Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

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.

Abolishing the “progressive” hate tendency

Apr 19

Posted by Guest Blog in Activism | 8 Comments

A wee guest post today from Duncan Thorp, who’s previously written for us about social enterprise. Thanks Duncan!

hate greed violenceHere’s a simple experiment. Have a think about the names of political campaigns, protests or social issues you’re involved with or know about. How many of these involve being against something or use the language of “fight”, “enemy” or “anti” this or that? Are these the ones that get you most excitable, angry and passionate?

This seems to be a constant theme of what we see in progressive and non-conservative politics. In fact it seems that sometimes we’re so hateful that we weirdly really, really hate the hate of our enemies, and so the cycle continues in a sea of increasing hate.

This became most evident (boringly predictably) when that old lady died recently. You know the one we really, really HATE.

But as progressives, supposedly campaigning for a better world, is this not a strange state of affairs? Why is rhetoric and campaigning not simply dominated by our positive vision for transforming society?

Don’t get me wrong, we need to identify the power hungry ego freaks who are doing bad things in society. But why does this have to be the overwhelming majority of the time? Those who are attacking the poor, those who are condemning the majority to a generation of cuts, those who exploit and abuse their power, the bankers, the politicians, The American imperialists, conservatives, right-wing extremists, fascists, monarchists, dictators, reactionaries, the rich… ok, check your blood pressure now. Is your heart beating faster after reading those words? Do you feel stronger, angrier and ready for the fight? That’s the problem.

Yes, we need to identify issues, and indeed individuals and political and economic systems, that, we believe, are causing crises. Without this identification and analysis we cannot of course put forward the positive vision. But how much energy is directed towards grandstanding and political rhetoric that will achieve nothing apart from make us feel all warm and righteous inside? Hate is not only self-harm, it’s really exhausting, it makes no-one happy. Two Minutes Hate anyone?

If you’re against the abolition of the welfare state then make your voice heard. But what are you actually doing in practical, positive terms to help those most in need? Have you asked your neighbours on benefits if they are ok? Have you lent them some money or invited them for dinner? Have you given money to a hardship fund of some kind? Have you volunteered your time to help tenants living in social housing? Or is negative ideology more important? Welfare cuts are real, sick attacks on the poor are real. Aggressive protest marches, while important as part of the mix, will change close to zero in terms of government policy.

We need to seriously question whether this wider negative culture of “fight” and “anti” campaigning works at all. It’s evident in progressive circles, for example in trade union movements and anti-poverty campaigning. We are, of course, anti-poverty but we are strangely never pro-wealth, despite the fact this is what we are, by definition, saying. We want wealth for everyone. So why not say it? Why the negative focus on what we’re lacking or what is missing? (Don’t even mention the bizarre “not for profit”, defining what a sector is not). It could be argued that, simply in terms of rhetoric, Thatcherism’s 1980’s focus on wealth as opposed to poverty was a better way of gaining public support. Whether this positivity, i.e. the word “yes”, will work in the Scottish referendum campaign remains to be seen.

This all means a fundamental reassessment of our psychology. I’m not talking about some kind of delusional law of attraction, mysticism, or smile or die positivity, but it’s focusing on what we want, not what we hate. The ego needs enemies, so work on getting rid of it. We need to rediscover the love, (wo)man.

The language of hate should be reserved for the many people who hate immigrants, the poor, gay people, women and ethnic minorities. Progressive people should act like thinking people not like left-wing reactionaries. It’s time to stop parroting the hate of others and – for the majority of the time – allow your beautiful vision of a better world to take centre stage.

If you can’t take the heat don’t post defamatory articles

Apr 18

Posted by Aidan in Constitution, Holyrood | 57 Comments

NationalCollective is back online today, with an amended article repeating allegations about Ian Taylor which were already in the public domain.

While taking a highly principled position about their own right to free speech, they then simultaneously seek to restrict the political speech of others which is surely not right. There is a wider point about campaign finance, but since both Yes and Better Together are political campaigns operating under the current regulations and given nobody is alleging that either the donation was made illegally or the money came from illegal activity, that’s not really here nor there.

It’s also not the point National Collective are making. They’re claiming some sort of moral taint in the money due to some extremely shady dealings which are sadly common place in the oil industry. And oil industry which is the economic underpinning for the Yes camp’s economic vision for Scotland. So that is at least somewhat problematic.

Between posting defamatory articles and breaching copyright law National Collective seem to be developing a pattern of sailing close to the legal wind regarding Better Together and then crying foul when it occurs.

It’s all a bit childish.

Is Margaret Thatcher’s greatest achievement still to come?

Apr 18

Posted by James in Holyrood | 2 Comments

BuildingScotland.pngThe delayed debate on Thatcher’s famous quote about society (and no, there’s no amount of context which excuses it) will be taken this afternoon at Holyrood, and the reaction to the debate topic at the weekend was fascinating.

