A very welcome guest post from Labour activist Yousuf Hamid:
Scottish Labour has faced complete annihilation at the polls this week and the root and branch review will now have the aim of ensuring it does not face extinction.
Today, the SNP can justifiably say that they are not just the Scottish National Party but the National Party of Scotland and in fact it could have been worse. The excellent ground campaign run from CLPs with support from very talented organisers at Scottish Labour HQ probably exaggerated our support.
Many people have already pointed the finger of blame at Iain Gray. There is no doubt that his poor performances in the debates, a lack of charisma compared to Alex Salmond and embarrassing incidents like the infamous *subway-gate* contributed to the loss.
However, this defeat was far bigger than one man.
Since Iain Gray became leader the party has adopted a core vote strategy, but not one that English readers may be used to in the 80s.
This was not an argument over tax and spend or public expenditure cuts but one of attempting to out-tough the Nationalists on crime at every opportunity and to try to appeal to our base vote at the exclusion of everyone else in civic Scotland.
In a contest which was always going to come down to swing Liberal Democrat voters, this core vote strategy was complete folly. The truth is that when I was out on the doorstep and people asked me why they should vote Labour I couldn’t give them an answer.
Psephologically speaking we lost due to the collapse of the Lib Dem vote which went to the SNP but any Labour politician who blames the result on this have their heads firmly in the sand.
Ever since the coalition was formed everyone knew that Scots would brutally punish the Liberal Democrats and yet we had an uninspiring manifesto which offered nothing to entice their voters and the messages of our campaign completely ignored them.
It is no surprise that their votes travelled wholesale to the SNP.
That is, of course, based on the policy differentials that we had left. There was clearly a last-minute panic where we adopted many of the SNP policies (many despite the bitter opposition of much of the shadow cabinet and backbenches) which meant that a large part of the campaign was based on the personality of two teams.
That was a battle where there was only going to be one winner.
We lost some great parliamentarians last night, including Andy Kerr, the former Health Secretary who would almost certainly have been the leader of Scottish Labour now if he had not lost his seat.
However, there have been MSPs who have lost their seat who would struggle to be recognised in their own streets, never mind to the wider public, and there has been a distinct lack of strategic thinkers in the Labour group.
There can be no doubt that when you compare the SNP top team to our group that they had a stronger team.
The strategy of fighting the campaign as a protest to the Westminster Government was seen as patronising and insulting the intelligent of the Scottish electorate and a sudden shift a fortnight before polling day was embarrassing.
This entire election was based on a profound misunderstanding of the Scottish public. Much is often made on the socialist history of Scottish radicals and the size of the state and the ideological position of Scotland being to the left of the UK. Much of is just a legend but as with all good legends there is some truth in it. There is a level of egalitarianism in Scotland that is greater than that exhibited down south, but is comes in many different forms.
A ‘progressive majority’ is a much derided term but it certainly exists in Scotland. Labour only focussed on the socially conservative element of that bloc to get elected and paid the consequences. It was the SNP’s ability to convince that progressive majority that they were best placed to stand up for Scotland which led to their incredible victory.
There are many lessons to be learned from this campaign and we must all now work with those Labour MSPs left but first of all we must reflect on what went so badly wrong in this election
#1 by bill on May 8, 2011 - 8:06 pm
here’s an idea.
How about trying to find a few candidates with a proper career history behind them, instead of numpty former shop stewards or politics graduates turned researchers turned councillors turned candidates…?
#2 by aonghas on May 8, 2011 - 8:44 pm
The winning candidate whom I heard begin their speech with “What a victorious… victory” wasn’t a Labour candidate. So, y’know.
#3 by bill on May 8, 2011 - 9:11 pm
Numpties are in all walks of life, plenty in the other parties too. It’s just seems to be Labour in Holyrood that lets them rise to the top.
#4 by The Burd on May 8, 2011 - 9:33 pm
I think Peter Jones in Scotland on Sunday hit the nail on the head. There is a very narrow pond from within which to fish for candidates, they need to address that. Key part of the review. Be interesting to see how they manage to get people to give up their fiefdoms….
