In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu said “Leaders should not seek power or status”. That would appear to be wise counsel for any putative leader of whatever Scottish Labour changes into after the Murphy/Boyack review. Conventional wisdom, albeit five years from an election and in the aftermath of an almighty kicking, has it that Labour (and I will use the term from here on to mean the Scottish Labour Party, not the wider UK Party) will lose the 2016 election in Scotland. Though Tom Harris for one appears to be willing to take up the mantle. Or, depending on your view, poisoned chalice.
The last part of that section in the Tae Te Ching is perhaps more pertinent: “[Leaders] work serenely, with inner quiet”. What Labour needs is not a bombastic, divisive, with-me-or-against-me leader in the mould of George W Bush or Alex Salmond or Tony Blair. Nor do we need a all-comrades-together-let’s-talk-about-it patsy. Labour has problems. It has structural problems, it has problems with policy making, it has membership recruitment problems, it has membership engagement problems, it has membership retention problems, it has voter problems coming out of its ears.
What Labour needs is a leader who will challenge the party without antagonising it. Someone who will “lead by instilling humility and open-mindedness [..] discouraging personal ambition, by strengthening the bone-structure of the people”. Someone committed to widening the power of members, not riding rough shod over them in the name of misunderstood centrism.
No good can come of an authoritarian Labour leader. Conversely, neither will Labour thrive with someone beholden to the vested interests within the party. A radical, willing to stand up where necessary but also willing to let go – “the best leader’s work is done the people say: ‘We did it ourselves!’ “
#1 by Dr William Reynolds on August 29, 2011 - 3:41 pm
I agree with many of your points Aiden,but not your description of Alec Salmond.He is a smart politician who understands that being divisive and addopting a with-me-or against me attidude will not be succesful.Of course in his early days he did appear cocky,and was a good rabble rousing speaker,but he has matured and moved on from that as he gained more experience and reflected on what that xperience had taught him.
#2 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 3:52 pm
Really? That was not been in evidence much recently, eg. during the sectarianism bill until he whipped his ministers legs out from under her. Or the supreme court stooshie.
#3 by Indy on August 30, 2011 - 7:16 am
Aidan have you ever reflected on the fact that Alex appointed all of the people who stood against him as leader to Cabinet positions? That he brought Alex Neil, who in the past has strongly opposed him, into the Cabinet? That he had no hesitation in appointing John Swinney as Finance Minister, despite John’s difficulties when he himself was leader immediately before |Alex? These are not the actions of a divisive, with-me-or-against me party leader or a control freak.
Of course it could be argued – correctly – that Alex is so confident of his own leadership skills that he does not regard his party colleagues as a threat. But it’s not just that. The fact is that Alex is a remarkably generous politician in terms of his leadership of his party. He has no pettiness about him – and that, I suggest, is one of the strongest qualities a party leader requires.
#4 by CassiusClaymore on August 29, 2011 - 4:00 pm
I think Labour need a leader who will prioritise the interests of Scotland over the interests of Labour, and oppose the SNP constructively rather than as a Pavlovian response. It must also be someone who can deal with Salmond at FMQs.
But who is that leader? I’m really struggling to identify someone credible – but David Cameron has shown that a relative unknown can very quickly establish themselves.
CC
#5 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 4:38 pm
The interests of Scotland are the interests of Labour, at least in the long term. There’s definitely been a tendency to prioritise short term political positional advantage, but I’d dispute that’s been in Labours interests. 😉
#6 by Don McC on August 29, 2011 - 6:55 pm
Aidan, if there’s truth in your assertions, then labour are in a worse state than even the nats would say.
Prioritising short term political positional advantage has been an unmitigated disaster for labour and has back fired so many times you wonder if labour politicians are completely incompetent, village idiot stupid or total masochists.
Of course, if what you say is indeed true, then a indisputable positive argument for the Union could change things around.
