There’s been a lot of Holyrood-bubble drama around LabourForIndy recently. Who’s that in their photos? When did you join Labour? Is it even real? It might seem like the phoniest of wars, but it’s happening for a reason.
Fear. Specifically Labour fear.
As I’ve said before, if the referendum is to be won, it’ll be won from the left and centre-left. By next September let’s assume 75% of 2011 SNP voters will probably back independence. Die-hard capital-N nationalists, some fairly left-wing, some to the right. They make up about 30-33% of the electorate, and therefore 60-66% of the Yes vote required.
Add in a good slice of Greens and Socialists – not a huge number, although some SNP folk say Patrick Harvie’s messages are persuading voters who are neither nationalist nor Green – plus a fragment of Lib Dems frustrated by the absence of federalism from the ballot, and Yes is still short about a sixth of the vote. That sixth can only come from Labour voters plus increased turnout from the working class ex-Labour abstainers (or lifetime abstainers), the very people for whom Westminster has done next to nothing for generations.
Hence the fuss. LabourForIndy as an organisation may not (yet?) be that substantial, but Labour voters for independence are where the referendum can be won. And there are lots of them already. Take the May Panelbase poll for the Sunday Times, the most recent one up on UK Polling Report, which gives crossbreaks on voting intention and referendum intention.
The results for Q3 there (which should say “constituency”, not region) show that 41% of the undecided are Labour voters. Fewer than 50% of Labour’s supporters from 2011 backed Westminster rule, and 14% are voting Yes. If representative, that’s almost 90,000 people, perhaps seven or eight percent of the total Yes vote required (assuming a turnout of between 2.25m and 2.5m next year). And the Labour-backing referendum-undecideds are twice as many again.
If those undecided Labour voters break for Yes, they can ensure the referendum is won – probably no-one else can – and Labour is right to be afraid of this situation, because it threatens their position in three ways.
First, independence, and the Labour voters supporting it, jeopardises their chances of getting back into power at a UK level. Although Westminster elections aren’t commonly close enough for the Scottish block to make any difference (other than imposing Blairite reforms on the rest of the UK), it might well happen next time given the state of the polls. They want the buffer provided by right-wing MPs like Tom Harris. Pure self interest: they want him and his ilk to keep being sent to Westminster to help prop up future Labour administrations there.
Second, and this is where they should see opportunities rather than threats, it makes a return to office at Holyrood even less likely. Losing a referendum on which they have staked everything would be a massive blow to their institutional power and their credibility, especially when it’ll be clear so many of their own supporters have ignored their advice in favour of, ironically, the prospect of a Labour-led government for an independent Scotland. It’s not just their supporters and members, either. Why wouldn’t some potential Scottish Labour Ministers feel the same? One former senior Labour Minister told a friend he was privately in favour of independence so long as “the bloody Nats don’t get to run it” (no, it wasn’t Henry).
Finally, and perhaps most intriguingly, it’s an ideological threat. Labour have redefined their primary purpose as defence of the Union, in large part as self-interest. Like Scottish Lib Dem MPs, they’re amongst its main institutional beneficiaries. It’s also partly because they haven’t any other ideas. Ask yourself: what else do Labour at Holyrood want to achieve? Can you name a single radical thing? I can’t, and I follow politics pretty closely.
There’s no principled basis for boxing themselves in like this. Unless a party is established with a constitutional purpose at its heart, like the SNP, their supporters are likely to disagree on whether Holyrood or Westminster is best able to get them to their other political objectives. A third of Greens at conference regularly vote against independence, although none yet seem to want to work with the Tories as part of Better Together. It’s normal. I’m not scared by it, in the way Labour are terrified of Labour voters for independence. Rather than social justice or even Blairite aspiration, Labour have become obsessed with one arbitrary answer to this tactical question – will our objectives be better met at Westminster or at Holyrood? It’s a fragile new base to have chosen.
Their response to this trend not only threatens Labour’s future shots at governance, therefore, it also weakens their power over their voters too. That Labour Yes vote is likely to be centre-left types who find the SNP too economically right-wing, people who’ve stuck with Labour so far but who are increasingly desperate to be shot of a Tory-led Westminster. When they watch the Labour leadership line up with Tories and Lib Dems over the next year to ensure Scotland remains run by the bedroom taxing, fracking, poor-hating, immigrant-abusing Westminster they increasingly loathe, the risk has to be that that sight will put them off Labour too, and that those Labour voters for Yes will become SNP, Green or Socialist voters for Yes. I can’t be the only person who’s gone off Labour and off Westminster essentially in parallel.
It’s too late for them ever to win me back, but Labour didn’t need to be in this mess, especially if they’d put forward a credible “more powers” offer. Now, though, even as someone who still wants to see a better Labour Party, I now can’t see a way out of the uncomfortable corner they’ve painted themselves into. The harder they try to retain their grip, the weaker their position becomes. No wonder they’re afraid.
