Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Parties

Every new Labour leader deserves a chance

Dec 20

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood, Parties | 27 Comments

Every new leader deserves a chance to flourish, so the epithet goes. It was a decency that was afforded Iain Gray, Wendy Alexander, Gordon Brown and, currently (though weaning), Ed Miliband. So it is only fair to wipe Johann Lamont’s slate clean and wait with optimism and hope that she shall lead a rejuvenated and energised Labour party that will strengthen Scotland through effective opposition to the SNP Government.

That said, one can’t help but think that as the SNP enters a long-craved campaign period leading up to the independence referendum, that if the Nats themselves could pick who the leader of Scottish Labour (sic) would be, they would pick someone precisely like Johann Lamont.

Wedded to the decaying force that are union leaders, inflexible on the question of independence for Scotland, often guilty of being an off-putting ‘point and shout’ politician, responsible for MPs who have no desire to be bossed around by a mere MSP, a leader who one can imagine would hold the line in the face of defeat when a change in tactics is clearly desperately required and, not that this should necessarily be held against anyone, doesn’t come across as the cheeriest soul in a nation famous for being pretty dour already. Some would say.

Add to all of this the clear probability that Johann Lamont’s leadership is already undermined by Ken Macintosh being the Labour members’ choice, receiving as he did 52% of the popular vote amongst members, and we have problems upon problems. Ken is to Johann what David Miliband is to brother Ed; a perennial reminder that the wrong person got the job due to a bizarre, byzantine electoral college system

But she deserves a chance.

Labour needs to do many things to reclaim former glories and many have postulated over what some of those should be.

Contrary to Alan Cochrane’s urging, I do not believe that constantly pressing the SNP over the date of the independence referendum will get Labour anywhere. The SNP won the election fair and square and, unless Labour can point to a deep and damaging reason why not knowing this date is causing Scotland harm, the public won’t mind (or really care) when the referendum is, safe in the knowledge that it’ll happen in a few years’ time. All that will happen is that Labour will look like it’s moaning (again) and the SNP will look reasonable (again). All the while, the constitution continues to dominate Scottish politics which in turn suggests that MSPs don’t have anything important to talk about on health, education, crime etc etc.

So what Labour needs to do is drop the constitution altogether as a talking point. If they claim the SNP is ‘obsessed’ with the topic, then highlight that supposed fact by being the polar opposite. If Labour believes in devolved Scotland within the UK being the ideal model of governance then magnify that. A blizzard of Holyrood-level proposals that are thought through and genuinely believed in, irrespective of other parties’ positions on the matters, should be pushed forward in the next six months or so by the Shadow Minister responsible for them. The young talents of Kezia Dugdale and Jenny Marra should be unlocked and unleashed alongside commentary from the pleasingly familiar Hugh Henrys, Sarah Boyacks and Malcolm Chisholms.

Alex Salmond does not need to be nobbled, he will go of his own accord before too long. It shouldn’t be about leader vs leader, as Labour’s hustings so often had it, it’s about team vs team.

So, if devolved Scotland is Labour’s chosen ball game and the SNP’s focus is on independence, which party is going to look like it is caring for Scots more in the years running up to an independence referendum, a referendum that polls continue to suggest the SNP will lose? And if that is the case, who is best placed to win the election in 2016 if the referendum delivers a No vote?

Not that the SNP makes it easy for Labour, and other opposition parties, by having so few chinks in its armour and running an economy that is powering along nicely, third in the UK only to London and the South East.

Johann could nullify SNP successes by getting on board with minimum pricing and NHS spending while playing to her strengths by utilising union power and know-how to find the fairest model for a national minimum wage, apprenticeships, taxation levels, regulation and pensions that pushes her ahead of an SNP that wants to be free-marketeers and social democrats all at the same time. It is an awesome task to consider but Johann could pull Labour more left, more Socialist, than the Nationalist big tent is willing to stretch and therein lies success within Holyrood and, by extension, at the referendum, whenever it may be.

