Sometimes it comes down to the simplest things.
I have struggled with holding my Labour Party membership ever since the Glasgow East by-election. To be confronted with the destitution I saw only five miles away from where I used to live while canvassing and leafleting shocked me to my core.
Maybe I’m just a naïve, privileged stupid girl, or perhaps I’m just a normal person, rightfully horrified by walking into a close with shit and graffiti smeared all over the walls and kids playing next to methadone tumblers and needles.
It was only one close, because the two activists and I decided to jettison our leaflet run after that, but it’s horrified me ever since.
Whenever I have campaigned for the Labour Party I have been able to justify seeing the more unpleasant parts of lots of places in Britain by truly believing the candidate I was working for and the wider cause were both doing good, or were going to do better, albeit perhaps slower than I would want to see. But in Glasgow East, a seat I knew Labour had held forever anon, I couldn’t in good faith console myself that this was an acceptable place which my party had abandoned people and children to live, within an hour’s walking distance of the contrast of my comfortable life surrounded by my university and West End lifestyle.
But I stayed in the party. I was able to pass off a sight that I still have nightmares about as an aberration, something the cause I was dedicated to would eventually solve.
I believe the Labour Party is still the best vehicle to solve poverty in Britain, but it’s not a journey I can take any longer. The children I witnessed in that close in Easterhouse that day were not there because immigrants had taken their parents’ jobs, but because a Thatcherite government strangled funds to a Labour-led council that had no hope to even begin to address those children’s needs.
I cancelled my Labour Party direct debit on Friday, because Ed Miliband’s intervention on immigration is to me the single, worst, most crappy-William Hague-era thing I have ever heard a Labour leader say. At a time of economic austerity, to even subtly posit that low wages, poor housing and lack of opportunities are caused by ‘them’, a foreign other, coming across from somewhere else, when the root of poverty in Britain is the fault of the political and economic system we continue to inhabit, is just the cheapest political posturing, and I cannot endorse it.
It is the final straw in a lapse that has been a long time coming. But it does come down to the simplest things.
I spent this weekend at the STUC’s youth conference, where policy for Scotland’s young trade unionists is debated and agreed for the year ahead. On behalf of the STUC’s youth committee I moved the motion for debate on the independence referendum, dedicating the STUC to convening events and debates for young trade union members to fully explore the pros and cons of independence, to receive input from both the Yes Scotland and Better Together campaigns, and to make their own minds up about what will almost certainly be the most decisive vote my generation will take part in.
I remain undecided about independence. I look at the Yes Scotland launch and am left cold by the unrepresentative panel and the clear SNP-only organization. But then I look at the Better Together launch on Monday and I’m left even colder.
It’s a simple thing, to believe an organization you value and even love, will value your own views back. Too simple, perhaps.
Independence, whatever your views, is too important an issue to be left to the politicians to decide. It’s certainly far too important a decision for us on the left to trust to a coalition between Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, who have already decided for us that the UK is the best possible political and economic system we can possibly have.
I’m a big fan of British democracy, but a walk around the east end of Glasgow a few years ago was enough to convince me that it wasn’t the best of all possible worlds.
It wasn’t enough for Labour to only consult with members on the timing, the number of questions, the electorate and the governance of an independence referendum.
As the party who delivered devolution for Scotland I’m angry that Labour have not seriously consulted party members on attitudes towards independence, or the devolution of further powers, and translated those attitudes into a less strident, pro-UK-as-it-is campaign. Sure, the attitudes of a party and activists who know they rely on a Scottish bloc vote to hold the balance of power in Westminster will be skewed. But I don’t believe there is mutual exclusivity in wanting every child in the UK to be lifted out of poverty, and in wanting economic powers to be closer to the communities they are meant to serve.
Until now I have always been able to stick with Labour because I believed my efforts served a greater cause. I know there are many, many Labour representatives who know this, and strive and work towards it every day. I’ve been incredibly privileged to know and work with a few of them, and I hope to continue to support them whenever I can. There is certainly no other political party I would consider joining.
But when Labour decides to blame immigrants, however subtly with one speech, and chooses to side with those whose economic policies cause the social ills we witness, by just deciding that there isn’t an alternative to the current system, it becomes a cause which no effort of mine can hope to change.
