If they trusted him, WWTD would be the new motto of the Labour party:Â What Would Tony Do?
Yeah, maybe not. But as more information seeps into the public domain about the premiership of Tony Blair (I’ve just finished Mandelson’s memoir – which paints a particularly bad picture of Gordon Brown) Labour are once again at a turning point. They are out of office – a situation not unknown to them – and, once again, they are considering a lurch to the left. The problem for them here is twofold: historically (1983) this was a disaster and the country is not where they think they need to go. So a lurch to the left would probably have a similar disastrous outcome to that of 1983.
Ignoring the UK level issue at the moment and turning attention to Scotland, the situation is less critical in terms of policy programme but more so in terms of personality. At least with the leadership contest for the UK party, Labour have an opportunity to fill the power vacuum left at the top of the tree. In Scotland, that vacuum remains and, undoubtedly, needs to be dealt with.
Prior to their defeat in May, Labour effectively had three leaders in Scotland. The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, as leader of Labour party, was constitutionally at least, leader of (what is known by name only) as Scottish Labour. In order not to elevate the SNP First Minister to his level, the Prime Minister appointed Jim Murphy as Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with him for the UK Government – effectively becoming de facto leader of Scottish Labour in the process. And finally, of least importance to the internal workings of the Labour Party but probably most prominent when it came to devolved politics, we have Iain Gray, leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament, to give his full title. That was prior to the election.
Now we have a situation where Labour don’t have a leader at UK level (which removes them from the equation). They also don’t have a Secretary of State for Scotland – being out of power, they have a Shadow Sec State, which is simply not as powerful. I can’t see the First Minister calling Jim Murphy all that often now. Iain Gray is still in position of course, but here’s the issue: his remit only stretches as far as his MSPs. Of course they can work out policy for the Scottish Parliament in devolved areas (although I think – but I’m not sure – that if it differs substantially from UK Labour policy, it has to be ratified by their NEC) but that’s it. He has no control over Labour’s substantial group of Scottish MPs.
I think it is fair to say that Iain Gray has not exactly set the heather alight as leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament. That’s not a criticism as such, merely an observation. Time and again at FMQs he has barely grazed the First Minister (though on one or two occasions he has landed a punch, albeit one which tends to have been fairly easily parried). And outside of Holyrood he has tended to be overshadowed by his Westminster colleagues. And even in the four months that Labour have been out of power, he has not really come forward and owned the Labour agenda in Scotland.
I called this post “advice†for a reason… but I know those who are Labour-minded will not like it. Iain Gray and Scottish Labour have to assert their independence (although they probably shouldn’t use the word independence). Eleven years after devolution began it is time that the party north of the border – and its leader – took responsibility for their own actions and stopped deferring to the UK party. I think if they do so – if they really are allowed to separate, or at least become a more “federally†organised party, like the Lib Dems – then they will be much better equipped to present themselves as a party which is in direct competition to the SNP in fighting for particularly Scottish interests. I realise that Scottish MPs are unlikely to accept a ‘mere’ MSP as their leader, but this is a fight that Scottish Labour MSPs have to take on – and win. Otherwise I really can’t see how the public will view them as anything other than proxies for UK Labour.
That, I think is the biggest challenge for Labour before next May’s Scottish Parliament election – make the Scottish party more Scottish internally, and reap the rewards of it electorally. Â It won’t be easy, but that which is necessary for success never is.
#1 by Jeff on September 8, 2010 - 10:12 am
Good one Malc and I agree, devolution makes the splitting up of parties unavoidable.
I would say that money and resources may be a factor here with regard your suggestion of Scottish Labour ‘going it alone’. Were Scottish Labour to break away from UK Labour then there would be less reason for money and people to come from the richer south up to the relatively poorer north at election or by-election time. I remember being impressed by the busloads of activists that came up from London, Birmingham, Manchester etc to fight the Glasgow North East by-election. And Labour can generally outspend its rivals up here (Brian Souter’s notwithstanding) thanks to London patronage and largesse. Is it worth diluting that resource by ‘going it alone’?
Another point, perhaps a crude one and one you alluded to, but isn’t an independent Scottish Labour party playing into the hands of the SNP? The more a country looks independent and feels independent, the more likely it is that it will become independent.
Yet another point, in reference to your very good point about Labour having precious few visible leaders with Brown and Murphy now out of the headlines and Purcell awol, is that I remember the halcyon days of post-1997 when everyone, even the non-political, seemed to know who the Foreign Secretary, the Education Secretary, the Home Secretary etc was. Perhaps that is the model that Labour north of the border needs to aim for, indeed all parties. Make it less about the one leader and more about the team because therein one can display a strength in depth.
Labour actually aren’t so bad at doing this already but spreading the responsibility of profile-raising across the party rather than looking to Iain Gray to do the difficult job of providing the pizzazz from the top seems a better strategy.
Incidentally, I’m not convinced Iain Gray should hold any sway over MPs though given the clear demarcations between Westminster and Holyrood. There’s no one neat solution I suppose but Scottish MPs having a UK leader as boss and MSPs having LOLITSP* as boss makes most sense to me.
*LOLITSP – Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament
#2 by Malc on September 8, 2010 - 10:25 am
Its a fair criticism you make (or at least some of it it). Let me digest it.
1) I don’t really mean they should “go it alone”. I alluded to the “federal” structure of the Lib Dems – I really think this is a smart model for the UK parties to adopt. They have to have a real measure of autonomy (see how I replaced the word “independence” with “autonomy” there without you noticing…). In that respect, the resources/ money etc stays linked (though, I don’t particularly think its fair that they can campaign with money that doesn’t come from Scottish Labour, but that’s another issue.
