I’ve written for the Scottish Daily Mail about Ed Miliband’s decision to rule out a coalition with the SNP no-one was seeking. It makes, I am almost embarrassed to say, the conventional argument. Ed epitomises the banality of mediocrity, his campaign is candy-floss disguised as cast-iron etc etc. The SNP have Labour on the run and all the rest of it. They know what they are doing; Labour does not.
All this may be true. But it’s always useful to step back and wonder if there might be a different view. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, Labour are actually in a better position than many people assume? Suppose, just for the sake of argument (if also, admittedly, in contravention of one of the iron laws of punditry) what’s happening now doesn’t continue to happen forever. Suppose things change. Suppose politics is not actually linear. What then?
Well, the argument for Labour being in a better position – and, thus, the argument for the SNP being in a weaker position than commonly assumed – might run something like this…
When coalition becomes the norm, if your vote isn’t for sale your vote is worthless.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in