#1 by Gavin WIlliamson on June 27, 2012 - 8:48 am
Kirsty
I sincerely hope that you do not become lost to the political process, Scotland needs people of integrity, compassion and drive, of what ever political hue.
There have always been a lot of very good people in the Labour Party, but I suspect that there is a growing band that has become increasing uncomfortable with the direction the party has taken and continues to take.
#2 by Doug Daniel on June 27, 2012 - 9:09 am
Well, good on you. If the electorate leaving Labour in droves won’t convince the party leadership they’ve completely abandoned everything they are meant to stand for, perhaps haemorrhaging members might give them pause for thought.
Pingback: Wings over Scotland | Eyes wide shut
#3 by Craig Gallagher on June 27, 2012 - 10:09 am
I had this epiphany nearly seven years ago now (I can’t believe it’s been that long) when as a eighteen-year old steeped in Labour party rhetoric growing up, and having already voted for them in 2005 almost unthinkingly, I had a long, hard look at what the party were saying and doing on poverty, immigration and civil liberties. I had just started university at Strathclyde and spent some time visiting friends who had flats in Dennistoun and further afield in the East End. Having grown up in Greenock, I was no stranger to the spectacle of poverty and luxury about a mile away from each other, but it did seem uncommonly stark in Glasgow, given that nowhere in Greenock could compare with the Merchant City.
My parents were horrified when I asked them what they thought of the disconnect between Labour’s actions and their rhetoric. I’m not sure they had ever thought to question it. So I did a bit of research, spoke to some of the university’s student parties and tried to figure out what I thought about what New Labour had become. And I was quickly disillusioned by the sound-bite answers I got from one and all, even from friends like Yousuf Hamid, Labour party stalwart. To my knowledge, at that time the Strathy SNP party didn’t even have an office, so I don’t recall speaking with them. It took a further year and the onset of the 2007 election campaign before I switched irrevocably to the nationalists, but in the interim nineteen-year old me would have sympathised hugely with your dilemna.
It’s hard, very hard to justify attaching yourself to a vehicle which purports – and probably believes – itself to be an institution committed to relieving poverty etc, but whose abuses outstrip its virtues in achieving this. That was Labour for me, and I suspect it’s Labour for you now.
#4 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on June 27, 2012 - 10:41 am
I respect your view here; I admire your expression of it, and I understand, though disagree with, your action.
People rarely leave a party on the basis of one disagreement, and it’s clear that the immigration statement was merely the final straw, not the root cause.
But I would nonetheless point out that you made this decision before Ed Miliband made or published his speech. You made it as a result of the spun lines which preceded the speech, at which time many others were also being critical. I was horrified, and I watched the speech with trepidation.
What I actually heard was not what was spun, but a very clear call to address immigration as part of a shift to responsible capitalism, not exclusionary policies. There was in fact no blame place on the “other”, but squarely placed on industry sectors misusing workers in an under-regulated system. I shifted from being angry at Ed to being impressed by him, and angry at Labour’s spin doctors for their Daily Mail chasing. That in itself is another valid criticism of the party, but it isn’t a policy one.
There is much to do to solve the problems of poverty in the UK. I too agree that Labour is the best chance we have of doing so. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to judge a lack of total success as a failure. Millions were lifted out of poverty by the redistributive policies of the much derided “New Labour” government. We missed our targets, yes. People still live in unacceptable conditions, yes. But I’m still proud that we made a difference, and happy to stay and fight to do more.
#5 by Oliver Whitmarsh on June 27, 2012 - 12:30 pm
But the thing with you is Duncan, is that you would defend anything with a Labour badge on it.
You begin by trying to convince everyone else of Labours merits and past history of achievement, but end up only convincing yourself.
Very tedious.
#6 by Duncan Hothersall (@dhothersall) on June 27, 2012 - 1:09 pm
Sure. That’s why I continue to argue against Labour’s policy on alcohol pricing, for example.
Or is it just easier to dismiss me if you pretend I’m a drone? Maybe that’s it.