#7 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 8:14 pm
The defence of the Union isn’t the wheel on which this butterfly will be broken.
Labour won’t be in government again in Scotland until after the referendum. Win or lose, there’ll be a Scottish Labour party and we need to be able to put forward a convincing, electorally competitive vision of government regardless of outcome.
#8 by Don McC on August 29, 2011 - 9:28 pm
But Scottish Labour’s raison d’etre these days is to keep Scotland within the Union. Are you really claiming that Scottish Labour will continue to do so without actually defending that position? That’s one of the reasons Labour lost in May, it’s one of the reasons they’ll find the referendum difficult to fight against.
Scottish Labour support the Union without actually considering whether that’s a good position for Scotland. We’re now some months down the line and no one, absolutely no one, has been able to come up with a positive, indisputable argument for Scotland to remain in the Union. Claiming we don’t need one will play well come the referendum.
#9 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 9:40 pm
Is it? According to who? We might think full independence is a bit of waste of time when we can get most of the benefits without many of the costs through, say, a federal model but that’s not the same thing as being indefatigable defenders of the status quo. For instance, during the last Scottish Parliament we worked to secure additional powers for Holyrood while the SNP let the existing powers lapse. (sorry, couldn’t resist)
There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of by the SNP.
While I don’t think an agnostic position on the referendum would be correct (because independence is a costly change for marginal gain), I also don’t think it’s something that the electorate regard as the be-all and end-all of parties.
If it was, the SNP wouldn’t have hedged and hidden it behind the referendum lock for 2 elections in a row.
#10 by Don McC on August 29, 2011 - 11:18 pm
Come on, don’t peddle that lie. Swinney might have gave an apology but that was just to get peace from the usual whining suspects. The evidence clearly shows that the tax raising powers lapsed BEFORE the SNP took power. It’s so easy to check out the truth behind this myth, one wonders why you would act like a typical Unionist by spouting it in the first place.
But, on to your main point – minimum gain. Anything to back that assertion up? What about “most of the benefits without many of the costs”? Anything? Is that too just to be an accepted article of faith? Ironic then that you talk about taking an agnostic position on the referendum.
Do you really want to talk about life expectancy in parts of Scotland being worse than Somalia or conflict torn parts of the Middle east where angry armed men seem to have unlimited access to ammunition? Or how about Scotland having one of the lowest economic growths in Europe? Or one of the highest rates of drug deaths, alcohol deaths, teenage pregnancies or one of the lowest survival rates for cancer sufferers?
Are these the Union dividends you claim we should be so grateful for? Are these the low costs, high gains you talk about?
You’ve already asserted that Scottish Labour put Scotland before party. Here’s a test: Hundreds of Scots die each year from alcohol related deaths. What’s Scottish Labour’s solution? Well, Jackie Baillie, Scottish Labour’s shadow health secretary at the time, stated that minimum pricing wasn’t a go-er and that Westminster would need to fix this for us. Call-Me-Dave, almost simultaneously, stated he had no interest in fixing this for us. So while Scottish Labour’s health secretary abdicates (yes, a minimum floor price is indeed different from minimum pricing?) her responsibilities, hundred of people continue to die each year. So lets oppose minimum pricing because it merely increases the profits of the supermarkets. But, hey, let’s oppose an increase on the tax of these profits because the supermarkets need their profits to invest in jobs. And, no, it’s not hypocrisy to oppose just for oppositions sake, we’re doing it for the good of Scotland!
What are your real opinions of Scotland that you think things could possibly be worse without Westminster’s guiding hand?
#11 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 11:48 pm
I’m referring to evidence from the Scottish Government: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/Finance/scottishvariablerate
Specifically: “even if the decision was not to invoke SVR during the life of the 2007 to 2011 Scottish Parliament, it was recommended thatsome additional
work (costing £1.2m) should be undertaken to provide the maximum
state of readiness. Were this work to,be.commissioned and funded by
the then Scottish’ Executive, it was thought that there would be no
maintenance costs required through to 2011”
from 2010 SVR 9.pdf in http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1037/0110457.zip
Which is well within the SNPs purview. Hardly a Unionist lie.
