Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Parties

Labour’s timidity on pay

May 5

Posted by James in Economy, Parties, Westminster | 2 Comments

£1.26The week before their 29% triumph in the local elections down south, “Red Ed” set out a timid Blairite proposal on pay, perhaps with half an eye on UKIP’s bizarre idea that wage levels are entirely determined by the numbers of people arriving in Britain. His grand idea was this – if employers pay the living wage, they might get tax reliefs or lower business rates in return.

The living wage rates are assessed by Loughborough University’s Centre for Research in Social Policy, who calculate that “people need to earn £7.45 an hour to be able to pay for food, heating and clothes, as well as to participate in a minimum level of social activity“.

For those aged over 21 working outside London, a living wage at that rate represents a modest £1.26 an hour above the minimum wage. The other way of looking at this is that the minimum wage is insufficient to allow people to “pay for food, heating and clothes, as well as to participate in a minimum level of social activity“. Can that really be acceptable? Why have a minimum wage if it doesn’t allow people to lead a basic existence of that sort?

Miliband’s proposal would mean taxpayers further subsidising employers who aren’t prepared to pay this minimum, just like parts of the tax credit system did. Effectively, those employers would still be paying below the living wage but we’d be making up part of the difference. It’s an inadequate and pathetic response to a crisis in living standards.

Instead, government should just be setting the minimum wage at the living wage level, not fudging it like this or gently pressuring companies to do the right thing. Not only would it be a redistributive pay rise for the lowest-paid in society (and make the siren voices of the ‘kippers less appealing) but, as Darren Johnson points out here, it’d save taxpayers an estimated £2.2bn. It’s a decent test of a party that claims to be of the left, too: back this, or give up your claim.

Diverse In Action

Apr 30

Posted by Natalie in Constitution, Governance, Ideology, Parties | 15 Comments

1

The independence movement is just that; a movement. It is not a retailer of one narrative, or one coalescent ideology. It is a broad church peopled by persons of many political creeds, and none.

Disagreements about post-independence policy are inevitable, and welcome. This is one of the Yes campaign’s strengths. Any attempt to convince the public that we all agree wholesale on every aspect of post-independence direction would be completely disingenuous, and the public wouldn’t buy it.

The SNP have been very successful in recent years because they appeal to the centrists in the voting population. The electorate from large swathes of the centre centre left and centre right can all look to the SNP and identify policies which appeal. The SNP have been able to bridge ideological positions because the SNP itself is fairly reflective of public voting demography; made up as it is of people who can compromise on policy in pursuit of independence. That the SNP have cross-section appeal is no coincidence, but neither is it simply a construct to garner public support. It simply is because the SNP has to reflect the views of its membership, and we are a fairly diverse bunch.

It is no secret that I disagree with the SNP on NATO membership. The majority of Scots in any competent polling have expressed anti-Trident, and anti-Trident replacement preference, and I obviously welcome the SNPs commitment to the removal of nuclear weapons post-independence if it is in the SNPs gift to do so, but I will be campaigning for removal from NATO after that yes vote.

Similarly, I am a republican and I disagree with the current SNP narrative on a continuing monarchy. I say narrative because I am not aware of a vote in which the party have had an opportunity to express any preference for this new position.

I also have a preference for an independent Scottish currency, and agree with Professor John Kay that this is the best possible position for a post-independence Scottish Government to consider. However, I also agree that continued use of Sterling in the interim, as a short to mid-term stability measure is a rational and sound proposal. We will be using sterling on the day we become independent and any transition to a new currency would inevitably take time, but I also agree with The Sun’s Andrew Nicholl that locking a post-independence Scotland in to perpetuity of economic reliance on rates set by rUK isn’t much like my idea of independence either. That said, Sterling is ours too, and any attempt by Osborne to try persuading Scots that we will be excluded from using it is as ridiculous as it is offensive.

I am comfortable that I can be in the SNP and not agree with all of its policies. It isn’t a shock, horror moment that I don’t, instead it is a valuable lesson about the art of compromise because for every policy I disagree with, there are ten that I do agree with, and I can live with that. Post independence it is up to me, and people like me and the public to make our case to the Scottish people about what shape our independence takes.