#7 by Commenter on June 27, 2012 - 2:43 pm
I’m with Duncan on this one. When I read Miliband’s actual speech, it was studiously reasonable. The twitter commentary was, as per usual, as level-headed as Rainman being dragged onto an Aeroflot flight.
#8 by Gaz on June 27, 2012 - 3:21 pm
Duncan,
That’s a fair point about the pre-event spin versus the actual content of the speech.
BUT you then have to ask yourself why it was spun that way. The only possible explanation is that the spin was the message Miliband wanted portrayed in the media.
That is perhaps the most worrying thing of all.
#9 by Jeff on June 27, 2012 - 3:34 pm
I think you’re grasping at straws a bit there to be honest Gaz.
Everyone agrees that it’d be nice if the number of jobs were to be increased to meet the number of people in the country, immigrants or otherwise. But it can’t be ruled out of scope to broach the subject that maybe there are too many people to meet the number of jobs that we can realistically hope to create over the next few years. If letting 100million asylum seekers into the UK is too many, then discussing the subject is not unreasonable.
I’m about as open-doors immigration as you’ll get, and admittedly I don’t know much about the detail (or the spin) of Ed’s speech, but I don’t ‘really’ get what the problem is here other than some very left-wing sensitivities being pricked…
#10 by Aidan on June 27, 2012 - 5:20 pm
He didn’t actually talk about restricting immigration, the measures proposed were about things like enforcing the minimum wage and gangmaster laws more strictly to prevent exploitation, pointing out that if an area of high unemployment also has high immigration it suggests there’s a need for training…
#11 by Ken on June 27, 2012 - 7:06 pm
“He didn’t actually talk about restricting immigration”
He did actually. He very explicitly said that.
“Within EU, the ability of people to move within the 27 countries is part of our treaty obligations. But when it comes to the accession of future countries to the European Union, we should take advantage of the maximum transitional controls. That means we would limit the numbers of people who can come to work here for seven years after accession. “
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/06/22/ed-miliband-s-immigration-speech-in-full
#12 by James on June 28, 2012 - 10:44 am
For some reason being in Labour makes very bright, passionate and committed people totally oblivious to their glaring faults.
#13 by Aidan on June 28, 2012 - 12:06 pm
I’d argue that there’s a difference between taking time to adjust to EU expansion and restricting immigration – or is anything beyond globally open borders “restricting immigration”?
#14 by Indy on June 27, 2012 - 8:01 pm
I don’t think it is a case of left wing sensitivities being pricked. And nor do I buy the line that somehow people aren’t able to talk about immigration freely and there is some plot to brand anyone who raises the issue a racist.
That is patently not the case. We talk about immigration all the time and when people are branded racists it’s generally because they actually are. And there is no great plot to suppress racist opinion – in fact we actually pay for them to deliver their racist literature through every door at election time.
So in my opinion that whole line of thinking – that immigration is taboo and that people are scared of talking about it in case they are branded a racist and suppressed in some unidentified way – is a bit of a red herring really.
The issue for me about the whole Ed Milliband speech thing was the level of calculation and cynicism around it. The clever way the same speech created two different messages, one for Daily Mail readers, one for Guardian readers.
You can be too clever – and that was. Too clever by half.
#15 by Indy on June 27, 2012 - 7:46 pm
Yeah the speech itself wasn’t that bad but you know fine well the way it was spun was a decision. The press were fed those lines. You know that and do you think Ed Milliband didn’t agree to it?
It’s one of the most completely cynical things I have seen. Feed the press the lines you want them to take then carefully write the speech so you can say to your supporters but look at what he actually SAID, it’s not how it is being portrayed.
You may say that every party uses those tricks. Yes. But not quite in that way and not about that issue.
They did cross a line there, you must in your heart know that.
Pingback: Lapsed « Better Nation | Referendum 2014 | Scoop.it
#16 by Ken on June 27, 2012 - 11:32 am
On the speech for a moment:
Ed M: There is nothing wrong with anyone employing Polish builders, a French chef, or a Swedish childminder. I am not going to promise “British jobs for British workers.” But we need an economy which offers working people a fair crack of the whip.