As for the main point, what will the costly parts of independence – defence, monetary policy gain us that won’t be gained by a federal model?
Why wouldn’t treating drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) as a health problem, imposing a minimum price for alcohol (which I’ve consistently supported because it’s an evidence based policy), and targeting government support at integrated, indigenous, exporting industries (as I called for here)
be as well done under a federal system as a independent one?
#12 by Don McC on August 30, 2011 - 12:25 am
Eh, doesn’t your link explain that the IT systems necessary to implement the SVR were mothballed well before 2007? If they were mothballed, does that not mean Holyrood couldn’t have invoked the tax varying powers as there were no means to implement them?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/scotland/newsid_9215000/9215994.stm
Swinney states in the parliament that the tax varying powers couldn’t be used even before he was minister and the opposition parties accepted that. Scottish Labour report Salmond and Sturgeon to the standards committee for the slightest slip of the tongue or misuse of words. If Swinney had actually lied about that, do you think they would have stayed silent? No, what the opposition wanted an apology for was not telling the members that the tax varying powers could no longer be used.
Is a federal system on offer? Do even the lib dems support that these days? Claiming federalism is a serious alternative to independence only makes sense if someone is offering federalism. At the moment, no party is offering it. Most opposition parties even scoff at suggestions of Devo-Max.
Yes, we could achieve much with federalism but we’ve no way of gaining federalism so we need to go for independence.
#13 by Aidan on August 31, 2011 - 11:01 am
They were mothballed but were kept in a state of readiness so they could be used by subsequent administrations. The SNP declined do even do that, and now it’s technically unusable without a great deal of work.
Federalism is on offer if the SNP choose to make it an option in the referendum, or if Labour continue to work through the existing mechanisms to get more powers for the Scottish Parliament.
#14 by Don McC on August 31, 2011 - 5:40 pm
Mothballed but in a state of readiness? Okay. Fact remains that Swinney stood up in Parliament and stated the tax raising powers lapsed BEFORE he became minister and not a single opposition MSP disputed that.
As to your idea that the party that should propose an alternative to the SNP’s goal of independence should be the SNP…I’ll let that one hang in the air and let others make their mind up.
#15 by Dougthedug on August 29, 2011 - 9:33 pm
Win or lose, there’ll be a Scottish Labour party
Whoa, hold on there. There will be a Scottish Labour Party only if the independence referendum is won by the SNP . Until that happens the Labour party in Scotland will continue to be a region of the UK Labour party.
#16 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 10:11 pm
Says it on the ballot paper, espouses different policy from the UK labour party on devolved issues… what more do you want, and why?
#17 by Dougthedug on August 29, 2011 - 11:05 pm
Now that ballot paper is an interesting one because the phrase, “Scottish Labour Party”, is a description owned by the Labour Party and registered with the electoral commission.
In the 2009 elections it didn’t appear on the ballot paper at all because after the fuss made about, “Alex Salmond for First MInister” on the 2007 ballot paper all registered descriptions were banned from ballot papers and the, “Scottish Labour Party” disappeared from view. Bit of an own goal that one.
Of course that didn’t go down well so the, “The Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010”, allowed all parties in Scotland to prefix their name with the word, “Scottish”, making the magical mystery disappearing Scottish Labour Party party reappear again.
Just because the advertising says there’s a Scottish Labour Party doesn’t make it real.
What do I want? Honesty. Stop making up parties.
#18 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 11:20 pm
The party that stood for the European parliament was accountable to the UK leadership in a way that the Scottish Labour party isn’t…
#19 by DougtheDug on August 30, 2011 - 8:13 am
The, “Scottish Labour Party”, didn’t appear on the 2009 European Election ballot paper because only true party names could be used and not for any other reason. The “Scottish Conservative Party”, and the, “Scottish Liberal-Democrat Party”, disappeared from the ballot paper for the same reason.
