Looking into a Labour leadership contest is a bit like looking into a moving aeroplane. You can see all the different parts pulling and pushing this way and that but you are still none the wiser as to how it all works.
That said, I’m going to have a go at looking ahead on behalf of Labour. We may have Iain Gray grappling manfully with Salmond week in, week out (metaphorically, of course) but it is only right to look to the future and to what the next ‘Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament’ (LOLITSP) may bring. Or, if Tom Harris wins, the title would become ‘Leader of the leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament’ (LOTLOLITSP).
I’m getting confused already.
The two frontrunners of the Labour leadership contest are Johann Lamont and Ken Macintosh and, given Johann has considerable support amongst the unions, one could argue that she is ahead by a nose, needing only a win from one of the elected representatives or the Labour members bloc to pull through.
One problem for Labour with Johann winning this contest is that she only commands the support of 7 MPs and doesn’t seem to incorporate relations with Westminster into her strategy, presumably for fear that it will dilute her presence at Holyrood. Not that the picture is much different with Ken Macintosh at the helm, save for several more MPs backing him.
Even under the most extreme short-term result for Scotland’s future (independence), the nation will still have its issues debated and decided cross-border with, at least, defence, BoE and monarchy-related decisions partially taken at the Westminster of rUK and ‘independent’ Scottish decisions taken at Holyrood.
Labour’s route to recovery in the polls and at elections is surely through recapturing the sentiment that they are the party of the poor, the progressive party of the downtrodden and discarded worker. To convince people of this sea change in perceptions, Labour must offer up a combined solution using policies from both Westminster and Holyrood, pensions & social security for the former and employment, education & enterprise for the latter, forging them together into one message.
This in turn necessitates MPs and MSPs working not only closely together but practically in perfect harmony. Any suggestions of a split will be examined and exaggerated by a press that wouldn’t hesitate in chopping Labour back down again.
Let’s be honest though, tensions between Labour MPs and MSPs must be at their most strained since devolution began. The MPs clearly blame the MSPs for the failure of the last election, promising ominously that ‘the same mistakes won’t be made again’ while the MSPs are fortifying their power base by insisting that Scotland is primarily their domain. It’s fair to say, for example, that Labour MSPs have not given Tom Harris a fair crack at the Scottish leadership of late. Not that Tom is just lying down and accepting it of course.
How this tension can lead to positive results is beyond me. After all, when you think that the wolves at the door include members of your own party then you are in trouble.
I could go on to talk about the much-discussed problem that no one knows what Labour is for any more but that is to look beyond Labour’s more pressing problem. Even the building blocks needed to begin to stand again as a viable political party and a significant force against an SNP that is far from infallible do not yet exist. There is no energy around conferences, there is no air of urgency behind Iain Gray at FMQs and there are no policies that are rivalling the SNP’s direction, on either side of the border.
Further to this, and I don’t know if this is through a paralysis from Labour MPs at Westminster or a meek obedience to the direction taken by the coalition, but there is nothing coming out of Westminster that is being communicated through a Scottish prism. We are not independent (not yet anyway) so why are there no details of what Scottish MPs are working on? No news of what is happening at Westminster to improve the lot of Scotland? Surely this is the most important flank of a unionist group who wants to prove its relevance to a nation with an important choice on its hands, not to mention a political party that considers Scotland to be its heartland?
A big dose of teamwork needs to be injected into all of Scottish Labour, between MPs, MSPs and MEPs equally and, coupled with this, the whole Labour movement needs to be cracked open and reconsidered inside and out. That is a big ask of a party that is so scared of its own shadow that it doesn’t even know whether to support or shun a strike from workers and trade unions that support and fund it.
This faction-creating leadership contest appears to be doing the precise opposite of building a cohesive team that will go places and so it seems Scotland must wait even longer for the return of a rejuvenated, relevant and ready Scottish Labour.
More’s the pity.
#1 by @dhothersall on November 28, 2011 - 3:16 pm
Some fair comment here, but your penultimate paragraph is misleading. The devolution of Scottish Labour has come in time for the Scottish Labour party, including its current leader and its leadership candidates, to endorse the upcoming strike action 100%. While UK Labour equivocates, Scottish Labour has been very clear. I think it’s a positive sign.