#5 by Aidan Skinner on May 9, 2011 - 10:46 am
There’s quite a few SNP folk who got on the politics -> researcher -> councillor -> candidate conveyer belt too, eg. Mark McDonald, Derek Mackay, Richard Lyle Quite a few skipped the councillor stage as well: Aileen Campbell, Humza Yousuf, Jamie Hepburn, arguably Aileen McLeod.
The increasing tendancy to professionalise politics is a problem, but it’s one shared by all parties, not just Labour.
#6 by The Burd on May 8, 2011 - 9:36 pm
There is definitely no monopoly on eejits!
#7 by Lost Highlander on May 8, 2011 - 8:33 pm
Glad to hear from you Yusuf…
Can I say that the problem was that Labour did not appear to be a goverment in waiting but a bunch of nobodies toeing a westminster line. They did not appear wanting to support Scotland but expecting support down to the red rosettes they wore.
So what has to be done is first to look at themselves and become not the Labour party in Scotland but the Labour party of Scotland and that means that the artificial seperation of the MPs and MSPs has to stop, pick a party leader and start putting people with talent into the Scottish Parliament. No longer having westminster MPs lord it over the “inferior” parliament MSPs. Create a unified party with links to the one in England as allies but not what appears to be subordinates.
#8 by douglas clark on May 8, 2011 - 8:37 pm
I agree with some of this analysis. It might be worth your time reading the series of posts that SNmr put up over at the SNP web site. He more or less told you why you were losing.
My own views?
Frankly, until you tried to pinch SNP policies, you didn’t have many that resonated with voters. It is also ridiculous to be approaching an election without a costed manifesto, it is difficult for electors to become attracted to negative messages and, until you took stock too late – you were ambivalent about Council Tax Rises.
#9 by Zoe Smith on May 8, 2011 - 8:38 pm
“Labour only focussed on the socially conservative element of that bloc to get elected and paid the consequences”
Well said Yousuf, we offered nothing to the electorate (until we adopted the council tax freeze pledge from the SNP) and we painted a very bleak picture of Scotland and its people.
I only hope that the “root and branch” review comes after a long period of honest reflection- involving non-elected and elected members alike.
#10 by Doug Daniel on May 9, 2011 - 8:12 am
“(until we adopted the council tax freeze pledge from the SNP)”
Interesting wording. You mean like when burglars “adopt” people’s possessions?
#11 by Richard on May 8, 2011 - 8:39 pm
A very welcome message from the Labour side. I voted SNP in both votes, but I know that there needs to be a good thoughtful and constructive opposition to the new Government. Please urge your colleagues to be the best opposition that the can be, keeping Scotland’s real interest at heart. In doing that, you will rebuild your credibility.
#12 by The Burd on May 8, 2011 - 9:36 pm
Hear, hear Richard!
#13 by Ezio on May 8, 2011 - 8:44 pm
Very thoughtful post which I enjoyed reading. But this quote jumped out at me:
“The truth is that when I
was out on the doorstep and people asked me why they should vote Labour I
couldn’t give them an answer.”
If that is genuinely the case, then why in the name of God are you a member of that party?
#14 by Aidan Skinner on May 9, 2011 - 1:43 pm
Labour had lots of good, positive policies in our manifesto: national care service, green energy infrastructure etc. etc. etc.
We just didn’t talk about them, so they were lost in the morass of scaremongering.
#15 by Allan on May 8, 2011 - 8:48 pm
I do wish that Labour people would stop touting the line that the Lib Dem vote costing them the election. The Labour vote at Holyrood has been in decline since 2003 – it fell again on Thursday. This is long term decline that Labour has ignored since that point.
#16 by The Burd on May 8, 2011 - 9:35 pm
Ah careful! The Labour constituency vote total actually only fell by 0.5%!
#17 by Allan on May 8, 2011 - 9:52 pm
Or in real money 17,766 votes…
BTW the fall in list votes was 71,856, but as we’ve already discussed, Labour never really paid the attention they should have on the list votes.
#18 by The Burd on May 8, 2011 - 10:06 pm
Not according to the campaigns co-ordinator, John Park. They did have a list strategy in place, but it fell flat again. That is something that needs to be looked at in the review.
#19 by Chris Jones on May 8, 2011 - 9:06 pm
A welcome return for Yousuf… another loss to the Scottish blogging scene.
