This is obviously a symptom of how detached the Scottish political scene has become from UK politics, but I realised something very odd today - that I had absolutely no idea what Liz Kendall's voice sounds like. I must have heard her being interviewed at some point, or perhaps seen her on Question Time, but it was so long ago that I had no clear recollection of it. So with a certain amount of trepidation (I was worried she might turn out to be a speaker of Messianic brilliance), I looked her up on YouTube, and then instantly relaxed. She's almost a made-to-measure vote-loser in Scotland - she's not only a Blairite, she's a deeply uninspiring Blairite.
So we've got nothing to fear from Kendall, and it goes without saying that all our Christmases will have come at once if they go for Tristram Hunt instead. If they're remotely interested in making up ground in Scotland, probably Yvette Cooper or Andy Burnham would be their least worst options, but my guess is that there's nobody at all in the running who can truly connect with voters in these parts.
John Curtice has calculated that Labour will require an almost impossible 12-point lead over the Tories at the next election to win an overall majority, unless they can reverse their losses in Scotland. But how do they simultaneously pitch for left-wing voters who have defected to the SNP, and for "aspirational" voters in the south who went with the Tories last week? Answer : they can't. They just can't.
Realistically, if Labour are going to govern after 2020, it will be without an overall majority. They would be well-advised to resign themselves to that truth from the outset, rather than devising a fantasy strategy that attempts to fight against it. If they pick a Blairite leader to chase votes in the south, the most sensible thing to do would be to enter into a continental-style pre-election negotiation with the SNP. That wouldn't preclude them from putting up candidates against the SNP, although admittedly it would be a strong signal that they don't anticipate a huge amount of success. This approach would have two significant advantages - a) it would solve the 'legitimacy' problem, because it would clearly establish that Labour have a mandate to govern even if they are in second place, and b) it would prevent the Tories from whipping up hysteria about SNP influence, by demonstrating that the limits on that influence had already been settled.
It may seem inconceivable right at this moment that Labour would do any of that, but as their journey after 1983 demonstrates, parties eventually do whatever it takes to get back into power. I'm struggling to see an alternative path for them.
The Blairite strategy seems to me to be losing them their core vote in England, just not as fast. So I don't think what you suggest has a cat in hell's chance of working
ReplyDeleteIf you can't beat em, join em as the saying goes, could be a plan, a necessary evil in this so called democracy.
ReplyDeleteI said elsewhere that the Labour Party has to revert to it's soul. I am no longer, of course, convinced that it has a soul.
ReplyDeleteThe utter wonkishness of triangulation and panels has ripped any sense out of them that they might once, in the immediate aftermath of WW2, have had.
I don't know whether Mr Salmond cleared his comments about the crisis in the Mediterranean with any thought about how it might resound with the electorate. But he, most certainly, said it with a moral authority that is consistently lacking in the rest of our political class.
It is the total inability to talk from the heart that kills Labour. If, indeed the usurpers pay anything other than lip sevice to it's traditions.
That is not a position you can easily recover from. Especially if your heart and mind are at odds.
I suppose that there is a huge difference between what we expect as an electorate and what is delivered by those we elect. It is a bit mental.
Can't we just let Labour die naturally, and look to a future, non-corrupted party?
ReplyDeleteThat is an unlikely scenario. They won't want to lie down at the next election in Scotland. And before that we have to hollow out their piss poor MSP's and take over the administration of almost all the councils in Scotland. Both of which are probably do - able.
ReplyDeleteBut we need to do it twice in a row.
Hopefully by 2025 we will have secured a Yes in Indyref2 and it will no longer be of much consequence to us how England votes.
I heard a couple of their prospective leaders interviewed on the radio yesterday. If they thought Chukka was a great choice ( millionaire with record of contempt for "trash" ), they will have little chance of connecting with normal people. I even heard one sing spud's praises. They won't be contenders before 2025. Hey, by 2025 Euan Blair might even be their new messiah, who knows...
Always assuming fixed parliterm act stays.
I just think that with all the baggage Labour has, they will never really manage to turn themselves around. They have been promising to do that for pretty well as long as I can remember and I'm a pensioner.
ReplyDeleteIf Labour were going to do so they would need to change the way they do things from the ground up starting with individual membership only and getting their Labour cotrolled Councils to learn how to rum local government competently. If they start that now they might have a chance by the next election. What's the chance of that happening?
There is another side to the Labour Party coin (for the record I'm a party member in Wales), it's a view that Scotland is not imperative to win a General Election.