However are you saying that the Scottish region of the Labour party isn’t accountable to Ed Milliband and that it was a different party that stood at the European elections?
It will makes things interesting for the new Scottish regional manager for Labour. Will the MEP’s be out of his/her control because even though they represent Scottish seats they sit in a Parliament and for a party outside Scotland? That would also apply to Westminster. Some “party” leader.
#20 by Steve on August 29, 2011 - 4:01 pm
Welcome Aidan! One problem for labour is that FMQs coverage squews the impression of the leader that the public get. Same for PMQs down south. For me, policy is more important, if labour can get their act together on that, whoever leads them will have a much easier time.
#21 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 4:36 pm
Thanks, glad to be here! I’m not sure FMQs has the same effect that PMQs has. FMQs is rarely on the news for one thing.
I suspect canned interviews, comment pieces and, particularly, appearances on Newsnicht are the more important media venues up here. Having said that, being able to communicate with people through the media is clearly a crucial skill for the leader to have.
In some ways, I think the role is changing from one of leadership in terms of policy and direction setting to one of communication.
#22 by Steve on August 29, 2011 - 4:05 pm
I meant skew not squew. Get a leader who can spell!
#23 by Michael Foot on August 29, 2011 - 4:12 pm
Not at all, such a suggestion would lead to an even more divided party which would be a shambles. The party needs discipline. And centrism.
#24 by Malc on August 29, 2011 - 4:31 pm
With a name like that… I’m sure you’d know exactly what the Labour party needs eh? 1983 and all that.
Maybe they should invite Tommy the Trot to be the leader?
#25 by Dougthedug on August 29, 2011 - 4:47 pm
Interesting choice of words, “leader”. Since there is no separate Scottish Labour party then what the Labour Party in Scotland will get, whatever the outcome of the Murphy/Boyack review, is at most a regional manager reporting back to the Labour leadership and eventually Ed Milliband.
They might be a strong regional manager or they might not, but there is no point in equating the new Labour regional manager to genuine ex-party leaders and party leaders such as Tony Blair and Alex Salmond.
If the Labour party in Scotland does go down the same route as the Conservative party Sanderson review in recommending that there should be some form of overall manager for their Scottish region then they will end up just like the Lib-Dems with someone who has all the power and prestige of Willie Rennie.
#26 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 9:32 pm
So you know the result of the review already? Care to share?
#27 by Dougthedug on August 29, 2011 - 9:48 pm
Certainly. In simple terms there will be no Scottish Labour Party independent of UK Labour.
I suspect the Bible for the Murphy/Boyack review to have been the Conservatives’ Sanderson review as the Conservatives in Scotland have the same problem as Labour in being an integrated part of a UK party and only having an MSP group leader rather than a regional leader like the Lib-Dems.
The findings will be:
1. The Labour Party in Scotland will have, “…a Scottish leader to have overall responsibility for the Party’s performance in Scotland.” (1)
2. The leader can be any Labour member.
3. There should be a changed system of governance
4. The UK party will continue to have authority over the Scottish region.
5. The MP’s can carry on as before.
(1) Conservative Sanderson Review
#28 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 9:56 pm
On what basis? Or is this just merely supposition?
#29 by Dougthedug on August 29, 2011 - 10:01 pm
Items 1, 2 and 3 are pure suppostion.
#30 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 10:10 pm
and 4 and 5 are based on… ?
#31 by Dougthedug on August 29, 2011 - 10:19 pm
4. The Murphy/Boyack review will recommend a complete break with UK Labour to form an independent new Scottish Labour Party on the day a snow plough is called out in Hell.
5. The MP’s are not going to accept the authority of any regional leader. The best current example being Willie Rennie. He’s the Lib-Dems’ genuine Scottish regional leader but there’s no way Danny Alexander or Michael Moore regard him as their superior in the party.