To me, that ‘But’ at the end creates a psychological division and contrast between ‘working people’ and the Polish, French and Swedish previously referred to. British workers and ‘them’. (He did that ‘but’ thing many many times throughout the speech.)
He referred to ‘working people’ several times in his speech, but in no part did it make me (an immigrant who works and contributes to society) feel part of that group – he made me feel very much an immigrant and ‘one of them’. (Don’t even get me started on the bulls**t remarks on restricting migrants from new EU countries as a way to protect jobs / wages.)
Why should I vote for him after this?
#17 by Stevie on June 27, 2012 - 1:14 pm
Labour is not fit for purpose and hasn’t been for a long number of years.
Labour is a right-wing party with an eye on winning power in Westminster — the times when Labour does get into power it continues blithely the previous rifght-wing policies and adds its own.
Nukes, NHS privatisation, all public services put out to private tender (silence of the Labour sheep), proposed housing benefit withdrawal for under 25s (silence of the…). Pathetic record and Tories of all colours need removing out of Scotland.
Make the leap to a social democracy in Scotland — independence is the only chance for that.
The failure to achieve a YES vote will begin the huge cuts to the Scottish block grant (the Barnett formula being directly proportional to England’s public sector contribution) — expect 50% to 75% in cuts.
The Scotland we could have will be lost forever as the social deprivation becomes an apocalypse and our society becomes non-caring.
Make the leap. YES to a Scottish social democracy that puts people at the heart of policy.
Pingback: And Another Thing | laidbackviews
#18 by Spout on June 27, 2012 - 4:07 pm
Interesting and well written piece – thank you for writing it.
I cannot be more eloquent than Mr Gallagher on this subject so will just quote him:
“It’s hard, very hard to justify attaching yourself to a vehicle which purports – and probably believes – itself to be an institution committed to relieving poverty etc, but whose abuses outstrip its virtues in achieving this. That was Labour for me, and I suspect it’s Labour for you now.”
Slightly tangential but…I had to sit through a super-grim report on Al Jazeera which was discussing the conditions and life expectancy in a country in the Congo when the story suddenly & unexpectedly cut to the East End of Glasgow – a place with a lower life expectancy (54?) situated in the ‘First World’ – and the reporter talked very simply of the “political failure” involved for this to be the case in Scotland.
This shocked and angered me profoundly.
Sadly i have to say that this failure, with a combined tenancy (of many years) in Glasgow Council, Holyrood and Westminster is to be firmly laid at the door of the Labour Party.
Please carry on with your worthwhile, hands-on work for social justice but please don’t do it within the confines of the Labour Party.
That party is gone.
#19 by Craig Gallagher on June 27, 2012 - 4:47 pm
You’re very kind to describe me so, thank you.
On your final point, I think you’re right. The Labour party that was is gone, perhaps never to return. What remains is like the vestiges of Rangers Football Club, convinced of its uniqueness, hateful of those who sully it and firmly at peace with the decision to pursue power over people, as Ramgers did over their fans. As the late Ibrox club demonstrates, however, nothing – not even the most fundamental threads Scottish society’s fabric – are immune from economic and political apocalypse.
I’m 100% convinced that the best vehicle we have at our disposal for social justice is Scottish Independence. In the interim, I’ve made a few personal qualifications with the Scottish National Party – only a few – that I hope to hold them more stridently to account on when the matter is settled in our favour. I freely admit to independence being my overriding political aim at the moment, more important than even social justice. And I sense in Kirsty’s post, a budding recognition that those two ideas are not mutually exclusive, that in fact one may lead more firmly towards the other.
#20 by James on June 28, 2012 - 10:58 am
This is an attitude I will never understand.
#21 by Dennis Smith on June 28, 2012 - 4:38 pm
I’m not sure I would have used Craig’s phrasing but I think he has a perfectly defensible position here. If you think (as I do) that in the foreseeable future socially just policies are more likely to be implemented in a independent Scotland than in the existing UK then it is perfectly sensible to treat independence as the top priority. If you think that some voters who are hostile to social justice can be persuaded to vote Yes (and subsequently outvoted in an independent Scootland) then you can justify some tactical manoeuvring to gain their votes. It may not be pretty but it’s well within the parameters of conventional politics.