I personally don’t believe that Johann will be able to do it as I don’t believe the above is a strategy that will be embarked upon, the ever-shrinking middle ground will remain the battlefield, and I also sensed a glint in Johann’s eyes on the day of her victory that even she believes she’s not quite up to this.

But she deserves a chance.

Beyond our Ken?

Dec 14

Posted by James in Elections, Holyrood, Parties | 27 Comments

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?

The Labour leadership contest has too many red corners

Nov 28

Posted by Jeff in Ideology, Parties | 24 Comments

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.

Cash for Campaigning

Nov 22

Posted by Kirsty in Democracy, Parties | 58 Comments

For a woman who’s yet to be convinced by the merits of independence, I am oddly delighted Chris and Colin Weir have chosen to donate £1 million of their tremendous £161 million EuroMillions win to the SNP, to swell the coffers of the independence campaign together with the incredibly generous bequest of £918,000 left by Edwin Morgan.

While it does make me scrabble around in my mind for who would be on the rather blank list of prospects who might be willing to make a similar donation to the unionist campaign, I still feel delight. Why? Simply, I’m a great fan of philanthropy. It pleases me to see money donated by ordinary people (albeit made extraordinary by luck) being spent for a cause instead of just sitting gathering interest in a bank account.

This week should see the final report published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life into party political finance. This review – like all of the others into political funding before it – has been extensively leaked and already rubbished by the three main Westminster parties.

Nonetheless, it is rumoured to put forward a case for extra state funding – a provision already dismissed by Nick Clegg as untenable during a period of austerity – and proposes to cap individual donations at £10,000, panicking Tory City grandees and Labour trade union bigwigs alike.

I would hate to see individual donations capped at one-hundredth of what Mr and Mrs Weir have chosen to give, for any party. I would equally hate to see political parties gain more funding from the state and taxpayers. This is because I believe parties and the causes they stand for should stand or fall based on what support from voters, and therefore donors, they can garner.

Political parties are certainly not charities. But in a way similar to charities, if they can’t fundraise to keep themselves afloat and keep fighting for their cause, then they deserve to go under. After all, just like a charity, each political party was founded to put right a supposed wrong.

If you’ve got a cause and you’ve got someone – an individual, a community, a company, a trade union – who wants to donate to further that cause, then most times you should be able to take that money.

There should of course still be conditions and there should certainly be more transparency – some being individual donors should not be able to give anonymously or through third-parties, and they must be registered to vote, or, for companies, registered to pay tax in the UK.  Political parties, overseen by the independent Electoral Commission, should conduct fit and proper person tests and not take donations if they come from a source that could damage the party’s reputation or unduly influence its work – raising eyebrows over whether Ecclestone and Souter’s gifts should’ve been accepted by their respective beneficiaries, and inhibiting funding by loans and speculation.  And in the same way charities take on state contracts, there’s still scope for some short money funding to ensure effective opposition, in recognition of its importance to democracy.

Does it give too much power over our democracy to the wealthy? Only if you aren’t willing to embrace either new forms of fundraising like crowdsourcing, as Obama has done so successfully, or indeed accept the unions and the political levy donations of the millions of working people they encompass, purposefully designed to take on the rich behemoths of society through the trade unions’ political wing of the Labour Party. (Or at least that’s the theory.)

But building on the crowdsouring idea a little more: right now all political parties spend all their time talking to target voters, and ignoring the great masses of the unaligned or the uninterested. If they had to talk to more people, and to make a case not just to get them to vote, but to get them to give as well, just think how much better political discourse in every constituency would have to be.

But whether it’s a jumble sale or a gala dinner, political parties should be responsible for raising their own money from their supporters. It should be more open, but it shouldn’t be inhibited by caps on spending, and the majority of it certainly shouldn’t be funded by the state. After all, if you care enough about a cause, or are persuaded to care about it, you’ve got to be able to give it what you want, be it time, action or cash.

The Purpose of Telling Tales

Nov 7

Posted by Guest Blog in Ideology, Parties | 55 Comments

A guest from Kirsty Connell, former Labour candidate and Vice Chair of the STUC’s Young Workers’ Committee.