#32 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 10:30 pm
4. There’s a difference between an entirely independent, new Scottish Labour Party and one where the Scottish Labour Party is free to make policy on devolved issues. Yes, Wendy Alexander was essentially given orders regarding an independence referendum. But that’s rather different, the constitution being a reserved matter (and, speaking personally, that sort of command and control was a mistake).
5. Eh, bit of a side issue surely?
#33 by Dougthedug on August 29, 2011 - 10:57 pm
5. Not a side issue at all but a current example of how a regional Scottish leader is regarded by Westminster MP’s.
Even if an MP like Tom Greatrex gets to lead the new Scottish Labour region rather than an MSP do you think Alistair Darling, Tom Harris, Ann McKechin, Douglas Alexander or Jim Murphy will regard him as their leader who sits between them and Ed Milliband?
#34 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 11:07 pm
My point was rather that as Labour MPs have no influence over devolved matters in Scotland the fact they don’t perceive the Scottish Labour leader as their “superior” may be accurate but it’s irrelevant in a Scottish context unless we become independent, in which case their job becomes irrelevant…
#35 by CassiusClaymore on August 29, 2011 - 5:02 pm
Aidan, who’s your suggested candidate? Do you think that a Scottish Labour leader should be allowed to depart from London Labour policies?
CC
#36 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 5:56 pm
Yes, they already are on devolved issues and Scottish Labour can and did pursue different policies from the wider UK party both in government and opposition.
There’s a need for that to better recognised, and a lot of the problems that I identified here for Scottish Labour also apply to the UK party – particularly lack of input to policy making process.
#37 by Don McC on August 29, 2011 - 6:59 pm
Yes, but on the run up to the last election, Scottish Labour appeared to differ from the Westminster party only where the could take the opposite position to the SNP. Many voters thought this was a perverse line to take and it undoubtedly had an effect at the ballot box.
#38 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 8:15 pm
Oh, I dunno, I’d point to the commitment to look at public ownership of the railways as a significant difference that wasn’t just about positioning.
The last election manifesto wasn’t coherent, I’ll give you that though.
#39 by douglas clark on August 29, 2011 - 5:49 pm
Dunno how relevant it is but Jackie Baillie and Johann Lamont are joint favourites whilst Tom Harris is quite a way back. Serious question, does Labour have anyone at all that meets your person spec?
#40 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 5:57 pm
None of the contenders have really set out what they’d do, so it’s a bit hard to tell.
Though I’m only joking a bit when I say Kezia Dugsdale should run so we can solve our funding problems with a huge bet at high odds. 😉
#41 by William Brown on August 29, 2011 - 7:22 pm
11 Oh that would be like Gray being opposed to the Megrahi release while Blair/Brown were doing everything they could to expedite a release in exchange for oil?
Did Gray go down to Downing Street and put it to them straight that his was the correct aproach, and they backed down and said “You’re perfectly correct Iain”?
Aye,right.
#42 by Brian Nicholson on August 29, 2011 - 7:29 pm
It strikes me that without a massive change in direction towards putting Scotland first and the party second, the Labour party will more likely have the following epitaph.
:We did it to ourselves!”
#43 by Steve on August 29, 2011 - 8:56 pm
I predict that John Park will become Labour leader. They could do a lot worse.
I’d personally prefer Malcolm Chisholm, and I think the Labour party would do well to try and work out why he was the only constituency Labour party candidate in Edinburgh to win.
It’s because Scotland is generally a bit left wing.
I think this analysis is very good: http://www.scottishleftreview.org/comment/comment-issue-64/
Basically the Labour party moved to the right, the voters didn’t move with them, the SNP mopped the left vote up.
#44 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 9:41 pm
#iagreewithsteve
#45 by Barbarian on August 29, 2011 - 10:33 pm
Labour desperately need a good leader, because the Scottish Parliament requires a good opposition.
