Another guest post today, and another look at the reasons Labour lost the election so heavily.  This time, John Mackay is the author.  John was Scottish Labour’s Holyrood candidate for Caithness, Sutherland and Ross, and was also his party’s candidate in the 2010 General Election in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross.
First things first, Labour had no chance of winning the Scottish election. It was all about the scale of defeat. Forget what the polls said a few months ago, it wasn’t a case of which party was going to win; it was by how many.
Two things conspired to give Labour a hammering: SNP money and Labour incompetence. I’ll touch on the former then concentrate on the latter from my perspective as a Labour candidate. Scotland’s political media also get an honourable mention.
When a political party has the financial clout the SNP had, it enables them to run a blitz-like, Presidential campaign that builds and builds to saturation point come polling day. Their strategists ran an excellent campaign to the extent it seemed like many of Scotland’s print, television, radio and online journalists were working within SNP Media HQ as well.
The SNP recognised Iain Gray was largely unknown and managed to easily frame the election as a personality contest. There was only ever going to be one winner between Alex Salmond and Iain Gray in that sort of competition. The SNP’s money then made sure of victory. Yes, Labour contributed to its own defeat and the eventual scale of victory but I’ll get to that. The Scottish Election in 2011 was won primarily because it was a well-funded Presidential campaign. That must not be forgotten.
Before I get to my own party’s failings, what has happened to Scotland’s political journalists? Why weren’t they highlighting the insanity of the SNP’s flagship policies? Why weren’t they telling the Scottish people about the economic lunacy of five more years of a council tax freeze, continuing free higher education, increased NHS spending, free prescriptions, the lie of no public sector redundancies and 100% of energy being provided by renewables in 2020? These policies will have Scotland admitting itself to the economic madhouse in a few years. There will be no need to call for anyone in a white van with a straitjacket.
It will be pointed out that Labour copied, in whole or part, many of these policies. I agree entirely but the media really should have been more rigorous in questioning both parties spending commitments at a time when the policies listed above simply can’t be paid for.
Whilst I’d have loved Labour’s manifesto to be realistic and to acknowledge the financial constraints that we as a government would have had to work within, the election was all about money and personality. Even if we’d had the best manifesto ever written it would have had little effect and only slightly reduced our defeat. There will be those who say that with decent, realistic, alternative policies Labour could have framed the election differently. I disagree.
So why was Iain Gray Scottish Labour’s leader? And how did we come to run a negative campaign that started by being anti-Tory and Westminster focussed but then changed tack to being anti-independence?
I honestly believe Iain Gray was the best of a decidedly average Labour bunch at Holyrood. It is this that is at the heart of the party in Scotland’s problems. Twelve years on from devolution and Scottish Labour is still sending its best people down to Westminster (with very few exceptions).  At the next Scottish election in five years time, Labour has got to get its best MPs to Holyrood.
It’s been said there is no chance the likes of Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander will become MSPs, as they are too ambitious at Westminster. I hope this is wrong. If you’re a Labour Party member then your twin ambitions are social equality and social justice. For elected Scottish Labour members, Holyrood is the place you can most readily influence those causes.
The party also has to ensure it gets its best young talent to Edinburgh. I hate to say it but the Labour benches in the last Scottish parliament were intellectually bereft. There were far too many MSPs who were ‘time served’ in other roles within the Labour movement.  One of the few good things to come from losing so many MSPs unexpectedly is that we got rid of much of the deadwood.
Finally: the campaign.  I can only imagine Iain Gray’s strategists decided to go with an anti-Tory, Westminster focussed campaign because it was the one freshest in their memories from last year’s General Election. Admittedly that was a successful campaign but it was in a different election. The Scottish electorate is more sophisticated than we gave them credit for and no wonder they were leaving a party in droves that was fighting an election they weren’t even voting in.
To make things worse, Labour decided to change course to an anti-independence strategy with a fortnight to go. It was the latter campaign that ensured the SNP got their majority as it nailed home the message Labour had been running a negative and irrelevant campaign. We would still have lost but not by as much and not to an overall majority. Here’s a thought: it was a Scottish election, not a Westminster election nor an independence referendum. Labour can’t make that mistake again.
Jim Murphy is chairing a review into Scottish Labour and he must see that he is a big part of the solution if he were to be an MSP and the Scottish Labour leader. Much has been made of a Westminster MP leading that review because it was a Westminster focussed campaign that caused many of Labour’s problems. That is missing the point though. It was Labour in Scotland that decided to run a Westminster-focussed campaign, not Labour at Westminster.
The party doesn’t have to do too much to resolve its current problems: Get good MSPs in Holyrood. Get realistic and credible policies. And contest the next Scottish election on issues relevant to the Scottish parliament. It really is that simple. Oh, and if there’s a transport tycoon out there with a social conscience who wouldn’t mind slipping us a few million quid, that would be handy as well.
#1 by BM on May 20, 2011 - 10:02 am
“It will be pointed out that Labour copied, in whole or part, many of these policies. I agree entirely but the media really should have been more rigorous in questioning both parties spending commitments at a time when the policies listed above simply can’t be paid for.”
When you put it that way, I’m glad the SNP won the election, since it’s pretty clear from the above that you had no intention what so ever of keeping the promises you made in your manifesto. If that’s how you planned on treating the electorate, then you don’t deserve to be an MSP.
If you want to unfreeze the council tax, introduce tuition fees, reduce NHS spending, reintroduce prescription fees, and force redundancies on public sector workers, then there’s a party who offered all of these things in their manifesto: the Conservatives.
The truth comes out: Vote Labour, get Tory. Go and join them; you’d fit in.
#2 by An Duine Gruamach on May 21, 2011 - 9:53 am
Indeed. You stood by those policies when you stood for election, Mr. Mackay. Did you decry the lunacy at the hustings?
#3 by John Mackay on May 22, 2011 - 11:33 am
More than once I was asked if I was sure I was a Labour candidate during and after hustings! We had 10 or 11 hustings in CSR so it was asked a lot.