2) “Independent” party is going too far – and I noted that in the post. More autonomous is probably how it should have read.
3) I agree on all parties needing more strength in depth – I think they are all somewhat lacking here (witness – minor tweaks to Salmond’s Cabinet and Gray’s front bench, no one really forcing their way up).
4) Gray doesn’t need to have “pizzazz” as you put it. He just has to be a little more inspiring. I’d suggest (dare I say it) a better media strategy (something James would know more about than me) and better engagement with the public. Reducing the role of LOLITSP to shouting “pants on fire” every week at FMQs is not quite the impact the party were looking for I’d wager.
5) Your final point is difficult, and is the heart of the matter. But while what they have at the moment may make sense, in practise it has really weakened Labour MSPs. It was fine while they were in government – they had the media profile of ministers – but in opposition they struggle for recognition with the myriad of backbench MSPs. Bottom line is – they need to do something.
#3 by Jeff on September 8, 2010 - 12:42 pm
Ah, weasel words Malc, weasel words 😉
Autonomous? Independent? Call it what you will, but I think you are overplaying how ‘linked’ the funds would be if Iain Gray was making the big decisions north of the border. How much money does the UK Tories, UK Lib Dems and GPEW send over the border? A lower proportion of the total than Labour gets I would wager.
I just don’t see the incentive for a near-bankrupt party to send money north of the border, no strings attached, at Holyrood election time.
Pizzazz? More inspiring? Same thing in my book. I don’t like the idea of a leader having to carry a party’s fortunes, hence my regret that so many people were saying ‘I’m voting for Brown, I’m voting for Cameron’ at the last election when they weren’t on the ballot slip. Clegg-mania, similarly, is emblematic of the disconnect between a relatively ignorant public and the way our democracy system ‘should’ work. I agree Gray needs to do better than ‘pants on fire’ and part of that could be to say he’s a team player and he enjoys working with his Shadow Cabinet team. Incidentally, that would contrast neatly with Salmond’s latest unilateral decision which he explained to SNP members after it was leaked out to the press (see Alun Cochrane’s interesting, slightly rabble rousing, article here)
On your last point, I’m not convinced MPs have much more of a media spotlight than MSPs so to me it is more of a general political malaise issue than a need to reshift the balance from MPs to MSPs, if that makes sense.
Interesting stuff, never really thought about it before. Where’s Kezia and Yousuf when you need them….!
#4 by Dougthedug on September 8, 2010 - 10:42 am
Malc,
“Eleven years after devolution began it is time that the party north of the border – and its leader – took responsibility for their own actions and stopped deferring to the UK party.”
The problem here is that the party north of the border is the UK party. There isn’t a “Scottish” Labour party to stop deferring. As far as the Labour MP’s in Scotland are concerned they had a wonderful election without getting involved in any re-jigging of the internal structure of the party. If the lowly MSP’s have a few problems with how Scottish they are that’s not a major problem for the MP’s and the Labour party is instinctively against anything which introduces divisions into Britain. If “Scottish” Labour gets a more powerful regional organisation within British Labour then they would have to do the same for Wales and the regional sections in England might then also start agitating for more autonomy within Labour. It would cause to much trouble to do it.
“I think if they do so – if they really are allowed to separate, or at least become a more “federally” organised party, like the Lib Dems – then they will be much better equipped to present themselves as a party which is in direct competition to the SNP in fighting for particularly Scottish interests.”
The “Scottish Lib-Dems” are as phantom as the “Scottish Labour Party”. Both are simply party descriptions registered with the Electoral Commission which are used by the British Lib-Dems and British Labour to give an imprint of Scottishness to their parties north of the border. The “Scottish” Lib-Dems are simply a regional structure within the unitary Lib-Dem party. Actually the Lib-Dems are organised on devolved lines not on federal ones. They have a combined British/English party led by Nick Clegg and two subsidary regional organisations led by Tavish Scott and Kirsty Williams. It mimics the devolved structure of the British Parliaments exactly.
#5 by Indy on September 8, 2010 - 12:17 pm
The policy issues make it almost inevitable that they will go their separate ways.
It’s really ironic that the effect of devolution seems to be that that the unionist parties need to be free to oppose policies that their counterparts down south support if they are also supported by the SNP. Minimum pricing and scrapping short sentences come to mind. Both of these are policies which are not necessarily about the ideological or political position of the parties which support them. The fact that Ken Clark and Kenny MacAskill are singing from the same hymn sheet on scrapping short sentences is not a reflection of a shared ideology, it’s a reflection of the fact that as Justice Ministers they are aware that short sentences are ineffective and expensive. Yet the Tories up here feel they have to attack the SNP for sharing the policy with the Tories down south. It’s quite funny really.
#6 by Una on September 8, 2010 - 3:57 pm
In my view Labour in Scotland won’t be making any moves for greater ‘autonomy’ any time soon. Devolution was all about containment after all. They can cut their teeth in the jumped-up cooncil before heading down south for the real jobs.
I agree with Jeff they are probably aware more ‘autonomy’ could boost the independence argument, even amongst themselves! I used to vote labour (when they were left-wing) while harbouring a sneaky, shameful desire for independence that I couldnt voice without being shot down in flames. I suspect there are loads of their members/voters like this. So Labour spends time associating the independence argument with nasty, selfish, parochial, narrow minded, even racist politics, while over-egging their cuddly British credentials. That is the only game they know how to play, unfortunately. If they allowed themselves to look at the issues sensibly, rather than through fear of the SNP, we’d have a far more autonomous labour in Scotland, and a far better run country.