#1 by Aidan on August 7, 2013 - 2:08 pm
Nothing radical except a national care service, Scottish Future Jobs Fund, not for profit ownership of ScotRail, aqueducts… etc.
Also, the problem isn’t “Labour voters for independence”, the problem is a bunch of SNP folk pretending to be Labour members and using LFI banner as a front for trolling the party.
#2 by Keir Hardly on August 7, 2013 - 2:49 pm
Public ownership of railways is hugely popular with the public across all parties. Why didn’t Labour do anything about it during 13 years in power?
Like all of Labour’s promises – where they bother to even make any – the problem is that they were in power much too recently for people to have forgotten that they did nothing about them then, when they had the chance.
#3 by Keir Hardly on August 7, 2013 - 2:51 pm
(And where, incidentally, can we read details of all these radical policies, including costings? Genuine question.)
#4 by James on August 7, 2013 - 2:54 pm
Also, I’ve heard nothing from Labour people about the first two (is the second just another here-today, gone-tomorrow bit of money, like almost all Brown’s achievements?), and the last one sounds lovely but is there a real problem with our aqueducts?
#5 by Aidan on August 7, 2013 - 3:26 pm
Those were all in the 2011 manifesto for the scottish parliament
#6 by Keir Hardly on August 7, 2013 - 3:37 pm
So were a lot of things we never hear about any more, like a commitment to free education.
#7 by Keir Hardly on August 7, 2013 - 3:51 pm
I’ve just had a read through that manifesto. As well as promising the continuation of free tuition, free prescriptions and free personal care for the elderly (all now abandoned as pledges, awaiting a “review” lost somewhere in the long grass), it does mention the Future Jobs Fund and National Care Service.
(All it says about Scotrail is “We will consider all options, including public and not for profit models”.)
It mentions them in the vaguest of terms, with no hint as to what they might cost, let alone where that money would be found from. So to repeat my original question: where can we read details of all these radical policies, including costings? You’ve had two years to work on them.
#8 by Keir Hardly on August 8, 2013 - 11:13 am
Aidan? Anything?
#9 by Jeanne Tomlin on August 7, 2013 - 5:06 pm
Or a bunch of people cropping and doctoring photos in order to try to make it look like a bunch of SNP folk pretending when it is perfectly obvious in the undoctored photos who is whom.
#10 by Graham Anderson on August 7, 2013 - 2:54 pm
@Aiden RE LFI banner
Please, the evidence is clear that the pictures were cropped and doctored/falsified by the Better Together team.
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/7823-labour-for-indy-treasurer-challenges-newspaper-claim-she-is-snp-agitator
You can clearly see how the sequence of shots progressed and the original photograph which was doctored by Blair McDougals team. You’ll note the folk holding up the LFI banner temporarily while the Yes Scotland banner is unfurled, then the final shot showing Labour members holding up the LFI banner while other Yes Scotland activists hold up their own banner.
In other words it’s a manufactured “scandal”, and I urge you to consider this in future instead of taking things at face value. Especially when the picture offered by Better Together was already showing signs of being altered by super-imposing yellow SNP rosettes over the original.
#11 by Iain Menzies on August 7, 2013 - 3:54 pm
Except that the ‘uncropped’ picture shows three SNPers holding a LFI banner while getting their picture taken.
UNless they didnt see the banner.
Your comments doesnt say that this isnt a scandal (tho i dunno that scandal is the right word anyway) all it does is make me (at least) wonder why they didnt just wait till both banners were unfurled before taking the picture.
#12 by Keir Hardly on August 7, 2013 - 4:12 pm
Simple question for you, Iain:
You’re out campaigning one weekend for Better Together. Campaigning with you are people from Gayer Together, or whatever the LGBT No group might be called. There’s only a couple of them, so they ask you to help hold up their large banner for a photograph.
Do you:
(a) Say “Eurgh, no, I’m not gay and I wouldn’t want anyone to think I was masquerading as a homosexual to inflate your numbers”?
(b) Say “Sure, we’re on the same side and I’m happy to support your group in solidarity with our shared cause. But it’d be nice if you made it clear when you put it on your Facebook page that I was just campaigning with you, rather than actually being a member of your group”?
No rush.
#13 by Keir Hardly on August 7, 2013 - 4:31 pm
(And if you ARE gay, then I’m sure you’re capable of coming up with another analogy, or putting yourself in the place of someone who isn’t. If you were the LGBT campaigner, what would you expect a non-gay Better Together worker to do?)
#14 by Jeanne Tomlin on August 7, 2013 - 5:08 pm
Courteously hold the banner for you.
#15 by Iain Menzies on August 7, 2013 - 5:16 pm
Well im not gay, im bi, tho i have been in a same sex relationship for something like 5 years now (tbh not sure where exactly the five year mark is….).