#4 by Holyrood patter on May 20, 2011 - 10:03 am
This seems like bitterness regarding th money, we didn’t get cut a cheque for a million, it was about matching a fundraisimg efforts by staff and activists which ww’s brilliantly run like all aspects
#5 by Jeff on May 20, 2011 - 10:58 am
I disagree Ross, it’s a valid point to raise as £500k makes a big difference and a lot of people who donated to the SNP wouldn’t have done so if there hadn’t been the news drive from Souter’s pledge. Noone is denying that the SNP didn’t play it beautifully, but it’s still a massive and arguably unfair advantage.
#6 by cynicalHighlander on May 20, 2011 - 4:05 pm
“Lakshmi Mittal is the richest man in Britain, he has given the Labour Party £2 million in donations.” and many many others.
Sorry crying about funding from a party that is so far in the red and bankrupted Britain seems a bit rich.
Taking Scotland for granted is the problem.
#7 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 6:07 pm
It’s an expensive business running a political party and further down this page you’ll see the issues covering Labour’s finances have been dealt with.
I wasn’t crying about funding, I just acknowledged that it played a big part in the campaign. Again, read comments further on.
Labour didn’t bankrupt the UK. Some banks, at home and abroad, tried to though.
Labour hasn’t taken Scotland for granted. We’ve got our approach to devolution wrong, but we haven’t taken the country for granted.
#8 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 10:27 am
BM – I’m just being a realist. We simply can’t afford to pay for all those things just now. The new Scottish government will have no option but to u-turn on many of those commitments sometime in this parliament.
Holyrood patter – It’s not bitterness, more jealousy! Labour needs to get its act together where political fundraising is concerned. We’re way behind the slick operation the SNP has and money plays a big part in winning elections.
#9 by Jeff on May 20, 2011 - 10:28 am
Thanks John, a really great, honest post. It is interesting that Labour concerns are felt so widely and it’s not a number of local issues but a real national problem that you face.
You seem to be saying that you need better MSPs in Parliament before you can challenge again and, linked to this, you never had a chance in 2011. Given that you can’t replace your current crop of MSPs until 2016, are you suggesting that Labour can’t win until 2018 (or whenever the next election is, I’m losing track!)
You make an interesting point about the media too. Scottish political journalism does seem to be too high-level and ‘chatty’, the deep-dive analysis does seem to be lacking and it would have been good to have seen academics, economists and journos discussing what the party policies really mean for Scotland without party candidates bickering each night instead. The main failure of this campaign for me, and Labour is as guilty as the SNP, is that we pretty much know how muhc money Scotland has for the next five years, we what what the priorities will be (NHS, free tuition, C Tax pledge) but we don’t know what that means at a microeconomic or even a macroeconomic level as we embark on this five year term.
Modern day politicians gamble, and Salmond has had a big flutter here as it’s not at all clear the sums are going to add up. The problem is, as you point out, the media and the electorate let him do it.
First things first though – you can’t pick Lamont or Baillie as leader. Hugh Henry takes you the necessary next step if you ask me….
#10 by Indy on May 20, 2011 - 10:57 am
You actually epitomise why a lot of people switched with the line “Whilst I’d have loved Labour’s manifesto to be realistic and to acknowledge the financial constraints that we as a government would have had to work within ..”
The thing is that people knew fine well that Labour were only saying that they would do the same as the SNP to get votes.
They also saw that you believed that you would have no choice but to work within any (quite arbitrary) financial constraints which Westminster chose to impose because you accepted the constitutional status quo and the subservience implied with that.
That’s why the electorate voted the way they did. They may not have voted for full fat independence but they gave the SNP a majority so that they could change Scotland’s relationship with Westminster quite fundamentally, including the financial relationship.
The lesson is therefore that you should have aimed higher, not lower.
#11 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 11:13 am
Cheers Jeff.
Right now it looks like the SNP is a three term government as it has 69 seats. So perhaps Labour can’t win again until the election after next. The only caveat being that the SNP managed to win in 2007 whilst Alex Salmond was in Westminster and not an MSP. I would like Scottish Labour to do the same with Jim Murphy.
Labour does have a chance though at the next Scottish election because the goodwill towards Salmond and the SNP will last about as long as the first major policy u-turn of this parliament. Which will obviously be brought about by being unaffordable. I predict that first u-turn will be in about a year’s time after the 2012 council elections.
I can’t believe the level of economic analysis in the Scottish media as compared to the UK media for last year’s General Election. It was practically non-existent. The Centre for Public Policy for Regions did publish a report rubbishing both Labour and the SNP’s manifesto spending commitments but it caused barely a ripple in the media. Here’s a link to them http://tinyurl.com/5rjsjs8
As you say, the Scottish government knows its budget for five years and Salmond’s schtick that anyone who questions his sums is a pessimist and has no ambition for Scotland will wear thin with the voters when he starts breaking manifesto commitments. As stated in the comment above, I’m a fiscal realist and know neither the SNP nor Labour’s spending plans are credible.
Of course we can’t pick Lamont or Baillie. Henry would appear to be the safe, holding choice for now.
#12 by Jeff on May 20, 2011 - 11:15 am
Thanks for the link John. I read through the report at the time and despaired. It reminded me of the IFS report before the 2010 General Election that rubbished the spending commitments of the three main parties at Westminster. As a parliamentary democracy that should believe in probity, we are clearly not progressing very well!
#13 by Malc on May 20, 2011 - 11:51 am
Isn’t Hugh Henry basically Iain Gray II? And he wanted the PO job – if he gets the leadership, it’ll be spun (and probably quite accurately) as his second choice.
Labour need a leader who will say “actually FM, that’s a good idea, we’ll support it” from time to time as well as one who will be an effective opponent, getting angry when needed – but only when needed. I’m not sure that person exists in Holyrood at the moment. I do agree Jim Murphy would be the best candidate given my criteria outlined above… but that’s a long way off – if ever – and also depends on a proper overhaul of Scottish Labour to make the leader the leader for the whole of Scotland, not just the LOLITSP. What about taking a punt on someone new to Holyrood (as the Lib Dems) have done? Are there any former council leaders who might be able to step up?
#14 by Doug Daniel on May 20, 2011 - 12:13 pm
Jim Murphy being the best candidate for a leader who will be prepared to support SNP ideas from time to time? Not sure I would agree with you there, Malc! I don’t know if you remember what Murphy said about the SNP on the BBC after his re-election in 2010, but it did not seem like words of a man who was capable of supporting the idea that the SNP might be right sometimes.