Independence does not belong to the SNP, nor does it belong to Alex Salmond. Independence is about opportunity and democracy. It isn’t about policy. The SNP are quite right to set out their position on post-independence policy, and as the leading party in the independence movement, it is inevitable that the public expect them to. However, it is important that the public know that independence and the SNP are not interchangeable and the press are partly responsible for this. It suits their narrow reporting of the independence movement to conflate SNP policy with post-independence reality.

That said, the SNP are also not responsible to the independence movement. If Patrick Harvie wants to present an argument for a Scottish currency, then his vehicle to do that is his political party. If those on the radical left want bolder vision for post-independence policy, let them sell it to the public. If they call on the SNP to do these things, they are just as guilty as the media of conflating independence with the SNP. Diversity is strength, if those on the Yes side are bold enough to sell it.

The risk for those on the Yes side is that, while welcome, all the groups which have been set up to campaign for independence risk being consumed by navel gazing and endless posturing on post-independence policy. All the policy in the world doesn’t matter a damn if there is no yes vote.

The SNP are a campaigning party. James Mitchell’s study in to levels of activism in political parties evidences that the SNP has the most motivated membership and the membership of the SNP are used to campaigning, and campaigning hard. The SNP membership knows that to win elections it is all very well to have a national strategy, but when it comes right down to it, it is the areas where the highest levels of activism take place that garner the best results.

This campaign will be won on the doorsteps. It won’t be won on social media – or even in the national media. It won’t be won spending innumerable hours creating socialist utopian ideas in rooms with like-minded people. It won’t be won at rallies preaching to the converted. We don’t have to preach to the converted, we have to convince other voters that independence offers opportunity.

It is a frustration that people in political parties have known since the dawn of time: those that talk the loudest, or tweet the loudest, or speechify the loudest don’t necessarily work the hardest. It is all very well to talk about what you want from independence, and that is a valuable enterprise, but it must be accompanied by action, not just narrative.

A few weeks ago when David Cameron came to Scotland, around 50 people gathered to protest against him, the Conservatives and Trident in Govan. How many of these people then translated that protest in to proper affirmative action by actively campaigning for independence in Govan that week? Almost none, I can confirm. Protesting has its own value, but it certainly isn’t productive in convincing the public of the benefits of independence.

So, “splits in the Yes campaign” isn’t something to be feared. It is a necessary part of democracy that different views are represented. However, what we need to fear is inaction.

Those campaigners in the SNP will be campaigning on the doorsteps and in the streets for independence. If other groups and organisations in the Yes campaign don’t want the SNP to set the agenda, they have to ensure that they are out there campaigning right alongside them. The parties and bodies which make up Yes Scotland may have different opinions, priorities and opinions, but are united in seeking a yes vote.  The yes campaign’s breadth is its strength, but the public will only believe that if they see it.

We can live without the “keyboard warriors”, but we can’t carry the campaign without the support of active campaigners.

We have just over 500 days until the referndum, it is time to step away from the computers, end the obsession with minutiae and get our bahookies in gear. This referendum ain’t going to win itself.

Scotland should now get a grip and get over Thatcher

Apr 20

Posted by Guest Blog in Holyrood, Parties | 3 Comments

A guest-style crosspost today from Douglas McLellan, who has a new blog here and who describes himself, amongst other things, as the most right-wing member of the Scottish Greens (as discussed on LPW’s excellent For A’ That podcast). 

ThatcherThe passing of Margaret Thatcher has brought to the surface an issue that I think has been holding back Scottish politics for some time. All of our politicians define themselves, to a greater or lesser extent, on the period of 1979 – 1990 when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. On one hand this is understandable given the relative ages of our politicians and the fact that she was in power when many either became politically active or became the focus of their existing political activities. On the other hand I struggle to understand why she is the millstone that every Scottish politician seems to carry around their neck even now.

