout, where is it? Your class size reductions? A single thing built by the Scottish Futures Trust? That nice bowl of fruit? This is just a warmup for the forthcoming mother of all "broken promises": the failure to deliver a referendum on independence.
Some of this is fair game. The Scottish Futures Trust was meant to be an alternative to the bonkers PPP/PFI approach shared by Labour and the Tories, and Scottish Government bonds would have been a good way to deliver that. Except that the Scotland Act doesn't permit it. And the SNP really ought to have done their homework on that in advance.
Some of the flak, though, like the Local Income Tax element and the forthcoming referendum round, is simply ridiculous. The Nats are a minority administration. They need the support of Labour or any two other parties to make a majority. Labour opposed LIT, as did we, so they sound absurd when they complain that the SNP never delivered it. It'd be like us complaining that they've not built the Aberdeen Western Peripheral.
My view is this. If SNP Ministers try to get stuff done that we oppose, we'll criticise them and try to find others who share our position to work with. We certainly won't call it a broken promise if the bad stuff doesn't happen. When the SNP come forward with proposals we can back, we'll try to help them get it done. Why is that so complicated?
Thanks to Malc for the inspiration for this post. Get a blog, mate!
'Labour opposed LIT, as did we, so they sound absurd when they complain that the SNP never delivered it.'
I agree. It's a pretty big problem for Labour. They've got to attack somehow, and undelivered promises are always an attractive target.
Labour are clearly planning to go on a line of "You delivered nothing" and point at the '07 manifesto - only for the SNP to turn round and say 'Well, you voted a, b and c down...'
It's all a case of whether the voters are prepared to recognise the parliamentary arithmetic of it all. If they're not all that bothered about SNP excuses - however legitimate - Labour are fine.
Their strategy to point out SNP 'failures' will only work, though, if the fact that the SNP were constrained does NOT filter through to the electorate to a significant extent.
PS: It actually took me ten solid seconds to work out what 'LOLITSP' stood for....lol.
Malc was responding to my blog post http://andrewrunning.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-was-point-of-snps-2007-election.html
So your inspiration was really down to me lol
James,
I have one, its just on sabbatical.
Politicsscot makes a good point tho - what are the electorate going to look at in 2011? Will it be the SNP defending their inability to pass measures based on being a minority? Or will they listen to the Unionist-backing media who proclaim everything they do as a broken promise?
Andrew's post is based on the latter - throwing the toys out of the pram on issues the Lib Dems didn't agree with anyway. Its not like all of their 1999/2003 manifesto was implemented - and they HAD a majority in Parliament...