But there are a couple of things. The language you use there is more than abit iffy in my opinion. It more than nods towards the offensive…but thats just my opinion…
Putting aside that i think your analogy is bordering on the homophobic its just a crap analogy. There is not (so far as i am aware tho i wouldnt be surprised) a ‘Scottish Homosexual Bisexual Lesbian and Transgender Party’. The only real comparison would be a Scottish Nationalist/Scottish Green Together campaign. The point is that there is a group that claims to be for members of one political party, uses that parties colours and a varient of their logo. But a majority of that group ARE NOT (according to that fella Gorgon on newsnight Scotland the other night) members of the labour party. If the group was called Labour SUPPORTERS of Indy then this would be a non story. But they aint, so it isnt.
Also I am not, nor have i ever been, nor will i ever be a member of the Labour party. I aint a member of any party. Tho i have been. There is not a power in the universe that would compel me to hold up ANY kind of Labour banner.
Heck the only time ive spoken to someone at a Yes Scotland stall 9in Saltcoats a few weeks back) The guy who i think was an SNP member made it clear he had no time at all for the labour party either.
I dont know anyone in the SNP who have much of any time at all for the Labour party, other than apparently these three councillors.
#16 by Keir Hardly on August 7, 2013 - 6:08 pm
Goodness knows what language you’re considering offensive, but a heroic dodging of the issue there.
Whether we’re talking about political parties or other kinds of group is irrelevant. The referendum is not a party issue. It will not have Labour, SNP, Tory, Lib Dem or Green on the ballot paper. The two sides are Yes and No.
So the question still stands: you’re asked by [some group of which you are not personally a member] to hold up the banner for [campaign you’re both on the same side for] at a campaign event. Do you or don’t you?
#17 by James on August 8, 2013 - 12:47 am
I think it might have been “Gayer Together”, which I thought was a bit borderline from a moderation point of view, and I apologise if anyone thinks it was over that line. Still, Keir, your rephrasing here is entirely sound and neutral.
#18 by Iain Menzies on August 8, 2013 - 1:57 am
I didnt dodge that point. I answered it in detail.
If it was a party political group then i would be keeping a friendly distance, and make sure i wanst near if it looked like that was likly to happen. On account of me being abit lazy as much as anything…
If its not a party group thats a different matter.
You are dodging the point. It IS a party political matter. Cos the group (that aint) is calling itself LABOUR for Indy.
Also i didnt say it was offensive. I said it nodded towards it. but then i aint easily offended. And as James has said he thinks its borderline.
You might not want to be so dissmissive. Unless im mistaken the law as it says i only has to feel offended…it doesnt have to be a reasonable offense.
I just happen to think that (publically at least) the ‘debate’, such as it is, should be conducted respectfully.
#19 by Jeanne Tomlin on August 7, 2013 - 5:08 pm
A faux-scandal if there ever was one and not a convincing one at that.
#20 by Keir Hardly on August 7, 2013 - 3:06 pm
I think you’re actually a bit over generous in your estimation of Labour’s motivations. Scottish MPs could indeed arguably be more important than usual in 2015 (though I think the Tories will be ahead in the polls by this time next year), but mostly the Parliamentary party just cares about its own jobs.
The disproportionate, near-hysterical demonising of what appears to be a couple of dozen dissidents is aimed at silencing internal opposition, and discouraging anyone from examining the gulf between the party’s implacable opposition to independence and the membership’s increasing ambiguity.
Even if Labour’s undisclosed Scottish membership is really as low as some have suggested, 14% of it is still an awful lot more people than are in Labour For Independence, and the party doesn’t want anyone drawing attention to the existence of that faction, because it disturbs the Yes = SNP narrative.
#21 by sideshowmanny on August 7, 2013 - 4:15 pm
As Graham said, the LFI/SNP front story is a manufactured scandal and I think people like Aiden are well aware of that.
However, I have no idea why they think it’s a myth that’s worth repeating(Personally I think they’d do well to play it down).
We had all the fighting with Unite over Falkirk, the Better Together/United with Labour split over campaigning with the Tories and now we have unionist Labour members attacking Labour members who support Independence.
I saw a Labour member on twitter this morning saying any Labour members who support independence should leave and join the SNP and another demanding to know the dates when different member of LFI joined the Labour Party.
Scottish Labour’s leadership really need to get a grip of things but instead Johann Lamont seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth.
Regardless of a Yes or No vote next year, I’m not sure how much of a party Scottish Labour are going to have left by the time the referendum’s done.
They could leave themselves unelectable in Holyrood for a long time to come regardless of how it turns out.