#15 by An Duine Gruamach on May 21, 2011 - 9:57 am
I doubt Murphy would take what he would see as a step down to Holyrood. He’s even been touted as a replacement for Miliband in some quarters for no very good reason. Nah, don’t see it.
#16 by CassiusClaymore on May 20, 2011 - 11:17 am
John – you’re lucky you had as much money as you did. If you could only spend what you legitimately raised in Scotland, you’d have had buttons.
Surely the SNP, when responsibility for elections is devolved under the Scotland Bill, will move to outlaw English-raised funds being spent in a Scottish election.
After all, foreign-raised funds can’t be spent in a UK election (someone tell Wendy), so I don’t see why the same rule shouldn’t apply.
CC
#17 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 11:22 am
The link wasn’t really for you Jeff. I knew you would have read it!
The CPPR will be doing a big round of ‘We told you so’ from summer 2012 onwards.
#18 by Jeff on May 20, 2011 - 11:39 am
Oh, ok, I was saying thanks on behalf of all of our readers then 😉
It was a very good report though.
#19 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 11:32 am
CC – Good luck hoping for England being defined as ‘foreign’ in he Scoland Bill.
#20 by Jeff on May 20, 2011 - 11:48 am
Very sorry John! I tried to delete a repeated paragraph and somehow managed to delete the paragraph about Wendy and Nicola. Apologies!
#21 by Doug Daniel on May 20, 2011 - 12:00 pm
Err, Nicola Sturgeon was trying to do what she was elected to do, namely represent her constituents. Wendy Alexander broke funding rules to fund an election campaign she didn’t even need. Considering all that has happened since in terms of expenses scandals and David Laws recently bringing it back into the news, it seems a bit daft to be trying to refight that battle.
I’m not a fan of parties calling for ministers to get sacked for little slips of the tongue or genuine mistakes that they couldn’t really help, but politicians that think they are above the law deserve everything they get (and unfortunately, they rarely get anything like what they deserve). Of course I’m an SNP member so it’s probably no surprise I think this, but Alexander’s misdemeanour was worse than any of the things SNP cabinet ministers did that had Labour calling for each of their heads at one point or another. There’s only one party that can be accused of “the worst type of party politicking”, and it isn’t the SNP.
#22 by Malc on May 20, 2011 - 12:08 pm
Let’s not get into party politicking here guys!
#23 by Doug Daniel on May 20, 2011 - 12:14 pm
But sir, he started… Yeah, okay.
#24 by douglas clark on May 20, 2011 - 11:47 am
John MacKay,
I just had an idea! Why doesn’t the Labour Party in Scotland go back to it’s roots.
Y’know, embrace Home Rule for Scotland 😉
#25 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 11:56 am
CC – A second go at the paragraph Jeff deleted!
Wendy Alexander’s campaign donations were a trivial matter that the SNP were guilty of the worst type of politicking over. An oversight for not that much money and it should have been acknowledged as such with no formal punishment. What the SNP did was petty in the extreme by suspending her for a day.
Nicola Sturgeon was guilty of much, much worse in the last parliament yet stayed in a job.
#26 by DougtheDug on May 20, 2011 - 12:29 pm
“Nicola Sturgeon was guilty of much, much worse in the last parliament yet stayed in a job.”
Could you give some examples of how she broke the law?
#27 by Indy on May 20, 2011 - 1:30 pm
Oh get a grip.
There was an election on May 5 you know.
Nicola Sturgeon was elected with a majority of 4000+ in a constituency which was nominally Labour.
Wendy Alexander did not stand at all.
You may personally think what Nicola Sturgeon did was wrong but the people who live in Glasgow Southside voted for her. The people who live in the constituency Wendy Alexander was not standing in voted SNP as well. Could be that was why she didn’t stand eh?
#28 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 12:21 pm
DD – We’ll just have to agree to disagree on the relative seriousness of Alexander and Sturgeon’s indiscretions.
Though as you will note from my blog, I am not one of those slavish party members who just toes the line. I am harder on my own side as I have expectations of Labour I don’t have of other political parties.
I honestly try to be as objective and dispassionate as I can be when considering issues. Anyone whose first thought is: ‘What should my opinion on this be as a Labour/SNP/Tory/Green member’, is not really contributing much to any debate.
#29 by Jeff on May 20, 2011 - 12:27 pm
What I don’t get about the Wendy Alexander issue was that she resigned and then almost immediately suggested that she didn’t need to. As you say, it was a pretty minor transgression and irrespective of how aggressively the SNP were trying to exacerbate the problem, if you don’t believe that you should reisgn for something then don’t resign.
For me, Wendy Alexander would have run the SNP much, much closer than Iain Gray did and it’s a genuine shame that she stepped down.
#30 by Mad Jock McMad on May 21, 2011 - 3:51 pm
Jeff – Wendy Alexander was in criminal breach of 2000 PPER Act. What she and Gordon did in accepting an illegal donation and then fraudulently covering it up is deemed a criminal action by the act.
In comparison to the massive trousering by the likes of Hain and Jack Straw in breach of the PPER Act – it has to be admitted that Wendy’s breach was for pennies.
As the succession of ex-labour MPs now with criminal convictions and jail sentences for fraudulent claims for public money suggests there is an inherent problem within Labour at all levels about their right to abuse the public purse in their favour.
This is fundamentally what Mr Mackay has to address with some rapidity – the public view of Labour in Scotland as a modern day Tammany Hall: jobs for pals, ALEO backhanders to keep Labour back wood councillors sweet, cosy safe seat rewards for time servers, contracts for ‘friends’ worth millions, the millions of pounds spent on contracts to known organised crime front companies by Labour lead councils in the west.
In Mr Makay’s eyes this may well not be true, is media spin, SNP sniping and the rest yet this view of Labour in Scotland as rotting from the inside to out is the growing perception in the eyes of a growing majority of Scottish voters.
Mr Murphy is part of the problem and not the answer. The unanswered question of just why was Louis Rodden ( a known member of one of Glasgow’s most powerful organised crime syndicates) sitting on the next table to Murphy and Reid at an election fund raiser for the former in early 2010 was never really answered. Why did the organiser of the event at first claim it was, ” It was ‘OK’ because every one knows Louis” to the Glasgow Herald’s initial inquiry?