A couple of ideas spring to mind that would help Labour to get serious about Scotland:
1. Re-organising around Scottish Parliamentary constituencies instead of Westminster CLPs – firstly to get the mindset into “Holyrood First” and secondly to ensure that where Holyrood constituencies are incongruous with Westminster that the MSP or candidate is adequately supported. Take Sarah Boyack for instance: she commands respect across the benches yet didn’t have the respect of the Labour Party to initially properly fund and support her campaign because responsibility was equally split across 5 CLPS.
2. Consider breaking off the Scottish Labour Party into an affiliated model – like the CDU/CSU in Germany/Bavaria.
3. Open a think-tank in Scotland that is independent from Westminster leadership in policy development terms.
4. Lose the visceral hatred of the SNP – it masks the fact that there’s a lot of decent folk in the Scottish Labour Party. And, that those decent folk were just tired of the opportunist and vexatious opposition tactics that became the hallmark of the last 4 years.
5. Whatever you do, don’t elect Jackie Baillie as your leader!
Good luck!
#20 by The Burd on May 8, 2011 - 9:35 pm
Some good advice there! I’d like to see a thawing between both SNP and Labour actually – it’s a two way thing. The vexatious opposition tactics of last 4 years were fuelled by arrogance, at continuing disbelief that they, the natural party of government, had been usurped by the SNP. Here’s hoping they have learned a lesson this time round though some of its most vocal proponents did manage to make it back…
#21 by An Duine Gruamach on May 8, 2011 - 11:00 pm
Do Labour really need more think-tanks and focus groups?
#22 by John Ruddy on May 9, 2011 - 10:14 pm
Arguably, yes. As far as I am aware, there isnt a specific scottish one, for instance. If there is one, it needs to work harder and raise its profile.
#23 by DougtheDug on May 8, 2011 - 9:14 pm
“It was the SNP’s ability to convince that progressive majority that they were best placed to stand up for Scotland which led to their incredible victory.”
The SNP’s campaign was important but there is now a recognition among the Scottish electorate that, leaving aside the Greens, the SNP are the only Scottish party in the Parliament. The only party who are committed totally to Scotland and whose leader and headquarters are based in Scotland and whose policies are decided on Scottish considerations alone.
The Lib-Dems in Scotland got punished for being in coalition with the Tories in Westminster, the Tories in Scotland got punished for cutting in Westminster and Labour failed to capture and in many cases to hold the votes of those who wanted a Parliament to stand up for Scotland because Milliband wanted Labour in power purely as a springboard for the next Westminster election. None of these parties were considered as separate Scottish parties by the electorate or as effective defenders of Scotland.
Policy changes may make a difference to Labour in Scotland but it will never be considered a Scottish party like the SNP which is the reason the electorate voted for the SNP in such large numbers in this election.
#24 by The Burd on May 8, 2011 - 9:32 pm
I think SNP supporters need to step back a little and try – hard though it is! – not to get too caught up in post election hubris but more importantly myth making. There is some truth – actually lots of truth – in the SNP being most resonant with Scots as the party which will stand up for Scotland. But it is not impossible for one of the other parties to reinvent themselves as Scottish. Labour could do it but they have a long hard road ahead of them to get there.
The Scottish people voted for competence and hope – and there is a long way to go in the next five years to deliver on the trust people have shown in the party on these two values.
#25 by DougtheDug on May 8, 2011 - 9:52 pm
Definition of Hubris : exaggerated pride or self-confidence
I’ve been around too long in the elections game to get hubristic about any result. The game isn’t over by a long chalk and the starting gun of the independence referendum campaign was fired by seat number 65 when David Torrance gained Kirkaldy. There’s a long campaign ahead of us which has just started.
The difficulty for all the respective Scottish sections of the Lib-Dems, Conservatives and Labour in reinventing themselves as Scottish is that they are not separate parties but Scottish wings of British parties.
The electorate are sophisticated enough to spot the difference.
#26 by The Burd on May 8, 2011 - 10:07 pm
And who is to say that the Scottish electorate might not go for that at a future election if they like what else is on offer?