#22 by Aidan on August 7, 2013 - 4:39 pm
Only manufactured thing about this is LFI itself 😉
#23 by Jeanne Tomlin on August 7, 2013 - 5:12 pm
Right. The Labour members in polls who SAID they were for independence were lying and NO ONE in Labour is for it. That IS what you are saying.
And no one believes it. Labour is simply throwing a hissy-fit that they have some members who support independence and they can’t afford for this to be known.
#24 by Aidan on August 7, 2013 - 6:02 pm
Nope, it’s well known (and openly admitted) that there are some Labour members in favour of independence. Including some quite high profile office bearers like Mary Lockhart.
What is in dispute is that LFI represent a significant number of a) Labour members b) Labour members in favour of independence c) the people featured in online promotion who quite often seem to be members and even elected members of the SNP
#25 by Doug Daniel on August 7, 2013 - 4:27 pm
“One former senior Labour Minister told a friend he was privately in favour of independence so long as “the bloody Nats don’t get to run it” (no, it wasn’t Henry).”
Wow, it really is all about deeply-ingrained SNP hatred with these guys, isn’t it? The logical conclusion of that statement is a Tory-led UK is preferable to an SNP-led Scotland. I really cannot get my head around the hatred Labour politicians have for a party that hasn’t even had the opportunity to do the harmful things Tories have done, never mind actually doing them.
This really seems to have gotten Labour rattled, though. It’s predictable stuff from certain quarters, but I’ve been surprised at the reactions from the ones that I always thought were a bit less tribal. Some of Jamie Gulkin’s tweets last night, for instance, were a bit bizarre – especially the one saying if Labour isn’t socialist enough for them they should join the SSP or the Greens, and the one saying that power is more important than principles. We all tease them about this kind of stuff, but it’s weird to see it actually coming from a Labour person.
I’d like to think the “how long have YOU been a member?” questioning will be the nadir of the debate, and that things won’t get any lower. But I’ve been wrong about that several times already, so I won’t be holding my breath.
(Any chance the afore-mentioned former Labour minister will be announcing his support for Yes before the vote, or will he just be suffering in silence and leaving it to the rest of us to win it for him?)
#26 by Doug Daniel on August 7, 2013 - 4:39 pm
*Glackin
#27 by Andrew on August 7, 2013 - 9:08 pm
The argument has definitly been hammed-up, but then so has LFIs status. As a Labour Party member I can assure you that there are definitly members, and supporters, who will vote YES next year. An actual Labour for Independence movement could be very powerful and effective, but I’m not convinced this this is that movement.
There are a number of pictures, and sufficient social media evidence, to raise a question about how well the group could function without the healthy level of outside support it receives – in terms of activisits and resources, this is not a point about funding.
It’s definitly early days for the campaign, and it may well develop into something bigger, but for the moment it looks a lot like a group propped up by SNP members and people who hate the Labour Party. A trip onto the groups Facebook page (which until very recently has been their main forum for discussion) shows the majority of their support comes from people who will never vote Labour in a million years.
I wish the campaigners well, and it’s for their benefit, as well as that of the wider YES campaign, that they need to expand out of having SNP members doing their campaigning on the ground.
#28 by Chris on August 9, 2013 - 1:53 pm
If I saw even one critical comment from LFI of the SNP I would be convinced. But even on the Bedroom Tax they are swallowing the line that Independence is the only solution when they know very well that the SNP are chosing to sit on their hands… ….he who calls the piper…
If you believe that Pat Kane, a well-known SNP supporter and previous candidate who hasn’t voted Labour since Bruce Milan was in charge is a grassroots Labour activist, it is no wonder you believe that negotiating Scottish entry to the EU would be a cinch.
If LFI was a genuine grassroots movement they wouldn’t need a SNP councillor to hold the other end of a banner. They wouldn’t need SNP MSPs to hand out leaflets for them AND – most importantly – they would have significant recognisable Labour activists within their ranks. This is not the case: the leaders are not even known within their own branches, they all appear to have recently joined or rejoined the party. If you were to set up a scam organisation this is the way to do it.
To all you SNP supporters defending LFI all I can say is you would say that, wouldn’t you? When something is too good to be true, it probably isn’t.
It’s a sham, a scam and a con. Maybe there is room for a genuine organisation to rise but this sham of fake activists is not it.
#29 by Keir Hardly on August 9, 2013 - 9:55 pm
“If I saw even one critical comment from LFI of the SNP I would be convinced. But even on the Bedroom Tax they are swallowing the line that Independence is the only solution when they know very well that the SNP are chosing to sit on their hands…”
Rubbish. That was specifically what Allan Grogan DID cite as an unsatisfactory SNP policy on Newsnight Scotland a week or so ago.
Presumably that’s you convinced now.
#30 by Chris on August 9, 2013 - 1:55 pm
Incidentally, I was thinking of setting up a sham organisation called SNP4DevoMax but the SNP seem to have beaten me to it.