The ballots for the protracted Labour leadership race closed this lunchtime, and the LOLITSP will be succeeded on Saturday by a Leader of Scottish Labour, in title at least.
The extent to which the new bod will get to lead does remain doubtful, though. Many of the more unreconstructed Scottish Labour MPs resented Holyrood’s very existence and still resent their own MSPs.
Even if they elect one of their own, as Jeff pointed out, will they be ruled? And will Ed Miliband really let the Scottish wing run policies that differ from his? And if the answer to both of those is yes, is there not a risk that Scottish Labour MPs would have to go into different lobbies?
As usual, with devolution, if you do things exactly the same afterwards, it’s hard to discern the point.
The additional problem revealed by the contest is that it has failed to excite even as much as that for the Scottish Tory leadership, not least because Murdo offered a relatively Big Idea. Labour remain the largest opposition party at Holyrood by a mile, yet they have managed to work themselves into a position where few people are interested in what they say.
Can a new leader turn this around? It seems unlikely, at least until Labour are prepared to fix their policy and message problems, until they’re ready to say “whatever the constitutional arrangements, these are our principles and our vision for Scottish society”, and until they realise that banging on about “separatism” or “secession” isn’t winning any hearts. But however much deeper the problem is than leadership, it remains the case that not all candidates are created equal.
Unlike Jeff, Tom Harris would get my third preference (or third preferences, were I one of those Labour members who gets endless votes for being a member of the Fabians or the Socialist Crossword Puzzle Compilers or whatever). Tom is genuinely open to debate, even if his style has too much of the internet troll about it. Last year he and I bickered about Labour’s asylum policies on Twitter, and he agreed to swap guest posts with me, which impressed me even if the content didn’t. I’m looking forward one day to a long-planned pint with him, if he forgives me for this post. But he’s a flawed candidate, and the one most likely to secure an SNP victory in 2016. He’s absurdly right-wing even by Blairite standards, prepared to lambast young mothers in the most extraordinary tones, and he’s a loose cannon. Anyone who compares the debate over Scotland’s constitutional debate to the American Civil War will give good gaffe during an election.
Johann Lamont comes next (spoilers!). She’s a dour pair of hands, another point-and-shout anti-nationalist, another exponent of the botched and timid form of social democracy undemocratically loved by the unions’ leaderships – the same union leaderships who back the ultimate dinosaur for the deputy leadership, Ian Davidson. As Kate points out, she’s also part of the authoritarian wing of Scottish Labour, the people who thought “You’ll get stabbed” was a good core message to take to a fight with the Great Puddin’, a suitable response to his empty populism and misleading talk-left-act-right politics. It’s hard to see Tom Harris becoming an MSP, something quite important for a contender for First Minister, but Lamont’s own seat is shoogly to say the least, and even if she holds it next time round she’s almost as non-credible candidate for the top job as Harris.
So yes, I’d be backing Ken Macintosh (pictured above with an unsuitable prop for #FMQ). I first tipped him in 2008, and he’s still the best candidate. On policy he’s tacked pretty hard in both directions – right, with a (now deleted from the Scotsman) plan to cut taxes, and left, with suggestions of bringing Scotrail back into public ownership – which is admittedly a bit alarming. He’s warm and personable, though, and if you squint really hard you can see him on the steps of Bute House. Or it doesn’t seem totally insane to game scenarios where that happens. He’d need to start honing better messages on independence (personally I think neutrality on it is the only plausible position for Labour eventually – focus on bread and butter issues no matter what the settlement, as above), and he’d need to step out of the angry finger-wagging mode that even he has deployed. It’s not him, and it’s not going to work. He’s also, in his own seat, a genuine winner, much as being up against the Tories is anyone else’s ideal first-past-the-post situation.
That’s a recommendation, mind, in lieu of an actual Labour left candidate, someone who could step into the yawning space to the left of this fiscally centre-right administration. It’s also a recommendation not because I want a Labour First Minister, although as a Green I would rather have a credible Labour and a credible SNP to choose from on the first vote. I really wanted John Park to stand, but he’s unfairly copping the flack for the 2011 campaign, despite the ground game (his role) being robust. It’s unfair not least because of Lamont’s key role. Parky’s normal, he’s funny, he’s organised, he picks good issues, he connects with the unions without being owned by them.