The debate in the Scottish Parliament on Thursday, opened by SGP MSP Patrick Harvie, exemplified this. He, the independents and the SNP all took out their current well used scripts and voiced their disaffection about Thatcher, Westminster and UK economic models. All the points they made were the old, told many times, stories of how Thatcher wronged the very nation of Scotland and all who reside here (despite 25% of Scots voting for her). The Minister for Local Government and Planning, Derek Mackay, basically read out an SNP Party Political Broadcast. Thatcher it seems, is the very reason for independence. Labour MSPs in their speeches seemed to utterly forget that Labour was in power for 13 years and could have made more significant changes to the country if they wanted. Predictably the Conservatives defended everything that Thatcher did as Prime Minister without reference to the damage done to communities and without irony. After all, it was the Conservatives that ended her Prime Ministership, not the electorate. If she did nothing wrong why did they get rid of her? So far, so predictable.

We are now living 23 years after Thatcher left office. It is time to move on.

Much was made in the debate of how we still live in a country dominated by Thatcherism. If we do, it is a much diluted version. Thatcherism is not just a view on economics but also social policy and conviction politics. Nigel Lawson described Thatcherism as “Free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, …. privatisation and a dash of populism”.

The markets we have now are indeed far more free that when before Thatcher came to power. Having a vast array of inefficient industries relying on the public purse is not a suitable way to run an economy. Neither is letting the workers in some of those industries have enough power to bring the country to a standstill on little more than a whim. It is true that the way some industries were changed had unintended consequences such as eventually allowing overseas entities controlling the supply of much of our domestic energy supply. However, what business does a government have building cars or airplanes? Or taking months or years to supply a simple telephone line? Or running a computer company (ICL). In 1972 the state was running Thomas Cook and we cannot truthfully say the Tories were wrong to sell it (a Heath, not Thatcher, privatisation). Yet now, we have two nationalised banks and, with a focus on renewable energy we find that important locations for tide based energy are part of the Crown Estate. If we were beholden to a Thatcherite view of things that this would not be the case.

If there was actually financial discipline and firm control over public expenditure in the Thatcher years (debateable) then we certainly didn’t have it under Labour and we don’t have it now.

Tax under Labour was very high. When she came to power the basic rate of income tax was 33% and could rise to as much as 98% on those who earned and invested higher amounts. Tax cuts have given earners at every level more choice on how to spend the money that they earn. This cannot be a bad consequence of Thatcherism. Even those who complain that higher earners should be taxed more cannot seriously argue that the state should take 1/3 of a low earners income? Who is complaining about this benefit to low earners? But even with tax we have moved on from Thatcherism to at least Brownism. Tax credits clutter the income tax landscape, even for those earning above the 40% tax rate. We have a tax system that is so byzantine in nature, well qualified advisers can find loop-holes and develop legal tax management schemes. Furthermore, with the introduction and then removal of the 10p rate as well as the narrowing of the monetary value between the basic and higher rates of tax it is clear that Brownism, not Thatcherism sets the scene for today’s Chancellor and economic approach.

Populism is certainly an issue in politics today as it was then. In fact, it may be that the populist approach of universally attacking or universally defending Thatcher at every opportunity which is stopping Scotland move forward rather than constantly looking back.

Instead of looking back to the failures or successes of Thatcher, why can’t Scottish politicians move forward, looking to provide solutions to current problems regardless of their supposed origin? It seems no policy now can be brought forward without genuflecting to the memory of Thatcher. The peculiarly Scottish approach of developing public policy by first referencing bad things in Scottish history means that often the proposed solutions are not as helpful as they could be. For example, Scotland has a health problem. I am part of that problem as I am very overweight. If I still lived in Fife my weight problem would no doubt be attributed to living in a former mining village suffering from unemployment caused by Labour in the 1970s and the Tories in the 1980s (remember Labour never did anything bad to mining communities….). However my weight problem is actually to do with a disposable income large enough to fund far too many takeaways, full fat soft cheeses and high sugar/caffeine drinks. Another example is that a high number of older people presenting liver problems are not former mine workers resorting to alcohol to drown their sorrows but instead those who have enough money to drink a bottle of nice wine each night with their evening meal.

Social housing is a problem due to a lack of stock but we have had almost a decade and a half of devolution. If we have a failure to house people it is not Thatcherism to blame but a failure of our devolved parliament. In the heady, well financed days of early devolution we did not build enough social housing so why do we not blame that period of time? Scottish politicians had the chance to make changes. Blame for Scottish housing as it is no must be held by Scottish politicians in Holyrood. It is probably because that is an unpalatable truth that Labour and the Lib Dems (eight years in power) and the SNP (six years and counting) cannot face. All of Scotland’s problems can, in large part, be addressed by a forward looking parliament. They may not be solved, they may not be completely addressed but Scotland can lead the way. Instead it is clear many want so sit in the corner and chew over the stale vomit of history.