#27 by John Ruddy on May 8, 2011 - 9:53 pm
I agree with many of the things you say. But not once during this campaign did anyone tell me they wernt voting Labour because we “wernt a proper Scottish party”. It has simply never come up.
I think SNP activists need to remeber not to project their own views onto those of the majority of the public.
#28 by Steve on May 9, 2011 - 11:52 pm
John, I have no reason to disbelieve you, but maybe you can tell us some of the reasons that people on the doorstep did give for not voting Labour?
#29 by John Ruddy on May 10, 2011 - 8:46 pm
Since I live in SNP central, you’ll not be surprised to hear that many of the people I came acros were SNP supporters. Many couldnt articulate why – just they always have been. I suppsoe its the same reaction many people got from Labour voters in Glasgow over the years? Some people said they wouldnt vote for us because we had an English candidate (but not because we were an English party) – I guess thats why the SNP didnt get Nigel Don out and about that much. There was also a anti-tory vote there as well, as many people were voting SNP to stop the tories, despite the fact that there probably wasnt any danger from them in this election – I think a lot of people remember Angus and Aberdeenshire under the tories – Angus was the Tories’ top target seat at the General Election, too.
The only really strong objections were people who thought the last Labour westminster government had spent too much on a bloated public sector – I put them down to be tories who werent going to vote for us anyway!
What puzzles me is the number of Lib Dem voters we came across who all said, that after a lifetime of voting Liberal (many of them back to Jo Grimond’s days – one remembered that Jo’s nephew had stood for the westminster North Angus and Mearns back in the 60s!) all said that they wernt voting Lib Dem any more – they were voting Labour.
The big thing I think we got wrong was that we didnt really have anything to offer these Liberal voters, (whether thats in terms of policy or personality) and when they looked at us, they decided “no thanks”, and went SNP. Which makes sense, as our vote was pretty static (very slightly down), whilst the Lib Dem vote was massively down (went from 2nd to 4th, just saved deposit) while the SNP vote (which arguably didnt need any more to guarantee victory) went up by almost the same amount. I think the tory vote went up because Alex Johnstone was the only candidate who was born in the constituency, or indeed, born in Scotland! That and a lot of people were fired up to vote No – usually seemed to be tories who brought it up on the doorsteps.
Generally, however, we found a lot of people who were warm and friendly towards us – and I would say that many people in the constituency have what I would call “Labour values”, and that if we could harness that, I think we could do better. I’ve often said that if you were to transplant towns such as Brechin, Montrose or Forfar to the Central Belt, or northern England, you’d have a whopping Labour majority.
Independance or greater powers for Holyrood were never mentioned – even by those SNP voters we spoke to – only by the SNP activists we came across.
#30 by David Fagan on May 8, 2011 - 9:18 pm
Good article Yousuf. For what it us worth, here are my thoughts on what we need to do next.
http://davidfagan.co.uk/?p=411
#31 by James on May 9, 2011 - 10:32 am
You’re right, another good point (not that the SNP involve their membership terribly much in policy-making). I sincerely wish you well, but if it doesn’t work out, you can imagine where else I suggest you look for an open and internally democratic party.
#32 by Allan on May 8, 2011 - 9:22 pm
As for why you lost… badly.
Well, the policies disappeared amongst, firstly the “Tories are back we will protect you” rhetoric (where there was no explanation of how you were going to do this), and then the “A vote for SNP is a vote for Independence” rhetoric (again no explanation as to why depriving us of a plebicite is in the national interest). Obviously Gray running away from anti-cuts protestors crystalised peoples opinions of Gray, he should have made his point.
The U-Turn on Council Tax I think marked your party as a bunch of flip floppers, especially as your party spent most of last year campaigning for the scrapping of the freeze. As a result of the triangulation of policies, it became a battle about personalities. Say what you like about Salmond, he has raised the bar for the position of First Minister over the past 4 years. I think people thought that Gray’s election would be a return to the policies of “Do Less Better”.