As the Iain Gray situation and the Ed Miliband situation both show, though, something has been happening to people when they take on leadership roles in Labour. They lose their fluency, they become both shoutier and more timid, and they lead like they’re following the advice of some particularly inept focus group jockey or some ex-NUS children of the Labour cocoon. All but the most blinkered Nats would accept that Iain Gray has at least partly rediscovered his voice since losing the election, and I bet some on their benches are wishing they could keep him on now, now he’s free of those shackles. Whoever wins will need to be different, though, they’ll need to be authentic, or at least fake it, as the old joke goes. And even then, if Salmond can secure his devo-max wish, who would bet on Labour to win in 2016? If I were a Labour partisan I’d pick Ken, even though I think the task is beyond him.
Quick declaration of interest: I’ll be about £150 up at the bookies if Ken wins. Although I’d have been about £500 up if Parky had gone for it. Next time mate?
#1 by Holebender on December 14, 2011 - 4:38 pm
“…if Salmond can secure his devo-max wish…”
You’ve just proved to me that you know nothing about the SNP or Alex Salmond.
#2 by James on December 15, 2011 - 12:01 am
You’re wrong.
#3 by Brian Nicholson on December 14, 2011 - 9:30 pm
The unions are not going to let anyone win that they cannot control, so look for Lamont and Davidson to carry the day.
#4 by James Macdonald on December 14, 2011 - 10:04 pm
Why vote for this lot, they had 50+ years in Scotland and left us with the worst health record in europe, a failing economy and general feeling of worthlessness. They carry on Tory policies when ever they are in power and even put the tories to shame sometimes. They eroded our civil liberties to a dangerous degree and of course lied to the nation about its true wealth and potential outwith the stranglehold of the union which they are rewarded for with lordships and fat expences in London. No ta
#5 by Alec on December 16, 2011 - 11:26 am
==> Why vote for this lot, they had 50+ years in Scotland and left us with the worst health record in europe
Health record, not necessarily health care system. Responsibility for the former lies primarily with the individuals chomping away on Scotch pies washed down with whisky, and then Irn Bru breakfasts.
Cited examples of districts in Glasgow having a worse health record than Lithuania don’t count, ‘cos the former tend to turn-out to contain umpteen homeless hostels and the like whilst an examination of a comparable population and area in Vilnius’ skid-row instead of an entire country would be needed to avoid flawed analyses.
No-one would bat an eye-lid if someone said that Shettleston had a worse record than Bearsden (although Bearsden still has higher than UK average rates of alcohol related disorders, suggesting it’s a problem with Scots regardless of who’s in charge).
==> They eroded our civil liberties to a dangerous degree and
This ersatz libertarianism must always be challenged when it appears. I assume you’re for state funded benefits and the like… they are just as much a threat to personal liberty as expecting some form of state observation when in a public place.
~alec
#6 by Craig Gallagher on December 15, 2011 - 3:55 am
I honestly can’t believe we’re only getting the Labour leadership campaign out of the way in December. Yes, there’s a lot to be said for taking your time and making the right choice, but the fact that Iain Gray has gone seven months as a lame duck leader is also reprehensible for a party in opposition to a majority government. It’s also ridiculous that Labour still elect people on this complex plural voting structure that takes the issue completely out of the hands of the ordinary activists, the people who we keep hearing are the lifeblood of the party.
I agree with your analysis that Ken MacIntosh would be the best leader, James. He’s personable, capable of an original thought or two and not someone I think Salmond will have as easy a time beating around as he did with Gray. Which is why I fully expect Johann Lamont to win the election. Labour look for their ain: always have, always will.
#7 by FormerChampagneSocialist on December 15, 2011 - 9:39 am
It’s not a choice – it’s a dilemma. All three options are sure-fire losers.
#8 by Davie Park on December 15, 2011 - 1:07 pm
In response to Holebender’s assertion that;
“You’ve just proved to me that you know nothing about the SNP or Alex Salmond”.
you respond in modest fashion by citing one of your own opinion pieces to demonstrate that
“you’re wrong”.
The piece cited comprises your theories based on a personal judgement of the motivations of the SNP hierarchy.