#22 by Iain Menzies on June 28, 2012 - 7:50 pm
So…rather than winning the argument you want to change the rules….well thats nice and democratic
#23 by Dennis Smith on June 28, 2012 - 10:44 pm
Win which argument? There are dozens of different arguments pro and con independence, as there are on most substantive political issues. And these arguments cross-cut in endlessly complex ways. I doubt if you could find any two individuals who would agree on each and every argument. Democratic politics is about reaching agreement and forming coalitions – often provisional – on some issues while disagreeing on others. I can’t think of any practising politician or party so purist that thay will only work with, or accept votes from, those who agree with them on every issue.
#24 by Antoine Bisset on June 27, 2012 - 4:23 pm
The control of policy and action in Scotland has changed between Conservative (Unionist) and Labour (Unionist) since the Second World War. There are areas of this country that are no more fit to live in now than they were then. Why would it take a documentary about the Congo to demonstrate this?
A bus ride in any of our cities is all it takes; that, and keeping your eyes open the while.
While the balance may change over time, via the Secretary of State who held the power of a High Commissioner in a colony, the corrupt and increasingly venal Councils or the corrupt and venal Scottish Parliament the results are the same. Poverty, deprivation, misery and an early death.
Do I think it will get better?
Sadly, no.
The SNP has brought its MSPs up through the Council route where they will have learned all about corruption and incompetence, and power-broking and horse-trading and looking after Number 1.
Only after independence when the erswhile Unionists will have to get off their knees and stop facing Westminster, when an unwonted wind of change will perforce blow through the country, only then might we hope for better things.
#25 by peter on June 27, 2012 - 6:32 pm
ed miliband is merely voicing the concerns of the populace in the south of england, which, will resonate with others in the rest of england.
it’s politics; live with it.
#26 by Indy on June 28, 2012 - 7:33 am
We all know that. But the point is we don’t actually have to live with it. There is, er, a better way.
#27 by Charles Patrick O'Brien on June 27, 2012 - 7:10 pm
I am 60 years of age and I remember playing in the old Gorbals,in the back courts with broken sewers,and all that went with it.I can only remember the Labour party being in charge of Glasgow and the dominant force in Scotland.Now from my background,illegitimate,and have a real struggle as a child,you may have expected me to be a Labour supporter,but never have I nor would I vote for Labour.I got adopted at 6 years of age and moved to East Kilbride,not a very happy event for me,the step father was a Tory.I saw at 15 when Winnie won Hamilton that only independence could help Scotland,because like my own circumstances,I can only rely on myself,and Scotland can only rely on herself.I seek nothing from anyone but I will travel a 1,000,miles to help you.
#28 by Siôn Eurfyl Jones on June 27, 2012 - 7:15 pm
A very heartfelt article, which must convey the frustration many Celtic socialists must feel with the grip the Metropolitan, blairite classes have gained and retain over the Labour party. Take hope in the thought that in an Independent Scotland, Labour as it is now will no longer exists, and it will be up to people like you (not the careerist Johann Lamont et al) to forge a new left of centre party that can truly aspire to the ideals of the original Labour pioneers! Ideas of equality, fairness, self respect and the democratic ideal.
#29 by Allan on June 27, 2012 - 8:15 pm
I had that thought process in 1995 when I went to vote for the first time. The Labour candidate (they were still Labour in those days, even when Renfrew Council had it’s own space in the “Rotten Borough’s” column in Private Eye) approched me and said “Vote for Labour and things will change” – I kind of though that even though they had been in power for some time (in our council), it struck me as a strange thing to say, so I made the break and voted for the other candidate.
I think that Kirsty’s post, apart from being first class, captures perferctly well the crisis at the heart of every socialist post John Smith. We want a party to stand up for the normal working person, we want a party to be consructive in its critisism’s, we want a party who wants radical changes to our structures (whether it’s Fiscal Autonomy, a properly elected House of Lords or even root and branch reform of our tax laws). Yet we aint getting it from New Labour.
This isn’t to have a go at Milliband the younger pre se, but i suspect that things would have been even worse under Milliband the Elder.