Then there was the direct control of Iain Grey and Labour in Scotland by Millbank’s puppet master, John MacTernan. MacTernan went on Newsnicht on the 6th of May and basically said his negative sophistry would have worked but for the lack of sophistication amongst MSPs and CLPs in Scotland and their inability to deliver the message effectively. Last week we saw the real Iain Grey in the chamber at Holyrood, free from MacTernan’s chains, a much happier, honest and open man and far more believable. The fundamental problem in the 2011 election was Labour in Scotland were peddling a message to Scotland they did not actually believe in themselves and the Scottish electorate saw through their charade.
The unasked but simmering question the electorate in Scotland would love to have answered is: Just what does Labour in Scotland stand for, apart from themselves?
#31 by Doug Daniel on May 20, 2011 - 12:43 pm
Labour shouldn’t get distracted by the money thing so much. As was mentioned the last time someone tried to blame Labour’s woes on money, the Tories had masses of it to spend in 2010, and they still fell well short of a majority. It doesn’t matter how much money you have – if the electorate think your policies are guff or that you won’t stick to them, that your leader is an accident waiting to happen, and that you are failing to offer a good vision for the future, then it doesn’t matter how much money you have, the electorate won’t vote for you.
I mean, what exactly would Labour have done with all the billions that the SNP apparently unfairly got from Brian Souter? Spent it plastering big “now the Tories are back…” posters all over the place? Adverts telling us “don’t step outside with a knife, or you’re going to jail”? If Labour had more money, they might have actually scared even more voters off!
The rest you’re right about, however. Labour is sorely lacking in talent in Holyrood and needs to stop treating it like a consilation prize for people who couldn’t get into Westminster. They need to understand what devolution is really about and what Scottish voters care about in the Scottish elections. You need policies which are not just realistic and credible, but good as well. Give the voters something positive to vote for.
However, it’s getting a bit tiring hearing people going on about the SNP turning it into a presidential election. Have a look at what he has already done – he’s only just been sworn in as FM, and already he’s been canvassing Michael Moore to try and get the Scotland Bill turned into something worthy of the name. Would Iain Gray have done that? No. Would any Labour leader have done that? No. Why? Because you only gave us devolution to try and get us to stop voting for the SNP, not because you believed in Scotland having a better say over it’s own future. Until you correct this – and as Dougie Clark points out, Home Rule was once a cornerstone of the Labour movement of Keir Hardie etc – then you will not win back favour with the Scottish voters.
#32 by Tony on May 20, 2011 - 12:52 pm
John
Jeff commends you on a really great honest post, yep perhaps but much of the honesty concerns in parts pre-election dishonesty by yoursel and your party.
1) If labour were so concerned about lunatic SNP policies and lies why did they agree with so many of them, or at the very least keep quiet?
2) The total and complete irony of anyone from labour complaining about the media not being rigorous enough on the SNP is parrallel universe stuff. When labour themselves were so useless at exploiting SNP weakness, it is expected the usual attack dogs would do the work for them.
The media, only at the end were forced – some reluctantly – to come on board with the SNP or at the least to stay neutral, simply because they were being led by public opinion. Left isolated, the likes of the Daily record, as hilariously funny as that was at times carried on regardless reflecting what was by and large how the media normally went about it’s business regarding the SNP. I believe those days of yore are gone, indeed the record in the following daya all but admitted they had lied to their readers all along and labour and grey were not upto the job after all.
3) You correctly identified the intellectually challenged labour group at holyrood, something that was obvious to many, yet these placemen would if you had your way held the reigns of power again. Should labour have won the election, would we have witnessed such honesty as we hear now?
4) The strategy used by labour, cringingly successfull as it was at the UK general election was simply vote for us because we are not the tories, and we will protect you from the tories. Apart from trying to kid on the Scottish people (as per usual) over the veracity of these claims, they have never been borne out. Considering that many labour policies are considered as natural tory, and labour were going to enact cut almost as deeply as the tories. Oh and where have labour ever protected Scotland from the tories anyhow?
As for your last paragraph, it surely is that simple. However I’d argue that a higher degree of honesty is required also.
#33 by douglas clark on May 20, 2011 - 1:10 pm
Does anyone have figures on the amount of cash that parties have spent on, say, the last half dozen major elections?
I seem to recall that the Tories spent a lot on the last Westminster election in Scotland, but that might just be my memory playing tricks. Or wrong, if you prefer.
Is there not supposed to be an accounting of election expenditure?
#34 by douglas clark on May 20, 2011 - 1:42 pm
Assume, dear reader that it is 2018. The ‘Yes’ vote is history. We are, yet again, an independent nation.
One consequence of which would be that there were no more Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster. If they wished to continue their careers, they would be forced to fight Hollyrood elections. It would be the only game in town.
Apart from Tom Harris who I quite like, who amongst them resonates with the electorate?
Douglas Alexander? Alistair Darling? Margaret Curran? And the ‘big beast’ Gordon Brown is offski as soon as he possibly can, if I read the runes right.
The list is actually pathetically thin if you ask me.
It seems to me that it is not the case that Labour actually has a lot of talent floating around, either at Hollyrood or Westminster.
#35 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 2:08 pm
Jeff – Wendy Alexander was the only Labour politician in the last parliament with the intellect, political nous and mental dexterity to take Alex Salmond on. Why she resigned over an issue she didn’t need to resign over, I really don’t know. She was getting it from the SNP and the media for whatever reason and I think perhaps she rushed into a decision.
It was certainly Labour’s loss, as you say, she would have run a much better campaign than Gray and ensured the election was closer.
#36 by James on May 20, 2011 - 2:17 pm
Wendy was good on some policy areas, and much more strategic (despite the chaotic way she tried to bounce the party into BringItOnism), but her people skills make Iain Gray look like Joanna Lumley.
#37 by Tony on May 20, 2011 - 6:04 pm
People skills……………pftt! At least ab fab’s patsy was actually sincere from time to time, and the laughs were intentional.
#38 by Erchie on May 22, 2011 - 2:50 am
Mr MacKay
I have had personal experience of Ms Alexander, in that she,twice, while trying to park, nearly ran me over as she was paying too much attention to the mobile clamped to her ear.
