Another wee guest post from Aidan Skinner, this time shorn of Python references.
There’s been a lot of chat about why the Scottish Labour Party lost the election on Thursday. A lot of what people are saying now in public are what was being said in private (and not so privately by some) during the campaign – too negative, few distinctive Labour policies, little discussion of any policy at all, the one we discussed most being a non-sensical and somewhat ephemeral one on non-mandatory mandatory minimum sentences for knife crime, matching the SNP’s regressive council tax freeze, failure to engage with Lib Dem voters, Iain Gray being a nice, thoughtful man who had presentational problems, lack of engagement with party membership, complacency at early poll leads. The wish list of high minded, hummus munching, social democratic, starting-to-buy-the-Guardian-again-after-last-years-Lib-Dem-endorsement, might-possibly-have-second-voted-Green lot is as long as the arms of their cardigans.
A lot of them are entirely accurate, and we absolutely have to address them. They’re why we lost badly. Why people like Andy Kerr and Pauline McNeill aren’t MSPs any more. They’re not why we lost though. They affected the scale of our defeat. They gave Alex Salmond his majority, which is why everybody’s working 5 days a week now instead of the 3 we were working previously. But we have fewer MSPs than the SNP because we were outspent.
The SNP had an almighty war chest thanks to Souter matching donations, likely to be 3 to 4 times the Scottish Labour Parties entire annual income. And, far more than any other factor, money wins elections. It’s not just the media buy, or the slick presentation or helicoptering the leader about. It pays for full time workers, for policy development, for media training and for set pieces which create the atmosphere and allow parties to create a media narrative. Something which we in the Labour party failed at, we let the SNP create the narrative around things like Subway-gate and Asda-gate. With money comes a professionalism which dedication alone can’t substitute for.
Of course, the process isn’t quite as simple as turning votes into money but there is a very strong correlation and, I would suggest, a causal relationship. The Scottish Labour Party must address our fund raising, and we had a particular problem with money having just fought the UK general election last year. A lot of the other things we need to do, particularly involving the party membership more and having a more coherent, positive approach will help. But you can’t win an election on intellect and spirit alone. Cash is king, unfortunately.
#1 by Martinb on May 11, 2011 - 8:09 am
Unfortunately, the reason why you’re short of money comes back again to the lack of sense of what you *are* – what you’re *for* (beyond winning) and what you’re *against* (beyond someone else winning).
All the factors, in fact, that you identified in your first paragraph – a fundamental lack of positive vision.
Because at the moment, no-one could look at Labour policy afresh, nor your campaign strategies, nor your record of opposition in the last parliament (prescription charges being a welcome exception) and interpret it as a centre-left party with a programme for making the nation better for the poor and weak.
That’s the way you engage the population, drive membership, encourage members to give more, and attract non-member donations.
#2 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 9:40 am
It’s a complicated, interconnected thing. Money affects the policy development process, it affects the amount of time and energy that go into refining and presenting “the vision”.
It would be nice to believe that that’s the sort of thing that naturally arises fully formed from the leadership. It’s not. You can’t work those things out with a £20 Staples voucher and some hard thinking. If you do it on the cheap you end up with cheap, flimsy policies and strategy.
We do definitely need to engage with people and attract new members (is this where I point out the usual post-election spike in Labour membership?) and that will help with the finance issue.
But that doesn’t change the fact that, even if we’d fixed everything else and run a flawless spunky intellectual insurgency campaign we’d still have been outspent and we’d still have lost.
#3 by Doug Daniel on May 11, 2011 - 8:20 am
Really? So money would have done something about having a gaffe-prone leader? Money would have done something about Labour fighting such a negative campaign? Money would have done something about Labour treating Holyrood as a mere stepping stone to the “proper” parliament in Westminster?
I think even Ken Macintosh would think you were stretching things a bit here, Aidan. Remember that the Tories were absolutely throwing money at the 2010 election, and they still failed to win a majority against a tired Labour government with an unpopular, gaffe-prone leader (is there any other type of Labour leader these days?)
It’s not how much money you have, it’s what you do with it. Unfortunatley for Labour, the SNP are very shrewd, and besides, supporters are far more likely to donate to the election fund when you inspire them with a positive approach. Money is the least of your problems.
#4 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 9:46 am
More money available to the long campaign would have leader to more time and energy being spent on policy development and media training. In the short campaign it would have been there to look at media opportunities and not doing them in such frankly ridiculously vulnerable places as Glasgow Central.
The Tories spent a huge amount of money against an unpopular leader but ran an awful campaign full of mis-steps and out right blunders: letting Cameron into the leaders debate was a huge error. They still won though.