The UK coalition parties were united in their desire for the debate to be moved, perhaps surprisingly, although of course they are jointly responsible for the turbo-Thatcherite direction Westminster’s taking. The SNP took a public “it’s up to them” position, but appear to have argued for a delay at the Bureau. Labour were the only other party to take a clear position supporting the original debate, while understandably calling for it to be conducted with respect.

This unfortunate accident of timing meant the Greens and independents were forced to choose between irrelevance and debating the legacy of Thatcherism, probably not the topic they would have picked if their one chance each year to pick what the Scottish Parliament should debate had fallen on another day.

Nevertheless, tactically, the outcome is pretty good – the reaction effectively illustrates the range of positions at Holyrood. At one end you have the Greens and independents, united by a broad rejection of Thatcherism. At the other, you have the coalition parties determined to defend it, and then Labour and the SNP taking a middle position. And the changed date means the Tories will be in the chamber to defend her, which always helps retoxify them in the eyes of much of Scotland. I’m personally very comfortable with the Greens and independents leading the charge against them on behalf of those Scots who didn’t like the economic side of Thatcherism any more than they liked the social side.

Because this is a popular position to take. By an extraordinary coincidence, on the very eve of the Iron Lady’s death, the Greens published the results of a poll which suggests that Thatcherite selfishness won’t be the primary motivation for Scots deciding how to vote in next year’s referendum (full tables here). Pleasingly, 58% of respondents said that they would want to pick whichever outcome was more likely to deliver a fairer and more equal society, with just 10% saying they would pick on what would make them personally better off.

The coincidences don’t end with the timing. In his comments on the poll, Patrick Harvie said:

Margaret Thatcher famously declared society does not exist. It’s quite clear Scots value society highly and next year’s referendum is an unprecedented opportunity to start shaping the fairer society we want to live in.

Turning to another famous comment from the former PM, when she was asked what her greatest achievement was, she said “New Labour”. As one of those who bitterly regretted Blairism’s acceptance of her core principles, it’d be great if a fairer, more equal and independent Scotland turned out to be her truly greatest achievement.

Don’t wrestle pigs in the mud

Apr 11

Posted by James in Constitution, Democracy | 35 Comments

Pig wrestlingAs has been widely noted, the tone of the debate about independence has gradually gone from bad to worse, and yesterday’s heavy-handed legal action against National Collective hasn’t helped at all – ironic, because their own contributions to the debate are typically smart, calmly argued, and creative in just the ways they promised from the start.

Twitter in particular has become incredibly vitriolic, with people on both sides losing the head to partisanship – notably by defending the indefensible on “their own side” or setting up inane “parody” accounts which fail to note that parody goes best with subtle humour, not dull and repetitive bludgeoning.

Sure, that might just be a bubble, and it may well all come down to the doorstep. But there are plenty of politicians on both sides using the same divisive rhetoric, and they’ll be doing it on TV and at hustings as well as on the doorsteps. And I do really think that dismissing Twitter is naive: all the major players from the parties and the campaigns are there, alongside almost all Scotland’s key journalists and enough politically engaged civilians to make a difference. It does help set the tone, and the tone stinks.

Although there are problems on both sides, it’s not that both are offering the same range of messages. Across the whole Yes side, great optimism and inspiring enthusiasm sit alongside vitriolic carping and bile from keyboard warriors. The No campaign’s style is relatively consistent, relying as it does primarily on pretending the SNP are the Yes campaign, and then picking holes in the SNP’s policy positions. They have their bampots online, but fewer of them. Conversely, they have no-one trying to set out an inspiring vision of a future United Kingdom.

Because they don’t need to. And this collective bitter tone, driven by activists on both sides, helps the No camp. All the muddy little squabbling in the letters pages or online turns more undecided voters off the debate. And, given they know what Britain looks like now and they don’t really know what an independent Scotland would look like, that boosts the No campaign. In fact, I’d be surprised if the No campaign’s internal strategy meetings couldn’t be summed up as “go round the country and whip up apathy“.

Specifically, independence polls strongest in working class areas, parts of Scotland which have been let down by the Westminster consensus, but also parts of Scotland where turnout is often lowest. If the No campaign can depress and bore enough of the electorate into abstention, they’ll win. In fact, they’ll win anyway without a change of tone.

The broad Yes side still spend too long getting down and dirty with the minutiae of policy, and all that nitty-gritty risks distracting from The Vision Thing. Whatever SNP policy may be, an independent Scotland won’t necessarily stay in NATO, or keep the pound, or go genuinely 100% renewable, or be a socialist paradise or a tax haven.

The crucial point of this vote is that, for the first time, those who live in Scotland will make all those decisions for themselves. We’re being offered a chance to ditch an unreformable Westminster and be responsible for all our own mistakes and all our own triumphs. Surely that big picture can inspire more effectively than getting into nit-picking with the other side? Because, although both sides share responsibility for the state of the debate, as a former boss of mine once pointed out, don’t wrestle pigs in the mud, because the pig will win and the pig will enjoy it.