When she resigned as a SpAd, she still tried to walk in and out of St Andrew’s House as if she belonged here and got upset at the little people who pointed out she needed an appointment
You want to know how someone really is, don’t see how they treat the important folk, see how hey treat the ordinary folk.
She, and her brother, were anointed through family relationships and she always has projected an air of entitlement and to consider herself above us mere mortals and that normal rules do not apply to her
#39 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 2:17 pm
DD – Please read the original article again. I stated the SNP ran an excellent campaign and Labour ran a lousy campaign. Therefore if Labour’s message was the same and we conveyed it a wider audience even more forcefully we probably would have put off even more voters than we did.
Bottom line is money isn’t everything in a campaign but it does help and it helps a lot if you use it wisely and your campaign is as good as the SNP’s was.
Contrast that with the Tory campaign you mention last year. They had loads of money but ran a dreadful campaign and that is why they didn’t get an overall majority. There are many in the Tory Party still bitter at how badly Cameron and Osborne directed that campaign. Head over to conservativehome’s website and read Tim Montgomorie’s stuff on how rubbish the Tory campaign in 2010 was.
The SNP have have set a new benchmark in UK politics on how to run effective, well-financed election campaigns. Better than Thatcher’s Tories and New Labour. No mean feat and something the SNP should be proud of.
#40 by Doug Daniel on May 20, 2011 - 3:18 pm
Money helps yes, but there have been many Labour people trying to imply that the SNP only won this election by throwing money at it, with poor old Labour trying valiently to fight on with a shoestring budget. But you’re not one of them after all, so fair doos.
#41 by Dubbieside on May 20, 2011 - 2:20 pm
This election was not lost by Labour in the month before the 5th May.
This election was lost over the course of the last four years. All that came from the Labour benches was negative, opposition for oppositions sake. The Scottish electorate saw that and they did not like it.
I lost count of the number of people who said to me “how can any party vote against trying to do something about Scotlands alcohol problem”
Will Labour change this parliament? Not a hope, they will greet that it was not really fair we would have won if we had more money.
If Hugh Hendry is the answer you are asking the wrong question.
Jeff
Maybe the Wendy thing was more to do with altering who the donation came from to make it look like it came from a Glasgow company rather than the amount involved.
#42 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 2:29 pm
Tony – In answer to your points.
1) Labour wasn’t concerned about lunatic SNP policies, we copied them. I stated that clearly. But the blog is my opinion of the campaign, not Labour’s. I can hardly be classed as an insider as I’m from Caithness and was the candidte there!
2) I said the media should have been more rigorous on both Labour and the SNP. The lack of attention to detail was embarrassing. It’s as if there are no specialist economics reporters on Scottish newspapers who work alongside their political colleagues to dissect the costing of policies.
3) You can ask any of my Nationalist pals what my long held thoughts have been on the quality of Labour’s MSPs. I was unlikely to go shooting my mouth off about that as one of their fellow candidates in the run up to an election though.
4) Yes, Labour ran a rubbish anti-Tory campaign. Again, I think I stated that and must remind you I didn’t mastermind Labour’s election strategy!
#43 by Tony on May 20, 2011 - 6:50 pm
Thanks for the reply John, I realise you have been and will be busy with others.
I understand that you were not one of the grand strategists for labour, although in context that is perhaps an oxymoron.
I guess I am looking for some kind of comment about the dishonesty that seemingly permeated your party’s approach and no personal offence intended, your own political culpability in light of your stated post election opinions.
I understand that no party can claim to be free of politiking, however your party was guilty of some of the worst excesses that just amounted to plain old dishonesty. Exemplified just recently by the discredited former chancellor who is still at it. In staking a claim I suppose to be the leader for the unionist cause in four years time, he claims that failling banks would have sunk the goodship Scotland, he cannot seriously believe that…………surely not! Ireland and how poor it is – despite having a higher standard of living than us – and just the general sneering that seeks to put Scotland down for any reason at all times for the most dubious of reasons. Preying on and reaping the benefits of peoples doubts and fears, Curran’s losing speech for Glasgow south summed up everything that is wrong with labour. Even when the game was up persisting with the usual lies and nonsense about only labour being able to stand upto the tories and the SNP rippin aff Glesga.
Your media comments were very strange considering that all the anti-independence arguments (i hesitate to use that description) put out by labour and other unionists has never to my knowledge been challenged by the media. Instead these views are taken as the opposite end of the debate, despite nationalist arguments being forensically studied for the most minute of loose threads. Will we have a debate on independence based on informed opinion and fact John, are you willing to do that or will you and the rest of the labour part carry on as you were, with Scaremongering in lieu of credible debate?
If so I hope for, no expect yet more post mortem flagellation in four years time.
#44 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 2:31 pm
DC – Full electoral expenses are submitted to the Electoral Commission and will be dully available. I know mine went in this week.
#45 by DougtheDug on May 20, 2011 - 2:41 pm
“First things first, Labour had no chance of winning the Scottish election. It was all about the scale of defeat. Forget what the polls said a few months ago, it wasn’t a case of which party was going to win; it was by how many.”
As an SNP member I don’t ever think that the election was in the bag for the SNP and if I remember correctly the second last YouGov poll on the preceding Sunday had the constituency vote at 44% SNP, 31% Labour but 35% SNP and 32% Labour in the list. Since the list vote is where the SNP usually pick up their votes and since there was no indication of how postal voting was going to turn out I was not confident in an SNP victory and certainly not in an SNP majority. If the Labour party had already given up months earlier no wonder they lost so badly.
“Two things conspired to give Labour a hammering: SNP money and Labour incompetence. I’ll touch on the former then concentrate on the latter from my perspective as a Labour candidate. Scotland’s political media also get an honourable mention.”
In 2010 the central Labour party income was over £20,000,000 so I think the idea of Labour being a poor relation is pushing the boundaries a little. If the Labour party didn’t bother to fund the Scottish campaign properly I don’t think the blame can be laid at the SNP and their supporters who raised £500,000 in individual donations under £500 a piece in order for Brian Souter to match fund the total. I also find the idea that the SNP had journalists in their pocket a bit rich from a party which has had pretty much uncritical support from almost all the print and broadcast media in Scotland for the last four years. The Sun made its usual about turn on party support but that wasn’t until the end of April less than a month before the election.