We have a lot of problems to address, I outlined many of them in the first paragraph. But one thing that people aren’t talking about is money, which I view as a fundamental in election campaigns.
#5 by An Duine Gruamach on May 11, 2011 - 10:51 am
I think the Central Station blunder was more a failure of common sense than finances. Besides, how much money would Gray have needed at his disposal to stand his ground and simply talk to the protesters? I don’t think Auntie Goldie has more in the warchest than Gray, and she managed it.
#6 by Gregor on May 11, 2011 - 8:29 am
I’m not going to pretend money doesn’t play a part – without any cash at all then you can’t get your message over. I also won’t lie and say the SNP didn’t have more cash than they’ve ever had before – but Martinb hits the nail on the head. The SNP were streets ahead because they had the policies and the people; members and supporters were phoning up local offices and just asking how to give money. There was a massive snowballing effect of feel-good factors meaning people were enthused and spoke with their wallets, and their ballots.
If the Labour party are going to sit there and mope about not having the pennies to win, then they’re in for a bit of a shock!!! It doesn’t actually take any money to send out a couple of emails highlighting Iain Gray running into a Subway…. Most of that’s done entirely for free by people with a passion for what the SNP stand for. Those “cyber nats” who don’t get any of this training or briefing or anything you mention.
Was it not Jeff, from this very site that showed how much each party spent during the (I think) Euro Elections, and how many votes they got from that?
I suppose I should be quite heartened to hear that Labour still can’t identify why they’ve lost, for partisan reasons. But for democratic reasons, it would be nice to actually have an opposition now and again.
#7 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 9:52 am
Even if we’d run a perfect campaign otherwise, and we definitely didn’t, we’d still have been outspent and we’d still have lost as a result.
We might be seeing an SNP minority government instead of a majority, and we’d definitely not have seen some of the Glasgow shocks, but we’d still have fewer MSPs.
#8 by Alison on May 11, 2011 - 8:39 am
Money helps, but it’s not everything. Our campaign in Shettleston was run on a shoestring, but we worked insanely hard and put out phenomenal volumes of simply printed leaflets and supporters letters by hand. The combination of the national swing, John’s own personal profile, and the work we’ve done on the ground over the past four years made the difference.
#9 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 9:31 am
Indeed, hard work in a constituency can pay off there. We worked really hard in Glasgow Kelvin to keep it Labour and saw the results of the work pay off in an increased vote and vote share.
But I also saw the difference in the lack of funds locally – SNP bus driving up and down Dumbarton Road for instance, the bill boards on the express way. And it’s not all about working hard locally, not matter how much people say it is. The national campaign matters an increasingly large amount, and we lost that because of money.
#10 by Doug Daniel on May 11, 2011 - 9:40 am
“We worked really hard in Glasgow Kelvin to keep it Labour and saw the results of the work pay off in an increased vote and vote share.”
I’ll probably get accused of being triumphalist here, but err… Who won Glasgow Kelvin again?
#11 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 9:49 am
Trust me, I know full well who won Kelvin and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. *tugs forelock to his new SNP overlords* 😉
#12 by Richard on May 11, 2011 - 9:22 am
We can paraphrase this post to: “A big boy did it and ran away”. That kind of thinking won’t exactly help the Labour recovery, a shame, as proper democracy needs an opposition to do its job. A start would be to get onto the same planet as the rest of us
#13 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 9:57 am
Not really. We have a lot of fundamental problems we need to address (see first paragraph). But without addressing the financial issue we won’t win the next election. There are a number of ways of doing that, but money wins elections.
We should be a principled, effective opposition – not the knee jerk reactionary kind we were in the last session.
We need to reconnect with our members, not leave people like me wringing our hands going “oh, but I do *wish* the party was better” and feeling embarrassed at some of the things we’re shoving through letter boxes.
We need to emphasis our distinctive, democratic socialist policies like the national care service and rail nationalisation.
But we could do all that and still lose the next election if we don’t address the issue of money.
#14 by Gavin Hamilton on May 11, 2011 - 9:35 am
Good post.
And good to look at one of the factors, which, with others, made a difference.
i don’t think money is everything but I think you have highlighted the way in which you can use money to work in your favour.
The SNP were professional – they said they were a competent government, they looked competent, so people believed that narrative.
To be honest I thought Labour looked drab, dull, uninspriring usual drab suspects, blah, blah, blah.
The forces of conservatism (small c of course) in Scotland.
And, with the LibDem vote collapsing Labour needed to be picking some of that up.
The SNP have done incredibly well with a quite remarkable feat of positioning. They are currently able to appeal to working class and middle class voters alike – to urban and rural – and to eliminate the fear – ‘I’m leaving Scotland if the SNP get in’ – factor.