On the other side, the Tories want to reclaim the Thatcher glory days of strong election victories yet fail to understand what was wrong with some of their policies then and also ignore their role in her downfall. Whilst Murdo Fraser clearly admires her, he stood for leadership of the Scottish Conservatives on a platform of more powers for Scotland (which Thatcher never wanted) and rebranding/launching the Tories as a Scottish centre-right party. The problem for him is that his party did not agree with him and still clings to its Thatcherite electoral successes south of the border as a hopeful springboard for the future. Their own genuflection to Thatcher will keep them out of power for a long while yet and stop them developing genuine Scottish centre-right policies.

The independence debate, like the debate held last week, is focussed not on the future but a series of “What if” scenarios. What if she hadn’t been elected, what if Scotland had a greater say in oil revenues, what if she didn’t close fewer mines that Labour, what if she didn’t stop the state making cars etc. etc. This even extends into thinking about trying to do what others did in the past yet still blame Thatcher. What if we got independence and create an oil sovereign fund instead of using the money to pay unemployment benefits?

Nice idea but that money is earmarked to go elsewhere. And it shows a lack of ambition. How about this for a different what if – we get independence and use oil money to develop the renewables sector strongly, from which future profits can be invested in a Scottish Sovereign Fund? See what I did there? No mention of the past.

No party is ever going to make a difference to Scotland if it cannot look forward. The independence debate cannot be fought, never mind won, on the battles of the 1980s. It should be fought on the battles of the 2020s and the 2030s as we make Scotland a better nation.

On Thursday, one MSP did make an interesting intervention. Margo McDonald said this

[the Scottish Parliament] is the opportunity to make us bigger and better and to think more adventurously and more creatively. That is what we have a Parliament for.

I hope Scottish politicians think about that and offer adventurous and creative policies for Scotland that are based on current and future Scottish needs, not on what has gone on before.

Over your cities Green grass will grow

Apr 19

Posted by Dom in Activism, Democracy, Environment, Governance, Holyrood, Ideology, Parties, Society, Westminster | 1 Comment

The Labour party have looked about them, taken stock of the post-Blair wasteland and identified the enemy. which apparently is those well-known destroyers of democracy and oppressors of the common people in the Scottish Green Party.

At Scottish Labour Conference in Inverness this weekend there will be a fringe event entitled ‘Green Splinters’, staged with the express aim of finding out why some people have realised that they would rather vote Green instead of Labour.

Labour peer Lord Bassam, who I am told by Sooth Folk has a flatteringly obsessive distaste for the Greens, tweeted: ‘In Inverness to discuss countering the Green threat to progressive politics.’. It is hard to think of a more obtuse statement given the situation that many people in England find themselves in. I have no idea how much Lord Bassam knows about Scottish politics or the Scottish Green Party, but I would wager that it is significantly less than he thinks.

The Green vote is not a strictly socialist vote, and it is not an anti-Labour vote. The Green vote is a vote for people actually doing their jobs with competence and enthusiasm, and for an ability to bring new ideas into an intellectually moribund arena. Green politics is socialist in certain aspects, normatively seen it embodies the values and aims of social democracy, but it is marked above all by its ability and tendency to challenge institutions from a citizen-based democratic perspective.

Green politics in Germany is a case in point. The German Green Party as it now exists was born from a coalition of environmental and democratic organisations instrumental in the downfall of the German Democratic Republic, combined with the West German Green Party. After first breaking into German regional parliaments, in the late 1990s it provided crucial support to an SDP government looking to form a parliamentary majority.

In Sweden too the Greens have been able to pick up votes from the intellectual middle class and disillusioned former supporters of agrarian and socially liberal parties where those parties have drifted to the right. They often get a hard time from the officially socialist and social-democratic parties respectively, but for the maths to work it is actually in the interests of the red left to work with the Green left in order to form workable governments, rather than expend resources trying to exterminate them and claim 45 per cent of the vote and a lifetime in opposition.