The cry that it was SNP money and SNP money alone that swung the election smells to me of desperation and excuses. The Labour party were fighting the election on a promise of a two year council tax freeze, free higher education, protected NHS spending and free prescriptions. A candidate who’s fighting to get elected on a manifesto he believes is, “economic lunacy”, is a symptom of a party which has become a headless chicken and the voters recognised that with an impact much greater than any SNP campaign. Either you should fight to get elected on what you believe is a genuine party manifesto or you should stand for one of the other parties or as an independent.
The problem for Labour is that they are in the same boat as the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems and they only vision they can offer is a promise to manage the block grant better. The SNP has a vision for Scotland which is way beyond the municipal managerialism of the Labour party.
I didn’t think Iain Gray was Scottish Labour’s leader. As far as I know the Labour party in Scotland has no leader though it does elect an MSP group leader in Holyrood from time to time. Perhaps that’s part of the Labour problem in Scotland. You’re trying to fight a Scottish party whose leader is based in Scotland while the Labour party in Scotland is a region of the UK party and has no regional leader.
“Oh, and if there’s a transport tycoon out there with a social conscience who wouldn’t mind slipping us a few million quid, that would be handy as well.”
Well Lakshmi Mittal gave you £1,000,000 in 2010 along with Nigel Doughty who also gave £1,000,000 and Lord David Sainsbury gave you £350,000 with Saatchi and Saatchi fronting up with £322,605.41. And that’s not counting the unions where Unite alone gave £4,148,287.80 in cash. I think you’ll be alright for 2011.
#46 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 2:42 pm
DC – Off the top of my head I’d say Jim Murphy, Douglas Alexander, Ann McKechin, Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown, Gregg McClymont, Tom Harris, Tom Greatrex and Fiona O’Donnell are all very good Scottish Labour MPs
Of course there are more and whilst I’m sad, I’m not sad enough to be able to recall the name of every Scottish Labour MP just now and can’t be bothered going to another page to look them all up.
#47 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 2:45 pm
James – Wendy certainly wasn’t perfect but was the best person for the job.
#48 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 2:52 pm
Dubbie – I fundamentally disagreed with Labour’s position on minimum alcohol pricing. That was my party’s worst example of party politicking in the last parliament. I am not proud of it.
Anyone from Labour greetin that we lost because we didn’t have enough money is talking rubbish. I’ve outlined my thoughts on campaign financing enough times above.
Hugh Henry isn’t the long-term answer. But right now we need some sort of answer.
#49 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 3:12 pm
DougtheDug – Despite all the donations listed…the Labour Party is absolutely skint!
#50 by DougtheDug on May 20, 2011 - 3:43 pm
My comment has a slight error. That figure of £20,000,000 is for donations alone not income which will be a higher figure as it doesn’t take into account the membership fees or any other form of income which doesn’t count as a donation.
If the Labour party is skint what on earth are you spending the money on?
#51 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 3:19 pm
Malc – After the review I hope Scottish Labour has a system in place where our leader doesn’t need to be an MSP. That way Jim Murphy can take over the role and become an MSP in 2016.
Not sure if Jim chairing that review is a help or a hindrance in that respect.
#52 by Malc on May 20, 2011 - 3:29 pm
Well, I’d hope that your leader has more responsibility than simply being Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament after the review. Then it could well be an MP. I’d thought Sarah Boyack could be a shout, but she’s chairing the review from the MSP side.
Anyway, here’s the odds from Ladbrokes:
J Baillie 7/4
K Macintosh 9/4
M Chisholm 5/1
J Lamont 5/1
R Baker 12/1
M McMahon 16/1
K Dugdale 25/1
Fancy any of them?
#53 by douglas clark on May 20, 2011 - 3:38 pm
John Mackay,
You appear to be quite a likeable chap.
So, it is with regret that I write this:
Who are half the names on your list? To take one at random am I supposed to know who Gregg McClymont actually is?
I am quite interested in politics and yet his name, well no, it doesn’t ring any bells.
That is not to say he isn’t a brilliant MP. It is to say that he lacks recognition.
———————-
My point was merely to turn a major question on it’s head.
Did you join the Labour Party on some sort of understanding that it was all about the Union? That it had nothing whatsoever to do with your aspirations as a Scotsman?
If so, you should tell us now. And justify it to voters. You could start here. I think you might struggle to answer that.
If not, what the heck are you playing at?
Politics, for most Scots, is about sympathy for others. It is not about ourselves exactly. It is about how we like to think about ourselves and our relationship to others. Least, that’s where the evidence points….
#54 by Dubbieside on May 20, 2011 - 3:38 pm
John
I am sorry but your blaming money does no get to the heart of why Labour lost so heavily. Look at where the SNP spent the money, which as Doug outlines, more than half was raised by small donations from ordinary members.
Did the SNP run a massive TV advertising campaign that could sway undecided voters? No. Did the SNP dominate the newspaper adverts? No. Did money win all the first past the post seats in Glasgow? No, the people of Glasgow did not leave Labour, they realised that Labour had left then.
Where most of the money was spent was on advertising material that was then delivered by SNP atavists round the doors. My own area we had seven pieces of material, a mixture of national and locally produced. We doubled up on two items, but we delivered to every door in our constituency six times. That sort of effort was replicated across the country. That is why we won, The SNP presented a positive vision for Scotland that we believed in and were prepared to work for.
If we had not had Brian Souters money we would have delivered locally produce photocopied material just as often around our area.
You do not have the atavists because you have no vision for Scotland apart from being a minor unimportant branch of the UK. I was out almost every day for five weeks, during that time I saw two Labour activists one day and four on polling day trying to get their vote out. I was in one of the seats that Labour were supposedly targeting.
John finally finishing, may I be as bold as to ask you, given all the things that you have listed as being wrong, and what you do not agree with, just why you are still a member of the Labour party.
#55 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 3:50 pm
Malc – That ain’t the most encouraging list. Baillie, Lamont and Baker shouldn’t be on it. I ‘m cringing just thinking about any of them taking on Salmond at FMQ.
Kez is very bright but now is not her time.
So Macintosh or Chisholm…
#56 by Malc on May 20, 2011 - 3:54 pm
I’d like for you to be right – but I suspect it’ll be Baillie. But then, I’ve been wrong (on many, many occasions) before!