#2 by Jeff on November 28, 2011 - 3:23 pm
Fair challenge there Duncan. I very much had Ed Miliband in mind there which is a bit of an inconsistent leap on my part given the rest of the article.
I would be interested to know what Scottlsh Labour MPs make of the strike though and whether they are taking a different line to Ed and are in lockstep with the MSPs. I genuinely don’t know either way (and wish I had checked before hitting publish!)
Indeed, if by “the Scottish Labour party”, you just mean Scottish MSPs at Holyrood then that is precisely part of the problem that I am getting at. There needs to be a cohesive message from all of Labour in Scotland, not just one side or the other.
#3 by Aidan on November 28, 2011 - 3:26 pm
Which is why the election is for “Leader of the Scottish Labour Party” which includes MSPs, MEPs and MPs not just Leader of Labour In The Scottish Parliament.
#4 by Daniel J on November 28, 2011 - 8:30 pm
I consider myself pretty into politics and even I didn’t know Scottish Labour had an alternate line on the strike till earlier. While it’s welcome I fear that alternate positions such as this will largely be lost in the national media.
#5 by Aidan on November 28, 2011 - 10:27 pm
You missed where we shamed the SNP because of their insistance on holding business on Wednesday? We have massive comms failure…
#6 by Indy on November 29, 2011 - 10:43 am
We all missed that.
#7 by Aidan on November 29, 2011 - 10:53 am
Really? You commented on Kirsty’s post on it…
#8 by Indy on November 29, 2011 - 12:40 pm
I was being sarcastic about the “shamed” bit.
#9 by Mike Small on November 28, 2011 - 3:28 pm
Why are there no details of what Scottish MPs are working on? But there are! isn’t there a whole team of 12 working to undermine the SNP headed by Margaret Curran?
#10 by jjjryoung on November 28, 2011 - 4:31 pm
Maybe the reason that there are no details as to what the Scottish MPs are doing is because as usual they are doing precisely nothing A rerun of the feeble fifty
#11 by Aidan on November 28, 2011 - 4:53 pm
Stay positive!
#12 by Chris on November 28, 2011 - 5:53 pm
I imagine that Johann would have the best working relationship with Margaret Curran as they have been politically very similar since their days at Glasgow Uni. Both are part of what you would have called soft left in the days when there was a hard left in the party.
#13 by Barbarian on November 28, 2011 - 7:56 pm
The problem with Labour became apparent when Ed Milliband became leader. Much as I despise his brother, I suspect he would inject far more energy into Labour. What Labour have is the equivalent of Iain Duncan Smith.
What Labour needs is a political Mr (or Mrs) Motivator. Perhaps it has been the influence of Blair and Co to make Labour electable in England that has made them lose their way up here.
The other problem they have is Alex Salmond. Talk about bad timing having one of the strongest politicians as your opponent just as you have one of the weakest as your own leader.
But don’t write them off. It’s only six months into the parliamentary session. Things can still go pear shaped for the SNP.
#14 by Chris on November 28, 2011 - 10:30 pm
The Salmond thing is interesting. If the referendum actually happens then it is likely that the SNP will lose and Salmond will have to step down. In which case Lamont vs Sturgeon seems not too bad a contest.
Should the referendum happen and should the SNP win it – looking like a 5/1 shot for that particular double – then it wouldn’t matter who Labour had as a leader at the next election as the SNP would presumably be unbeatable.
So the only way that it matters if Salmond is the leader is if the referendum gets stuck in the courts. Something that the SNP may engineer in order to get off the hook of a referendum they don’t look likely to win.
#15 by Topher Dawson on November 29, 2011 - 8:33 am
Actually Chris, it’s 5/4 at Paddy Power for the independence referendum to win, see http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/scottish-politics/independence-referendum-outcome.
And the odds are getting shorter. If there wasn’t the annoying uncertainty about the third question I’d be getting my money on.
#16 by Doug Daniel on November 29, 2011 - 3:51 pm
“If the referendum actually happens”
How tiresome. These kind of remarks are starting to look really childish now. The referendum will happen – that’s all there is to it.
#17 by Chris on November 28, 2011 - 10:45 pm
Barbarian – I wouldn’t dismiss Blair’s popularity in Scotland particularly in 1997 before Iraq and his increasingly weird messianic tendencies.