Now the fact that this event is even taking place caused a squeal of delight amongst many in the SGP because it means that the Greens have gone from being a party nobody in politics cared about to one which is obviously threatening the hegemonies enjoyed by institutionalised Labour and unimaginative nationalism.

It would, however, be sad if the Labour party were to decide that keeping the Greens at bay were more important than trying to build workable alternative governments at Westminster and Holyrood.

There is also the crucial matter of Labour failing to embrace either electoral reform or the environment to any significant degree. And devolution, childcare reform, progressive taxation and urban planning. We need a future democracy which looks quite different from today, and all tomorrow’s parties should try to work together to make it happen. The Greens have the ideas and they need viable partners to make it happen.

We’d rather be friends than enemies, but if Labour want to be enemies they should consider the fact that it is a civil war they might well lose.

The War of the Roses

Apr 19

Posted by Natalie in Elections, Holyrood, Parties, Westminster | 3 Comments

hearts 2In 1999 I wrote a dissertation for my CSYS Modern Studies entitled: The Autonomy of The Scottish Labour Party. In conclusion, I realised that “or lack thereof” should have been included in the title.

It was, perhaps, the best thing I have ever written. It was certainly one of the best researched pieces I have ever produced. I spoke to both Dennis Canavan and the late, much missed, Alex Falconer MEP for some background.

They had, by 1999, both fallen foul of the Labour machine constructed and peopled by those acceptable to the UK leadership. Traditional Labour elected representatives, Alex and Dennis did not fit the mould of the shiny New Labour brand, and they resisted pressures to adapt. Alex Falconer was on the cusp of retirement, but Dennis Canavan had a point to prove, and a constituency which reacted to protect its own; electing him with an overwhelming majority as an independent. It was an early indication that traditional Labour would bite back. They may be sedated and lie dormant, but somewhere they are concealed.

I did invite opportunity for the establishment to contribute – on more than one occasion and through more than one media – but the then General Secretary Alex Rowley didn’t pay me the courtesy of a response.

What was apparent then, and is apposite now, is that there is a fight for control of the heart of the Labour Party. That fight is currently being waged on two fronts; in Westminster and in Holyrood for the heart of the Scottish Party and for the heart of the party as a whole.

This isn’t a new fight. The change of focus and ownership of the party started over twenty years ago. The Labour Party does not lose elections well. When it loses the party goes in to decline and becomes absorbed in a vacuum of policy ideas and ineffective introspection. History is strewn with examples of the folly of the Labour Party in the years following loss of power. They take a long time to regroup.

That Thatcherism prevailed almost unscathed during the Blair years is testament to how far the party had moved from its traditional stomping grounds on the left in order to appease and appeal to the moderate voters of middle England. That there is current debate about reform of the welfare state and the pernicious changes which the Tories have enacted and the Labour Party have no concrete alternative policy ideas shows just how unprepared for the next general election they are and how much traditional ideology has been sacrificed for electoral success.

Democracy demands strong opposition. It demands effective opposition. What we have at Holyrood and at Westminster is neither of those things. The Labour Party in opposition are devoid of ideas, bound up in useless rhetoric, and seemingly incapable of presenting an alternative ideology. Their opposition is a magic box of illusion, fairly transparent and centred on illuminating what the Scottish and UK Governments are doing wrong but without the honesty of giving the public something else to aspire to. In essence, practising opposition for opposition sake. The Labour Party is the biggest opposition in both parliaments, and they mirror each other exactly for lack of foresight and substance.

There are some great representatives within the amassed Labour ranks – some of the work Kezia Dugdale is doing on legal loan sharks for example proves this – but there are some there, it seems, merely to keep a seat warm without contributing much to debate or in helping to provide credible discourse.

Success is both a prize and a curse. Success breeds careerists like rabbits, allegedly. I don’t know much about rabbit reproduction but I know a boom in careerists when I see one, and the Labour Party have had plenty of them, and now, so have the SNP. Careerists, career politicians – or whatever you wish to call them – are not good for the heart of a party. Every party draws them when it looks like they’re about to get out of opposition. Careerists are not representative of any particular ideology but of Thatcherite self –aspiration. Talk to them and they could pretty much represent any political party which was successful.