#57 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 3:54 pm
DC – ‘Quite likable’. That may just be the highest compliment I’ve ever been paid!
Of course you’ll know some of the names but the names you don’t know are Scottish Labour’s brightest and best from the Westminster 2010 intake. As new MPs you won’t know them yet, but eventually you will. Gregg is the MP for Cumbernauld and will go far.
#58 by Malc on May 20, 2011 - 3:57 pm
I have heard good things about him as well – so this isn’t just a Labour guy sticking up for Labour MPs!
#59 by CassiusClaymore on May 20, 2011 - 4:15 pm
Er…Wendy Alexander committed a criminal offence. Not some error of judgement, or some other piece of non-criminal bad behaviour. An actual criminal offence. She was amazingly lucky not to be prosecuted (i.e. lucky that the prosecuting authority in question was the Labour-established Electoral Commission).
I always laugh when I hear her intellect described in gushing terms. Being bright in comparison to the rest of the Labour MSPs isn’t a particularly high bar, is it? The reality is that she was a mediocre minister/leader whose actual skillset couldn’t cash the cheques her mouth was always busy writing. If she was Labour’s best hope, then they’re in more trouble than I could ever have dreamed possible.
CC
#60 by John Mackay on May 20, 2011 - 4:16 pm
DC – Why did I join the Labour Party? I joined when I was 15 and it had nothing to do with the Union nor my aspirations as a Scotsman. I’ve never defined myself by my nationality nor the state I am a citizen of, and I never will.
I grew up in a council house in Halkirk and when I was 15 I joined the political party that I believed was most representative of me, my family and my community. I’m sure you can hear the Red Flag and the Internacionale playing in your head as you read this, but nationality or statehood did not, and never will, play any part in my political beliefs. Be that Scottish or British.
I’m from a working class family (though I probably can’t be considered to be working class now) and Labour is still the party I believe is best placed to represent people from my background, my family, my friends, my community etc etc.
That is a matter of opinion and most on this site will disagree with me. But I am sincere when I say that I still think Labour is the party best placed to represent working people. Yes that is Dvorak you can now hear playing in your head…
I’ve been honest in saying Scottish Labour isn’t very good just now but we will be again.
#61 by Indy on May 20, 2011 - 7:06 pm
Your problem is that you are looking at things in constitutional terms rather than in practical terms.
I didn’t join the SNPP because I hate the Union or because of my aspirations as a Scottish person. I joined because of my aspirations as a person who just happens to be Scottish.
The fact that I am Scottish is a mere accident of birth. But since I am Scottish and live in Scotland I wanted to join the party which has the interests of Scotland at its heart. That is the SNP.
I don’t know how or why you would distinguish between different sections of the community. I want a party that will represent the interests of working people and people who don’t work, the retired, cildren, unemployed people etc.
One of the historical problems the Labour Party had was in identiofying itself as the party of the working class. That was all very well when people lived in neatly labelled boxes according to their social class. But obviously life is not like that any more. That’s why New Labour was invented, to move away from that class based approach to politics.
And if you are looking at reasons for Labour’s defeat I would suggest that the strategy of designing a campaign to motivate Labour’s core vote was one of the fundamental mistakes. Because your core vote is not big enough to win and scaremongering about independence does not frighten people any more.
So to have a future I suggest Lbour need to look beyond the confines of a core vote strategy and anti-independence rhetoruc and start aiming higher. That does not automatically mean embracing independence but it does mean not allowing yourselves to be boxed in by your unionism.
#62 by JPJ2 on May 20, 2011 - 7:19 pm
John Mackay says “but nationality or statehood did not, and never will, play any part in my political beliefs.”
I know what it is you are saying but I think it is unrealistic.
We all have to operate within the state/nation in which we exist, and not factoring that into a political analysis as if it does not matter whether one lives in Scotland, Brazil, China or Australia just seems to me to be-in many meanings of the expression-self denying.
#63 by David Gray on May 20, 2011 - 7:25 pm
I feel that much of the ground in this debate was already covered in the blog posting by Aidan.
As I mentioned in my comment there, it is going to be very difficult for Labour to put any distance between any SNP policy, given the broad similarity between them in their manifestos at the last election.
Plus, I find it hypocritical to accuse the SNP of making spending promises it cannot afford, given Labour matched many of them , if not all, in a vain effort to retain votes.
As it happens, I agree with your sentiments regrading the fundability of many of the SNP’s manifesto commitments – but I still voted for them. I suspect they will have to break their spending commitments at some point in this parliament. Either that or they will have to admit to the necessity of public sector job cuts. In addition, I do wonder whether the SNP will be able to enforce the council tax freeze for 5 years, as some councils might take the financial hit to regain their independence from Holyrood – just a thought.
I think your suggestions for rebuilding the party are correct. However, it will not be simple. In particular, the issue of who will become the leader of the Scottish Labour party at Holyrood is a major headache. In my opinion, none of them are up to task. Mind you, that might change if new faces who step forward are credible – but I doubt that.
#64 by Indy on May 21, 2011 - 11:03 am
I find it interesting that so many people make no reference to the council elections next year when they discuss whether or not the council tax freeze will hold.
The SNP will certainly make a commitment to maintain it in their local government campaign and Labour will probably do likewise or face losing councillors.
So I don’t think it is really the issue that some people are building it up to be.
#65 by Am Firinn on May 20, 2011 - 7:49 pm
Thank you, Mr Mackay, for an interesting article, and for gallantly engaging in a debate here. I am an SNP member. I think you are right to point to finance as an important aspect of a successful campaign. Mr Soutar’s half million was cleverly deployed, in that the match-funding aspect of it certainly encouraged people like me to contribute their mites. In my case I would have given in any case, but I may have not been so quick off the mark – and he gives twice who gives quickly, as the saying is.
On the other hand Joanne Rowling gave you a million back in 2008, and good for her. However, the fact that this money, raised in Scotland in that its donor lives here, was subsequently micturated up an English wall is, I’m afraid, a metaphor for the Union. Labour in Scotland should not be casting envious glances at the SNP’s finances. That tells us something about the way your party is run: and is close to the root of your problems.
But keep plugging away, Mr Mackay – we need you more than ever!