Oh and where was this much vaunted “ground war”? I got one leaflet, which was condisending and deeply patronising. I also tought that it looked akin to a Tory leaflet (see here for my views – http://humbug3.blogspot.com/2011/05/make-more-noise_03.html). That was it. My Fiancee got two leaflets, the one I got and a leaflet “introducing” Evan Williams “as your local candidate”. I felt that Labour took by vote for granted because I live in a Tenament block, despite the fact I have not voted Labour since 1994. Aparently they don’t need my vote…
#33 by Allan on May 8, 2011 - 9:25 pm
Yep, I thought that it looked akin to a Tory leaflet…
Curse you fat fingers….
#34 by The Burd on May 8, 2011 - 9:28 pm
The ground war was centred around 20 target marginal seats – Paisley wasn’t seen as a marginal, hence left to local party to run. And they clearly didn’t see you as a priority switch voter! More fool them!
#35 by Dubbieside on May 8, 2011 - 9:35 pm
Yousuf
Welcome back, you have been missed as a worth opponent.
I think however that anyone watching the TV or reading the newspapers since Thursday night will know that all the root and branch reform talk, is just that, talk.
The dinosaurs are well entrenched in New/Old/Maybe Labour and they will not change.
They know with complete certainty that they did not lose this election the Lib Dems lost it for them, the same as in 2007 the Iraq war lost it then. They have their excuse for why they lost, and the surviving Labour MSPs will girn and gripe all the way to 2016 and try to obstruct every proposal put forward by the SNP.
Chris Jones has laid out some constructive ideas for a possible way forward in his post. Will Labour adopt any of them? not a hope.
#36 by Nikostratos on May 8, 2011 - 9:42 pm
Its time the best Scottish Labour representatives went to the Scottish Parliament and not the Westminster one.
labour put Scotland after London and have paid the price
#37 by Bugger the Panda on May 8, 2011 - 10:00 pm
“The vexatious opposition tactics of last 4 years were fuelled by arrogance, at continuing disbelief that they, the natural party of government, had been usurped by the SNP. ”
Thg=is has been so for generations.There has been a visceral hate within “Scottish” Labour agin the SNP.
As for you Yousuf, I welcome this article and hope to see, one day in a truly Scottish Labour Party, working for the betterment of all the peoples of Scotland and not the pension funds of the Party.
The SNP awaits you and I know you will find a fertile ground for your integrity.
Like Johnny Walker, keep on walking, for we are waiting for you.
A
#38 by John Ruddy on May 9, 2011 - 10:16 pm
This is what irks me the most about some parts of the SNP. The view that the only place for people of intelligence and integrity is the SNP. That the only place for people who are Scottish is the SNP. That, ultimately, membership of any other party is akin to being a traitor.
#39 by Bugger the Panda on May 8, 2011 - 10:01 pm
Hi Nikko!
#40 by douglas clark on May 8, 2011 - 10:16 pm
The Burd,
I’m not saying you are wrong, but how come the SNP won so many seats?
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. This is my best shot at it….
We won, I think, because most of the non Labour core vote came out for us.
Do you agree?
Pingback: The Scottish election- a mentalists view « mentalpoliticalparent
#41 by CW on May 8, 2011 - 11:13 pm
The intriguing thing is that Labour’s core vote seemed not to come from the traditional ‘working class’ vote but from middle class public sector workers. Eastwood has just about the highest Labour majority in Scotland now even with the exclusion of Barrhead from its boundaries, and to think that this is the case when Labour lost seats like Shettleston and Anniesland is mind-boggling. I’m not saying that this is the whole story, and given that many Labour seats were won simply because of the collapse of the Lib Dem vote it’s clear that there was a shift in voters who are probably more affluent, but this is perhaps further evidence that class is no longer the dominant factor when considering voting behaviour.
#42 by Tony on May 9, 2011 - 9:40 am
My thoughts also.
Not only are labour now increasingly viewed as the party of middle class public sector workers but the evidence is beginning to bear it out by the constituencies they held.
Areas like Shettleston and the wider east end of Glasgow have now had personal experience of John Mason and SNP councilours that hitherto they had not experienced. They actually like being represented for a change. Now when we phone a councilor they get things done, people kinda like that.
I’m not sure how labour people who in essence have just been riding the gravy train all the way to being superior being in the house of lords tie in with ordinary people at all, who are just looking for a better existance in many cases.
#43 by David on May 8, 2011 - 11:56 pm
In straight SNP / labour fights there seemed to be large swings to the SNP from labour.