On the speech itself, the problem with immigrants coming into this country is nothing to do with immigrants coming into this country but more to do with the low quality and quantity of Brittish workers. This is not to have a go at people coming out of schools, but there are a lot of variables (schools unable to “manage” pupils, pupils who are brought up by parents who were schoolchildren when they became parents, general lack of discipline and “grip”) which combine to diminish our young people. Essentially this is a much larger version of why are football clubs buying foreign players all the time.
Milliband probably should be speaking about this. The problem is that it’s too abstract for our media, who frankly would prefer to bash imigrants.
#30 by wangi on June 27, 2012 - 8:52 pm
But it doesn’t have to be our politics.
#31 by Bill C on June 27, 2012 - 10:20 pm
A very thoughtful piece which would surely have resonance with many socialists in Scotland, self included. However, unlike you, I have never been a member of the Labour Party choosing instead to be a member of the SNP for the last 40+ years.
Please allow me to explain. Being born in Govan and having lived and taught in the poorer areas of Glasgow for most of my adult life; the poverty you describe was not a novelty, it was not something you could visit every now and again, it was not an away day to see how the other half live. It was in you face, the human excrement was in my granny’s close in the Saltmarket and the rats were in the back court, along with the kids and the broken wine bottles. Teaching in Castlemilk and the East End of Glasgow in the latter half of the 20th Century was more akin to Social Work, Mary’s Meals and the Sally Army than edcuation. Teachers picked up the pieces from the drunken and broken homes, we made sure everbody got their milk (although Thatcher put paid to that little luxury!) and we brought in cast off’s from our homes to make sure the poorest had shoes for their feet and coats for their backs.
Although witnessing poverty everyday, I was never tempted to join the Labour Party (unlike a number of my teaching colleagues). It was not a good career move, nationalists were seen as at best quirky and at worst traitors to the socialist cause. Don’t get me wrong, I admired the much maligned Michael Foot and that lefty Tony Benn, but I knew they would get no where and therein lies the problem for left leaning Scots. The swinging pendulum of UK politics will always ensure that Labour will never be in power long enough to make a difference and even when it was (the Blair years) the Labour leadership became pink Tories. Hence I continue my merry, nationalistic way to the Referendum, ever hopeful that my fellow Scots will realise that to create social justice we have to do it ourselves.
With the greatest of respect and whichever political path you choose, I would offer only one piece of advice; never give up on your socialist principles, for contrary to British Labour propaganda, they go hand in hand with the self respect that only self determination can bring.
#32 by Jim campbell on June 28, 2012 - 9:50 am
Imagine a Scottish Labour party free of Westminster influence and in a Scotland wilh full control of it’s own resources, revenues and policies.
That would seem to be the best way to rejuvenate the Labour party in Scotland. Think of what could be accomplished then.
#33 by Galen10 on June 28, 2012 - 5:08 pm
The OP may indeed be heartfelt, and it is difficult not to empathise somewhat for someone who obviously feels so let down; but (ah yes, there is always a but…) my main problem with it is….. where have you actually BEEN for the past decade or more?
Did your canvasssing never take you outside of the Glasgow Labour bubble? Did the nauseating New Labour project somehow pass you by?
Good grief…. political naivete I can accept, indeed it can even be laudable in the face of some of the more repugnant aspects of the crypto-medieval political system the Labour party have connived in keeping alive for decades.
What I find difficult to accept however is that it has taken this long for you to realise that Labour are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The fact that *some* activists are well meaning, hard working, share the same aspirations doesn’t outweigh the abject failure of Labour in Scotland and the UK generally to promote a more progressive vision.
Enough, and more than enough, of this parcel of rougues.
You are better off without them, and we as a people will be better off without them. Another benefit of independence will be the fracturing of sterile, failed and moribund Unionist parties in Scotland.
#34 by Observer on June 28, 2012 - 7:38 pm
From a professional point of view I have to say I am horrified that you saw a close like that. Seriously – housing in Glasgow has seen a real shot in the arm not of heroin but of funding since devolution.
I work in North Glasgow & sure there are all the social problems of the day but we get the closes cleaned & the needles picked up.
A poor show from whoever the landlord was.