ReplyDeleteStatistically, Labour would still have won every election it did win since 1945 without Scotland, except for 20 months in 1964-66 and 8 months in 1974, so the idea that Scottish independence would condemn England to permanent Tory rule is a completely baseless fear.
John Tyler
There's some truth in that, but you have to bear in mind that Scotland wasn't really that big a handicap for the Tories until 1987, so comparisons before then aren't really meaningful. Eden won a majority of Scottish seats in 1955.
DeleteAnnounce yourself John.
DeleteJohn Tyler is a Labour hack and an arch anti-devolutionist. He has campaigned tirelessly against any expression of Welsh national life. His comments need to be viewed in that context.
I agree with that, even though James Kelly is also right about the changed landscape. The problem, so far as I can see, is that Labour is not winning in England, despite its potential to do so. And that, I think, is for the same reason as in Scotland. They are losing their core vote. No amount of gain from swing voters, no matter how spectacular, can make up for that.
DeleteThere is a massive proportion of Scottish voters who want Independence and Labour has lost that completely.
ReplyDeleteBy 2020 the 16-18 year olds should be voting in every election and they came to Independence and the SNP.
The more Labour has pushed the stories that SNP betrayed Scotland with Thatcher the more the real story comes out. Their laziness in helping, or not helping, Scotland with the industrial shutdown, is becoming more obvious.
The Referendum and this election has woken many up to the real history of Scotland since WW2. In many ways its not good for Labour, once one looks past the setting up of the NHS.
Lucky Stella Creasy isn't running. She's got something....
ReplyDeleteJames, have you seen this rather Frank reality check for Scottish Labour from the STUC?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stuc.org.uk/news/1163/stuc-on-the-scottish-labour-party
Regards - chris
2020
ReplyDeleteVote Labour get SNP
impossible to solve
Andy Burnham? Too much of a career politician to be entirely likable? Is Tony Blair's aide's support a bad thing for him? He not done anything other than politics.
ReplyDeleteJesus James! It's 5 years to 2020. And that is a lifetime in politics. Much water will have ebbed and flowed under the bridge before then. Suffice to say that ALL the Labour leader candidates look like a useless bunch of losers in whatever side of the border you stand.
ReplyDeleteLabour need to do a full detailed inspection and overhaul of what it should stand for before it starts to think about getting back into power. The party is currently dying and its actions now are just plastering over the cuts. It will not survive in its current form.
I totally agree that Labour ought to realise they can't win Scotland back any time soon and concentrate on getting enough seats in England and Wales to form the next government with SNP support rather than chasing an impossible victory in Scotland.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't agree a Blairite strategy can achieve that. Voter apathy is so strong in their Northern England heartlands that they'll lose more seats to UKIP than they'll win back from the Tories if they do that. Their best chance is to copy Nicola and the SNP and try to become the England SNP, but I don't think any of the leadership candidate can realistically do that.
If Labour in Scotland want to survive they need to think about either entering into a federation with their colleagues in England, or become completely independent from them (like the Greens in the UK). If they are not able to form their own distinctive policy agenda in Scotland then they will remain discredited as merely being a branch office here. The longer they leave it the worse the situation will become for them.
ReplyDeleteits my opinion that the ba' was on the slates when London political journalists suggested strongly that no Scot would ever be PM again. That must have reflected opinion they heard in Westminster circles.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they have "elevated" to the Scottish Office a person who doesn't live anywhere near Scotland, who is not elected, and who will be safe from questioning from the governing party in Scotland, tells us of the contempt they feel for us.
I see Laura Bicker has tweeted that Murphy is going to remain as 'leader' of Labour in Scotland. She thinks he only survived the vote of no confidence by three votes.
ReplyDeleteJim has resigned. He is history.
DeleteYIPPEE !
Not yet! He's "resigning next month" according to BBC. Is he going to try a Nigel?
DeleteGavin, what is your source?
ReplyDeleteYeah, it looks like Murphy is away, unless he does a Farage. Looks like Dugdale will be the next leader.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the plan to appeal to "aspirational" voters, the Labour Party would be well served to consider that people aspire to things beyond more money in the pocket. Income bracket does not define political views. Incidentally, all the people I know living in big, posh houses are politically left-wing. Presumably that is because educated, professional people have every reason to "aspire" to a society that is built on compassion, solidarity and fairness, with a sustainable economy, a healthy environment, thriving communities and vibrant culture. A society that makes a positive contribution to peace and prosperity in the international community. A society that creates a good world to pass on to our children and grandchildren. Most people I know would be willing to have slightly less money in the pocket if they could see progress towards that kind of society.
ReplyDelete