So I think it is a bit simplistic to assume the Lib-dem vote switched completely to the SNP.
Could it be possible that many votes also went to labour, but this was masked by a similar swing from Labour to the SNP ?
#44 by James on May 9, 2011 - 12:01 am
Yup, absolutely. Labour steady in a seat, Libs down 7%, Nats up 7% means all sorts of things (including some voting who didn’t before, and vice versa).
#45 by John Ruddy on May 9, 2011 - 10:17 pm
Of course, in such a seat as you describe, James, the result would be described as a 3.5% swing from Labour to the SNP.
#46 by Tony on May 9, 2011 - 9:42 am
I reckon so, in Provan for example there was no Lib/dem vote to get really but the SNP took a thousand votes from Labour.
#47 by David on May 9, 2011 - 12:45 am
I agree with those who suggest Labour needs to become more ‘Scottish’.
If they backed more powers for Holyrood, within the UK, it would go a long way to winning back some trust.
Not all SNP voters want complete independence, but there is no other party that seems capable of increasing the powers for Holyrood. Already it looks like Salmond has won borrowing powers.
Voters are always going to say jobs, health, and the economy etc are their top priorities. But we also need the powers to make a difference on these things.
Ignoring that, and just ‘focussing on what really matters’ came across as patronising.
#48 by Brian Nicholson on May 9, 2011 - 1:44 am
With respect, Yousuf, you are continuing to delude yourself regarding the LibDem vote. There is no doubt that the largest section of the vote which abandoned the LibDems did go to the SNP, a significant portion also transferred to Labour and other parties. This transfer in vote was offset by a loss of Labour vote directly to the SNP.
This is evident in over 20 seats where there was far too little LibDem vote to account for the increase in SNP vote totals.
The loss of the seats in the former heartland can be clearly attributed to the abandonement of Labour by its former core vote. Labour needs to ask itself why did this happen and what can be done to reverse it?
As long as it persists in this myth that it was all up to the transit of LibDem vote to SNP, Labour is destined to remain in the wilderness and its slide has still not abated.
#49 by Alwyn ap Huw on May 9, 2011 - 1:54 am
If you flick back a few pages to a post made by Malc on April 11th regarding the Party Election Broadcasts you will find a comment about the “similarity” between the PEB’s made for England Wales and Scotland.
Labour treated the elections as a “single” British campaign.
The mantra that Labour can stand up to the Tory beast at Westminster seems to have worked well in Wales, fairly well in parts of England, but fell flat on its face in Scotland. Perhaps the biggest lesson for Labour in Scotland to learn is to treat elections to the SP as a Scottish affair, rather than trying to replicate what focus groups on an UK level suggest might work outwith Scotland
#50 by Malc on May 9, 2011 - 10:20 am
Nice that someone spotted me saying something which actually appears on the money (since my predictions weren’t!).
#51 by James on May 9, 2011 - 10:41 am
Also, former Labour leader of City of Edinburgh Council Keith Geddes wades in on the Scotsman.
#52 by Indy on May 9, 2011 - 12:15 pm
My advice to Labour is don’t let this turn into a psephological debate.
Go back to basics.
What do you believe in? What kind of country do you want to live in? What solutions do you see to the problems that hold us back?
Of course every party makes calculations about what policies will appeal to the electorate and give them votes. But that can’t be all you do. There has to be something underneath that, something that makes you whole and believable.
That’s what Labour has lost. Take the SNP soft on crime mantra. It was total and utter cynical garbage and you guys knew it. You did know it. We can’t deal with the toxic mix of poverty, machismo and alcohol by simplistic policies like carry a knife and go to jail. You knew that – and so did the voters. Never go down that road again.
Come back with what you believe in, what you want to see happen, what kind of country you want Scotland to be. There’s every chance that you will find some – probably quite a lot – of common ground with the SNP and where we disagree at least it will be a real disagreement and a real debate.
#53 by Steve on May 10, 2011 - 12:09 am
Spot on.
What the SNP victory means to me is that Scotland’s future is now in our own hands.
We all need to make a contribution to a discussion about the Scotland we want to see. As a country we need to try to come to some kind of collective aspiration, and start to plan for that journey.