A single party running everything runs the risk of instilling arrogance and “we’ll do what we want” attitude, which is precisely what happened under Blair.
Labour’s problem under Gray is that they objected to just about every single policy, rather than working with the government and criticising the bills that did need dealing with.
Up against Salmond, Labour have little chance. No other politician in Holyrood comes close. Whoever they pick is going to have to show strong leadership, otherwise they will drift for even longer.
#46 by Aidan on August 29, 2011 - 11:11 pm
I agree with all of this part form the first two sentences of the last paragraph. We’ve people who, if given the chance (and maybe a nudge to take that chance), could take Salmond on.
#47 by Don McC on August 30, 2011 - 12:00 am
Aidan, it is unfair to label the entire block of Labour MSPs as worthless but Scottish Labour does generally have a problem of foaming at the mouth whenever they talk about or debate with the nationalists.
Take the Scotland Bill, as an instance. Rather than use the extremely limited time made available for the bill, a bill that is supposedly of some magnitude, to scrutinise it fully, most Scottish Labour MPs used the time to attack the nationalists. The ConDems couldn’t believe what an easy time they got of it. But, hey, that was Scottish Labour putting Scotland before party, wasn’t it? Just like the trams project, another thing that’s destined to be an unmitigated disaster for Scotland, pushed through because the nationalists were opposed to it. But, hey, that’s Scottish Labuor putting Scotland before party, yet again!
You know, I’d really hate to see the damage Scottish Labour would do if the decided to put party before Scotland.
#48 by Aidan on August 30, 2011 - 12:34 pm
The knee-jerk reactionary nat-baiting is spectacularly counter productive, yes. I hope if Ken McIntosh runs he’ll disavow his reaction to the scottish studies proposal.
#49 by Don McC on August 30, 2011 - 9:16 pm
That’s what I like about debating with you, Aidan – you don’t just throw up the blinkers or stick your fingers in your ears. We may view the pros and cons of independence completely differently but I would certainly nominate you, if you were willing, to take over the Admin role over on LabourHame should Tom move on to bigger and better things.
#50 by James on August 30, 2011 - 11:44 pm
That’s why we hired him (at a knock-down rate too)!
#51 by Rev. S. Campbell on August 31, 2011 - 12:09 am
So is Tom Harris indeed the mysterious “Admin” at LH? If that’s the case then God help Labour in Scotland if he does become the leader. The puerile drivel spouted from behind that pseudonym would see Labour finishing behind Solidarity and the Pensioners’ Party.
#52 by Indy on August 30, 2011 - 7:21 am
So what you are saying there is that the Scottish Labour Party comes into existence for Scottish elections and goes out of existence for UK and European elections. There is your problem, in a nutshell.
#53 by BM on August 30, 2011 - 7:53 am
It seems to me that what you want is a Labour’s answer to Iain Duncan-Smith, and another term on the benches to the Presdining Officer’s right.
Pingback: Tom Harris: Labour’s transition man? « Better Nation
#54 by Rev. S. Campbell on August 31, 2011 - 12:06 am
Sorry, what? In what way is the “Scottish Labour Party” not accountable to the UK leadership? The Labour Party only has one leader, does it not? So every Labour MP, MSP, MEP, councillor and teaboy is at the end of the day answerable to Ed Milliband. Iain Gray works for Ed Milliband the same as Jim Murphy, Harriet Harman and Hazel Blears do.
#55 by Doug Daniel on August 31, 2011 - 6:59 pm
Or to put it another way, “no, it isn’t on offer”. Enlighten us Aidan, when did federalism become a Labour policy? I think I missed the press release that revealed that Labour had finally made a positive effort to give Scotland far more powers than it has now, rather than their rather lame effort in the Scotland Bill, which only came about because the three unionist parties soiled their pants when the SNP won the 2007 election and independence suddenly became a realistic proposition.