For what it’s worth, I think that the SNP is a broad church that will, in all probability, have a limited life once independence is acheived. But to make the judgement that the preferred outcome of a referendum for the SNP and Salmond would be ‘Devo Max’, seems to me utterly fatuous.
One would think, being a Greenie, that you’d understand conviction politics. Apparently not.
Incidentally, as the Greens are in favour of independence, I’d be delighted to hear your views on why independence would be good for Scotland, James.
#9 by James on December 15, 2011 - 3:18 pm
To be honest, I’m not sure why I approved a comment containing that assertion. Ho hum. But I thought that explaining my own thinking might best be done by reference to my own thinking. Sorry if that’s hard to get your head around. And yes, good challenge at the end there. I’ll do that.
#10 by Indy on December 15, 2011 - 6:31 pm
Your thinking is fundamentally flawed however by your lack of understanding of the SNP or its members. You should read James Mitchell’s survey stuff. That is actual evidence, not opinion.
#11 by James on December 15, 2011 - 6:41 pm
My view is that the members are predominantly genuinely committed to independence rather than office, and that their other political views cover a spectrum broadly from the Tories to the Greens. Feel free to tell me what’s flawed there. I just think the top team love office more, and no survey data or interviews can prove or disprove that. It’s a hunch.
Also, a quick reminder of why other comments have been deleted.
#12 by Indy on December 16, 2011 - 10:15 am
I suggest that you read the analysis of the survey. Your thesis is based on the idea that the membership are more “fundamentalist” than the leadership. That is not borne out by the findings. Across the board – from the top to the bottom – the SNP has a pragmatic and gradualist view about achieving independence. For the simple reason that the gradualist approach is working. The great obsession with Independence/Indy Lite/Devo Max is one which obsesses commentators, not SNP folks by and large.
The assumption that SNP members are independence fanatics is pretty widespread I’ll grant you and leads to the rather amusing situation of us regularly being told by unionists that we don’t really want to be independent because an independent Scotland won’t automatically have control of our own currency, interest rates etc. What kind of independence is that they shriek sounding for all the world like fundamentalists themselves.
#13 by James on December 16, 2011 - 12:38 pm
I’ve not said “fanatic” or “fundamentalist” or anything like that. That’s someone else’s hangup, not mine. I just think the activists and the leadership don’t have a perfectly overlapping agenda.
#14 by Indy on December 16, 2011 - 12:52 pm
That’s not what the research says, though. And James Mitchell and his team had access to the entire membership as well as to the NEC etc.
#15 by James on December 16, 2011 - 12:57 pm
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that then. However, James is hardly a dispassionate observer, and furthermore I’d be surprised if he could persuade someone as canny as Alex Salmond to give an honest answer to the question “would you prefer independence to SNP rule?”
#16 by A Cairns on December 15, 2011 - 2:49 pm
I think James is largely spot on in everything he says, Ken appears to be the most credible/least bad candidate out of the three even if he will still lose by a wide margin in 2016.
He has at least properly left the door open to extra devolution etc although whether he has the courage to propose that stuff properly if he becomes leader is anyone’s guess.
#17 by Barbarian on December 15, 2011 - 8:41 pm
Labour are less worried about losing the Holyrood elections than they are about the referendum.
I think they are prepared to sacrifice another term in Holyrood by focusing all the effort on defeating the Referendum.
#18 by Indy on December 16, 2011 - 1:27 pm
What do you mean? This was an academic work, funded by the ESRC. The responses were all anonymised. It’s the only real objective source of evidence about the views and aims of the SNP that is out there. If you haven’t already read it you should because it will give you a better insight to the SNP than any Holyrood gossip or the views of the twitterati.
James:
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that then. However, James is hardly a dispassionate observer, and furthermore I’d be surprised if he could persuade someone as canny as Alex Salmond to give an honest answer to the question “would you prefer independence to SNP rule?â€
#19 by James on December 16, 2011 - 1:38 pm
Are you seriously claiming that anonymised interviews with anyone will tell us whether AS and JS in their hearts would prefer to be in office in a devo max Scotland to being out of office in an independent one? Seriously?
#20 by Indy on December 16, 2011 - 1:52 pm
It tells you about the SNP James. I really don’t understand your resistance to this. You have no way of knowing what Alex Salmond or John Swinney want in their heart of hearts. It is intrinsically pointless to speculate about that therefore.