AttleeFrom Caesar’s “Veni, Vidi, Vici” to Obama’s “Yes we can”, via the cry of “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” coined in the French Revolution, the history of the greatest political victories can be traced through looking for those able to distill ideology into mantra.

Capturing the zeitgeist in a pithy phrase isn’t just a mechanism of spin, or simply a clever advertising jingle drawn up to then crawl into voters’ heads and guide their hand in the ballot box. Any idiot can come up with a slogan. But for the one line to work, to be compelling, durable, persuasive, it needs to encapsulate the political narrative of the candidate. To take the ideology, values and attitudes of that politician or party, tie it up with the emotions and beliefs of the voters, and state in very few words what making this choice will mean to you, your family, your country.

It’s disappointing, but unsurprising, that Scottish Labour appears to have dismissed the whole of the above as something they just don’t need to do.  Speaking at the first Leadership hustings, Johann Lamont said: “In the last election we lost our way, we lost our confidence, and we lost Scotland. People tell us we need to find a narrative. We don’t need to find a narrative, we need to remember our story.”

She couldn’t be more wrong. Scottish Labour has never needed more urgently to find and explain its narrative to the voters. Preferably in as few words as possible.

To continue James’ explanation a few posts back of Strøm and Müller’ model of coalition building, there is little in political marketing that I despise more than candidates who openly  sell themselves as “office-seeking”. To me, Tom Harris’ Twitter bio of “Campaigning to be Labour’s next candidate for First Minister” insults voters by assuming the purpose of leading a political party is the office itself, with no reference to the policies or campaigning that need to come first to get you into that office.

And sure, the point can be made that it’s only governments that get to do anything, so winning the office has to come first in order to deliver those policies. But I still think any candidate should do voters the service of telling them what their time in office would look like, what it would do and how it would change things.

Narrative matters in politics. It is not a sexy buzzword bandied about by political consultants selling snake oil. If you don’t have a dialogue with voters to discuss with them who you are, how you got here, and where you’re going, you’re not going to go anywhere.

Scottish Labour can’t hope to sit around as the default, waiting for the Scottish electorate to realise what utter idiots they’ve been putting the SNP in power and so decide it’s high time to come home to Labour.

Lamont was right in one part of her soundbite: Labour did indeed lose its way in 2011, although I think it was lost long before.  But Labour lost its way, its confidence and Scotland because it lost its narrative. Apart from the independence bit, nobody could really say why voting for Scottish Labour would be different from voting for the SNP. Policies were broadly similar, attitudes to the Tory government in Westminster mostly aligned. But Salmond and the SNP have their big picture and they have found the best way to tell everyone what that big picture looks like and means. Scottish Labour were left looking like they were working on a scribble on an envelope of a big bad Tory government and a bigger, badder SNP First Minister.

But like a Rembrandt abandoned in an attic and slightly water damaged, Scottish Labour still has about two-thirds of a big picture. And it can be restored and revitalised.

I still think the party and its members know who it is and knows what the beautiful words written on the back of membership cards mean.  I think Scottish Labour, for all the casting about for scapegoats and excuses for the 2007 and 2011 debacles, does know in its heart how it got to where it is today. So I don’t think any of the three of Scottish Labour’s leadership candidates need to be scared about constructing the third part of the narrative, to tell the voters about where Labour is going to go.

Lamont, Harris and Macintosh just need to start asking what the purpose is. About everything. Is it Scottish Labour’s purpose to be the party of aspiration? Is it Scottish Labour’s purpose to defend the union? To defeat the SNP? To defend working people against the cuts?

Scottish Labour’s purpose could be any, or none, of the above. But its next leader needs to  be clear and coherent about why Scottish Labour exists, stands candidates, and wants to win. It needs a narrative. It’s not good enough to assume the raison d’etre for Scottish Labour is intrinsically known and understood by the electorate. Get that right, and I promise the mantra will just trip off the tongue in 2016.