#66 by douglas clark on May 20, 2011 - 8:01 pm
John Mackay @ 54,
Fair enough. Some of my best friends on the internet are in the Labour Party. I would do my best to get them elected (in London). Contrary to the tribalism we all display sometimes I wish you well.
#67 by Gaz on May 20, 2011 - 9:28 pm
As I’ve said before, I am not at all convinced that the SNP outspent Labour in this campaign.
From what I know, I estimate that Labour (and/or their sponsors) spent at least £50,000 on buying direct mail services in my constituency alone. I know the same happened in many other constituencies too.
The vast, vast majority of it will not be declared as election expenses because most of it was not in support of a candidate. Mass mailings, some of them 1st class postage paid, of several items took place, two letters from Ed Milliband, two letters from Iain Gray, one letter from Alistair Darling as well as several general fliers.
I suspect the funding came in the form of per mailing sponsorships by one or more union and it is quite possible that not even the Scottish Labour Campaign HQ knew they were happening but happen they did.
In the final week, posties were telling us they were putting 5 pieces of Labour literature through a single door on a single day and up to 10 pieces through a single door in the final week.
As this shows, it is about how you use the money you have as much as how much money you have. But please let’s not kid ourselves that Labour and their sponsors didn’t spend an absolute fortune during this campaign.
#68 by Indy on May 21, 2011 - 11:06 am
The cost of the personalised leaflets they started sending out towards the end of the campaign must have been pretty high. I don’t imagine they did that in every constituency but they did a lot of it in Glasgow and the west of Scotland, I know that.
#69 by John Mc on May 20, 2011 - 11:04 pm
A slighty irrelevant thought that occured to me after reading this – could Labour’s election strategy of triangulation (or nicking the SNP’s policies depending on how you look at it) actually lead to a more consensual parliament than we’ve had for the last four years? After all, they cannot vote against the council tax freeze (at least for the next two years) or against free higher education without looking entirely partisan and hypocritical. Could this improve relations between Labour and the SNP and help to bring about consensus between the parties as Salmond claims to want?
#70 by An Duine Gruamach on May 21, 2011 - 7:41 pm
Well, they voted against a budget that had all they stood for and more in it, so we’ll see…
#71 by Brian Nicholson on May 21, 2011 - 2:33 am
Unlike others here who think this guest article is not up to snuff, I beg to disagree. In my opinion, it clearly describes why Labour lost the election and why it will contineue to lose.
In a few short paragraphs, we see the following.
1) Labour was never going to win, ignore what the polls were saying.
2) The SNP used thier fundraising avantage to make the election unfair.
3) SNP policies were totally wrong and will destroy the country.
4) Please ignore the fact the Labour copied most of those policies and continues to support them today.
5) The media failed the scottish people by not hammering the SNP at every opportunity.
6) Labour has no talent at Holyrood and needs to bring in MP’s to right the ship.
7) Jim Murphy has a responsiblity to take over as Scottish Labour leader.
8) It was all Iain Gray and his team’s fault because they fought the wrong campaign and even did that badly.
9) The Labour Party doesn’t have to do much to win the next election, just bring in the Westminster MP’s and get some good policies that the Scottish People will like.
10) Labour needs to find a business tycoon to give the few million quid to finance the next campaign.
These ten points are not a game plan for the future but an eulogy for the Labour party.
Until Labour members learn the lessons of the last two elections, they will repeat them and return in every smaller numbers.
#72 by Ian Vallely on May 21, 2011 - 8:56 am
A good article John, and a positive step in identifying labours problems. But your missing it.
Money is important yes, for as many years as I can remember Labour have out financed the SNP at elections to good effect but those pigeons have come home to roost. Fact Labour are seen to be hopeless at balancing the books.
Labour have consistently blamed the bankers for the mess the country’s finances are in, that’s not good enough. Labour were the party in power and the party that borrowed all those billions. They had the choices to make, In my home I have to balance the books, If I need a new car I have options as to how I’m going to pay for it, I can borrow heavily, buy a new car, and then trust that I can meet the payments in future. I can buy an old banger using saved cash in the knowledge that it will only last a couple of years and in that time save to be in a position to buy a better car when that one expires. The point is Labour had options and made bad decisions. Trying to blame others is not acceptable.
You say the budget for the next five years is largely set and we must work within that, but already the SNP are working to change that by demanding more and more control from Westminster over our finances. I believe it is widely recognised that far from being subsidised by Westminster Scotland is in-fact a net contributor to the Westminster coffers. Fact or not the SNP are the only party who do not accept the status quo and are prepared to work to change the financial arrangements for Scotland.
Whether or not the SNP can deliver on their promises remains to be seen but as far as the electorate are concerned they provided a hope and vision for Scotland. The SNP have been in power at Holyrood for the past four years, and yes have made mistakes, but that’s not a good enough reason to put them out of power because the electorate know that we all make mistakes all the time, its more to do with the reasons for making decisions rather than the decisions themselves. The SNP can be trusted to make decisions with the best interests of Scotland at heart, the decision may not be right but if the intentions are right people will forgive. The same can not be said for any of the other parties. They spread themselves to thin and by so doing end up with nobody’s best interests at heart other than their own.
Then there is the media. It is hypocritical to attack the media, God know labour have used the media for many years to their advantage in exactly the same way, and that leads to the tone of your piece Still suggesting we cant manage without London. Jim Murphy is no asset to Scottish labour he is too tied up in Westminster, and a staunch supporter of WMD. I believe it is the likes of Mr Murphy that have brought the Labour party in Scotland to where it is now, He is typical of the no can do negative rhetoric that emanates from the Labour party.
I strongly believe the Labour party in Scotland will become more and more irrelevant until they get a voice and focus of their own, they need a clean split from the Labour party UK. Scotland is a Nation in it’s own right and needs political parties that reflect that, we are no longer content to be told from London how to manage our affairs or that our affairs are better managed from London.
I live in the hope one day to see a true Scottish Labour party.
#73 by John Mackay on May 22, 2011 - 11:53 am
Cheers Ian. Likewise, there is a lot of sense in what you’ve written and there’s much I agree with.
My point about the media is that they didn’t scrutinise the manifestos nor cost policies for either Labour or the SNP. It isn’t about media support or bias for either party, it’s about good journalism.