You can draw certain conclusions about their political aims from their behavoour however. The conclusion you appear to have drawn is that the SNP leadership is, in a way, pretending to believe in independence to keep the members happy but really they just want to stay in office because they enjoy that.
I think that is fallacious because, in reality, the membership is just as pragmatic about achieving independence as the leadership. The leadership do not need to pat the membership on the head because the membership is not out of sync with the leadership. My evidence for that is not only my own understanding of the SNP but a very detailed academic survey of the eentire membership and leadership which you seem to dismiss as less meaninful than your personal hunch. That’s a wee bit arrogant, no?
#21 by James on December 16, 2011 - 1:59 pm
Pragmatism about how to get to independence is one thing. As the releases I cited in the other post show, the SNP are pushing devo max hard – a move which will reduce the chances of a yes vote (not just my view – see LPW on that too). That’s not gradualism, it’s cynicism. Why not spend the same time issuing releases making the case for actual independence?
#22 by Indy on December 16, 2011 - 3:16 pm
The SNP is not pushing Devo Max. We are perhaps pushing those who suppot Devo Max to step up to the plate. But if you want to get technical about it we i.e the SNP are pushing Indy Lite. Or the DVLA model as some people are now calling it.
#23 by James on December 16, 2011 - 3:22 pm
It’s not really possible to read all those SNP press releases that way. They’re pushing people who don’t support it (notably Labour leadership at Holyrood) to support it.
#24 by Indy on December 16, 2011 - 8:47 pm
That’s pretty much what I said. There are people within Labour – and within the other unionist parties as well – who are prepared to be quite radical about extending the Scottish Parliament’s powers. If they want to draw a line at a certain level – say, defence, foreign affairs, corporation tax or whatever then that’s fine. But if there’s a cross-party majority for extending the powers to include things like welfare, pensions, energy, most taxation etc then it was worth trying to establish that.
Looking at the Tory leadership result, however, they have said no to that, the Labour leader is likely to say no as well and who knows what is going on in the Lib Dems. So things have worked out in such a way that there is not going to be a third option because the unionist parties won’t thole any further devolution. They have drawn their line at the status quo. Which is what most of us thought would happen.
So where does that leave your theory that Devo Max is the preferred option of the SNP leadership because it allows them – and I quote – to “string the activists along and could, potentially, be the only option that could almost guarantee they retain Ministerial office.” If they really wanted that they would have found a way of ensuring that Devo Max was represented. Instead of which we can pretty much guarantee that it won’t be. It was only a couple of months ago that Alex Salmond stood up and told SNP Conference that there will be a referendum on independence and we will be campaigning for independence. Did you miss that?
#25 by James on December 17, 2011 - 3:21 pm
I’m not suggesting independence won’t be on the ballot, or that the SNP won’t be campaigning for it. I’m saying that if the leadership wanted to win that vote they’d offer up and down only, given that some would-be independence voters would go for devo max if offered, and it’s less likely to be won therefore. If we end up just having an up-down vote as you suggest there will be two obvious potential explanations. First, I’ve been wrong all along. Second, the SNP couldn’t persuade any of the unionists to offer a credible devo max fit for the ballot. If Labour or the Lib Dems come up with a devo max offer and the SNP decline I’ll definitely have been wrong, and I can assure you I’ll eat a substantial pile of humble pie.
#26 by Indy on December 17, 2011 - 4:04 pm
Well we haven’t been able to flush anybody out on Devo Max so it’s pretty well established that the unionist parties want no change. Of course they will all say that devolution is a process not an event and that it will be kept under continual review and that if a strong enough case is made for the devolution of specific powers that will be considered etc etc Which most voters will correctly interpret as rhubarb because we offered them the chance to include that in the debate and on the ballot paper and they opted not to.
#27 by Barbarian on December 17, 2011 - 10:25 pm
I’m going to join in the Devo Max argument!
I think the SNP might just consider it, as it will give them a get out when they realise that their policy on Europe is going to give them problems.
Think about the one third of undecided voters. What’s safer – full independence but fully integrated into the European Union or Devo Max but safely outside the barbed wire enclosure?