The political settlement required to deliver that vision for Scotland should then follow from that discussion. It may be that nothing short of independence will do the job, it may be that fiscal autonomy would be good enough.
Once the politicians have worked out what kind of political settlement is required to deliver on our collective hopes and dreams for a new Scotland, they should then put that back to us in a referendum.
Labour need to work out what their contribution to that debate will be, and be honest about what kind of constitutional/political settlement best delivers on what they and their supporters stand for. I think that if they do that, they could easily find themselves arguing for full fiscal autonomy.
#54 by Kenny Fleming on May 9, 2011 - 1:39 pm
“That’s what Labour has lost. Take the SNP soft on crime mantra. It was total and utter cynical garbage and you guys knew it. You did know it. We can’t deal with the toxic mix of poverty, machismo and alcohol by simplistic policies like carry a knife and go to jail. You knew that – and so did the voters. Never go down that road again.”
A few people I spoke to on doorsteps were actually in favour. I just smiled weakly and felt physically sick. The policy was terrible and it was an embarassment.
#55 by Dubbieside on May 9, 2011 - 2:34 pm
Message for Yousuf.
If you want to know the reason your root and branch reform will achieve nothing this article should help.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2011/05/09/holyrood-election-2011-ed-miliband-orders-london-led-review-of-scottish-labour-after-disaster-at-polls-86908-23117973/
London Labour will lead the review. Do not bother, put the lights out at JS House when you leave.
#56 by John Ruddy on May 9, 2011 - 10:19 pm
The other choice is that the people who failed at John Smith House lead the review.
Or would you rather we did just all pack up and go home?
#57 by Steve on May 10, 2011 - 12:17 am
John, I am not a Labour party member, but I know a few, and frankly they’ve put up with being ignored for long enough.
The choice isn’t between parachuting in a bunch of MPs to do a review versus leaving it to a bunch of MSPs who messed up.
Try listening to your members, be open, be honest, be positive, be receptive.
The mission should absolutely not be about getting re-elected, or about tactics or who the best leader to combat Salmond is.
It should be about vision and policy. Re-connect with your members, and you might start a process that eventually reconnects you with the electorate.
#58 by John Ruddy on May 10, 2011 - 8:52 pm
I’m not disagreeing with the fact we’ve been ignored – as a Labour activist in the north east of Scotland, I’m used to the Glasgow-centric view that exists at JSH. I dont like it either, and I’m fed up with it, and its part of the reason why we lost. I hope this review leads to a clear out at JSH and more open and honest people put in.
What I also dont like is the SNP view that all other parties arn’t Scottish, and should just go back home – the “London Labour” thing. Well, how about “London SNP” – their candidate here was born there! Perhaps he should go home?
The truth is there are two options, either those who failed lead the review, or someone from outside Scottish Labour does it. I know which I would prefer. And yes, it should be about listenening to the members – instead of ignoring them if they dont live within 30 miles of JSH.
Pingback: What Labour and the Conservatives need to do now : The Widmann Blog
#59 by Indy on May 11, 2011 - 11:08 am
John it doesn’t matter a damn where someone was born, what accent they speak with, what colour they are. That’s a complete red herring.
I don’t really like the term London Labour myself, largely because I lived in London for a while and still have many friends there, so I don’t see why Londoners should get the blame.
But it’s shorthand for an attitude of mind which caused your downfall on Thursday. “Now that the Tories are back” etc. Except they’;re NOT back in Scotland are they? You fought a Scottish election based on what was happening in Westminster. So much as I don’t like the term London Labour it was actually quite apt in this case.
#60 by John Ruddy on May 11, 2011 - 6:17 pm
I agree that where someone was born / colour of their skin etc should have no bearing.
Perhaps it was apt – in this case – but its often used by SNP activists at other times. In fact, its rare for an SNP activist to preface Labour with anything other than “London”, usually with a sneer.
If you had to preface Labour with a city to describe its point of view, the city I would use wouldnt be London – it would be Glasgow. Except the SNP cant use “Glasgow Labour” as an insult – even here on the east coast.
Pingback: We’re back – the first Roundup in the New Scotland – Scottish Roundup