The 1.283m votes that Labour got in 1997 looks unlikely to be beaten by any party for a long time.
I know the Scottish media didn’t like him, but it would be foolish for anyone to think that Blairism did not have an appeal in Scotland at that time.
#18 by Barbarian on November 28, 2011 - 11:07 pm
True, I keep forgetting just how popular he was at the time. What followed it soured everything.
On your Salmond point, I think it makes sense. However, I don’t think Salmond will be able to influence voters for the Referendum in the same way he did for the parliamentary election.
For one, that was to elect a government, and many people decided that the SNP was by far the best party to run things. But Independence is an entirely different matter altogether (no Airplane! jokes please). Party politics will have little impact here.
#19 by Craig Gallagher on November 28, 2011 - 11:41 pm
Did we really know what Blairism was in 1997 though? I have long felt that the Labour party of 1997-2001 was a quite different animal to that of 2001-2010, particularly in terms of their social democratic tendencies. I feel that after decades of neo-liberal Conservative rule that Blair almost had an obligation to reverse Mrs Thatcher’s (and Mr Major’s) rolling back of the state and to promote issues like the minimum wage and Scottish devolution that had developed an almost cult following in the face of a government determined to resist at all costs before 1997.
The cult of Blairism, to me, really seems to have been spawned in the aftermath of the election of George W. Bush and Blair’s unassailable position post-2001. That’s when we started to see a drive towards Prime Ministerial – as opposed to Cabinet – government and the development of what might be termed New Labour’s right of centre policies.
#20 by Aidan on November 29, 2011 - 10:29 am
Yeah, I wrote a long diatribe about him in early 1996 and called it my Standard Grade Modern Studies coursework.
Admittedly I was the worlds foremost expert on Marxist economics at the time, having obtained a previously unheard of level of profound understanding of the man from the first 3 chapters of Das Kapital, so I understand how it might have slipped by people who weren’t 15 year old me. 😉
#21 by Craig Gallagher on November 28, 2011 - 11:51 pm
One of the problems Labour are going to face in spreading “news of what is happening at Westminster to improve the lot of Scotland” is that this has never really been their tactic regarding us. Traditionally, the Labour party sought to improve their Scottish heartlands through holding the Conservative government of the UK to account more generally, on welfare reform, on defence, on the manufacturing industries etc. Whether they ever succeeded in doing this – and I think the desolation of the 1980s speaks to their difficulty – is another question, but the point worth emphasising is that they are now being forced to dance to the SNP’s tune. Labour could very well ask why they should have to justify themselves specifically in Scotland; they never had before. Unfortunately, the paradigms have shifted so dramatically as to make this an unacceptable argument.
And I think that’s at the heart of Labour’s current convulsions. Many within the Westminster arm of the party don’t feel comfortable with such a radical reorganisation being imposed by outside forces, particularly their political enemies, especially coming so soon after what was really a rather creditable result at UK level in the 2010 election. I don’t really find it that hard to understand why they are feeling rather intransigent regarding the Scottish Parliament, as for Labour it really has been far more trouble than it was worth. Whether that’s a legitimate position or not is, again, not my point; it’s simply that part of me feels sorry for how many hurdles the party will have to overcome to recapture something of its old dynamism again.
#22 by Indy on November 29, 2011 - 7:45 am
In order to have a strong and united team you need to have a clear goal. The SNP has that. At present Labour doesn’t. Maybe new leadership will be able to clarify that and give Labour members a clear goal to work towards. That is actually more important than anything else, in my view.
#23 by Jeff on November 29, 2011 - 12:05 pm
I’d go along with that Indy, it’s a glaring omission from the article the more I think about it.
You can only band together if you’re going somewhere together and you can only go somewhere together if you have banded together. It’s a chicken-and-egg type of conundrum which may well go a long way to explaining why Labour hasn’t got its act together in such a long time. Where do you start? The building blocks or the end goal? Or both? Or neither?
The SNP obviously has independence to bind it together (a party that is arguably a much broader church than Labour outside of constitutional questions) so you’re right to point the differences and how important this factor is.
Pingback: Beyond our Ken? « Better Nation