Career politicians are – usually – university educated and go straight to work for political parties without any life experience. They are not particularly active at grassroots level, but have their eyes on the shiny prize of election to parliament. Not for them the traditional route through the ranks. We all know who these people are.

The Blair years attracted many careerists. Even the brothers Miliband don’t have sufficient real life experience to bring to the fore, and it shows. The amassed ranks of both the Labour Party and the Conservatives are packed with people who were selected through patronage and the Labour Party’s current ennui is evidence of the damage they cause. Traditional routes to government have been eroded and the forums for building real, effective policy removed. The policy vacuum is mirrored by their vacuum of real life experience.

Ed Miliband doesn’t have the support of the Labour Party. He was elected by the unions possibly hoping for a partial restatement of some Labour values eroded during the Blair years. However, I’d warrant that even they won’t be delighted with his lacklustre performance and inability to frame the debate within a Labour prism.

The parliamentary Labour Party and the membership did not vote for Ed, and that makes his hold on the leadership shaky. Furthermore, it doesn’t bode well for the regard they hold him in and if he doesn’t have this, he doesn’t have their respect.

The seams are creaking on Ed’s leadership. Even Tony Blair has taken time out from saving the Western world to stick the boot in. The leadership election and the previous Blair/Brown tensions have left carcasses and grudges strewn throughout the Labour Party. It remains to be seen if Ed can find the mettle to really unite them. Basing an opinion on current murmurs which are increasing in crescendo, I’d moot the answer is no. Ed Miliband will not win a general election for the Labour Party.

In the UK the Labour Party are ahead in the polls, but we have seen them lose a 20 lead to the Tories previously as an election looms and people concentrate on the issues at hand. Tories = Bad is not going to stack up as a manifesto. Iain Gray tried SNP = Bad at Holyrood in 2011, and look where that got him? From 2007-2011 the Scottish Labour Party completely failed to conjure their own narrative and in 2011 they were soundly punished for it. They were riding high at over 10 points in the opinion polls less than six months before the election too. Ed Miliband should take note.

And what of Scotland? I’d doubt even the staunchest Labour Party stalwart would express – privately – that they think Johann is doing a sterling job. They may like her, and think her capable, but she is not currently demonstrating that competence. She walks a very difficult line and her problems are compounded because she doesn’t appear to have the support of Labour MPs who seem very surly toward her having supremacy over them and over Scottish Labour policy. I have no idea if persistent rumours which abound about MPs not attending the Scottish Labour conference this weekend are true, but I would warrant there is no smoke without fire.

It seems that the attempt to really establish a policy making Scottish Labour Party – missing at the time of writing my dissertation – is not without its own detractors. SNP support in the polls is quite enough for Johann to be worried about, but the addition of low level, but constant and destabilising, sniping from Westminster can’t be helping.

Dennis Canavan was unusual in 1999 that – beast of a figure at Westminster he was – he wanted to represent his constituency Scottish Parliament. Who can forget the “pretendy wee parliament” and “parish council” remarks about the Scottish Parliament? It seems some of the Labour MPs haven’t changed their mind. Westminster is where they perceive the talent and power to be.

After 2011 there was much introspection and a leadership contest in Scotland. There was much harrumphing about getting back to basics, but where are the new policies which were meant to be developed as a result? All too often Johann Lamont announces the creation of new groups to consider new areas of policy, but where are the fruits of this?

The hastily constructed proposals yesterday on a Devo Plus model were rushed, and it showed. They were not the considered plans which the public have the right to expect. If you are going to announce new policy, plans, proposals or consultations, they should be able to stand up to rigorous scrutiny, not fall foul of less than 6 hours half-hearted considerations.

Until Johann Lamont can capture the heart of the Scottish party, she is not going to recapture any ground from the SNP. It has been almost two years since the 2011 elections. It must terrify proud Labour members that the leadership are failing to articulate any new ideas.

The Labour Party won’t be a credible force in either Scotland or the UK until they abandon opposition for the sake of opposition, quash their detractors and develop alternative policy. And Ed and Johann should never forget that no leader is indispensible; look at Margaret Thatcher.