Labour on the other hand – and my brother, a Labour voter and ex Lab councillor, said this to me – ‘look too much like a bunch of ex union officials and social workers’
Any party needs to build a broad coalition of support to win a election.
The SNP did this, Labour didn’t.
It is a nice line but the
“high minded, hummus munching, social democratic, starting-to-buy-the-Guardian-again-after-last-years-Lib-Dem-endorsement, might-possibly-have-second-voted-Green lot is as long as the arms of their cardigans.”
might not draw that group in!!
(I don’t eat hummus and don’t wear a cardigan 🙂 )
#15 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 10:49 am
We definitely focussed on our core vote, essentially to the exclusion of everyone else. We do need to build a new coalition, not just public sector workers.
(As the child of two social workers with a penchant for hummus and rice cakes I was mostly poking fun at folk like me who might hope for a high politics solution alone ;>)
– Aidan
#16 by douglas clark on May 11, 2011 - 9:47 am
I know you won’t like this Aidan, but the Soutar donation was a very clever marketing idea. Remember how it went? For each pound given in donations to the SNP over a particular time scale, Soutar would match it up to £500,000. Which incentivised people to donate. We, SNP supporters, wanted that half a million in the war chest dammit, and had been told that it would not happen if we didn’t match it. Obviously, when the target was met, there was a wee glow of satisfaction amongst the smaller donors. Me, for instance.
That strategy is now open source. Indeed, if the unionist parties had been quicker on their feet, or even a little optimistic, they could have produced similar schemes. Whether they would have worked is moot.
#17 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 10:00 am
Oh, indeed – matched donation schemes within the long campaign work really well. By the time the short campaign’s gearing up and peoples minds are concentrated early donors wallets are fresh and they’re likely to give again *and* there’s a hefty war chest already.
#18 by Duncan on May 11, 2011 - 9:55 am
You are right: money matters, and the SNP had more of it and used it very effectively. As you point out, it brings professionalism and focus.
But your final line gives away a lot of the problem – if you still think that the Labour Party had the intellect in this election, then you really have learned nothing. You may have had spirit, I don’t know. But Ken MacIntosh had clearly been drinking it when he tried to argue on Sunday that the Labour Party had won most of the intellectual arguments in the last Parliament. In what way was the mandatory sentence policy an intellectual victory? Or the Labour Party’s approach to alcohol pricing? Or the vindictive, partisan, ‘this’ll stick it up them’ decision to insist on Edinburgh trams?
I think you have it the wrong way round. You lost the election because you lost the arguments. As others have noted, you need to have a sense of what you are arguing for and a sound set of beliefs to argue about if you wish to win the intellectual battle. The Labour Party in Scotland displayed neither in this election. You lost badly because the SNP had the money, the professionalism and the ability to drive their better messages more effectively.
#19 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 11:24 am
I’m definitely not arguing that we ran a brilliant campaign, only to be pipped at the post by Souters gold. I’m arguing that we ran an awful campaign on no money and lost hideously, but that it takes both. The tactical and strategic errors cost us.
good campaign + most money = big win (Labour Westminster 1997, SNP Holyrood 2011)
good campaign + little money = could go either way, hopefully small win (Greens Holyrood 2011)
awful campaign + most money = small win (Conservatives Westminster 2010)
awful campaign + little money = big loss (Labour Holyrood 2011)
#20 by HenBroon on May 11, 2011 - 10:17 am
Ken Macintosh the BBCs latest London Labour Luvvie, said the day after the election that the labour party had won the intellectual argument in Holyrood, and that Alex Salmond had conducted a campaign of personal vilification. Denial, lies and negaticvity is what cost you Scotland, Ken Mcintosh just proved it.
The lies that were pushed through my door by Andy Kerrs team here cost him East Kilbride, Kerr will not be missed in EK
#21 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 11:33 am
Ken Macintosh is talking rubbish.
#22 by rullko on May 11, 2011 - 10:18 am
Possibly true. I believe it’s the case that in every Scottish national election, the better-funded party has won – with the exception of the 2009 Euros, when Labour outspent the SNP and still lost by quite a margin.
#23 by Indy on May 11, 2011 - 10:20 am
Of course there is a causal relationship.
But the underlying issue is the choices parties make on where to spend money.
The SNP spent hee haw on the Westminster election because we wanted to spend big on the Scottish election.
That’s because we regard the Scottish election as more important than Westminster.
Does Labour even regard the Scottish election as being equally as important as Westminster?
#24 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 11:47 am
I think there is an issue with Labour putting too little emphasis on Holyrood, and the SNP definitely did keep their powder dry last year.
However, the overarching theme of the next 4 years will be the response UK budget deficit, and the effect that different strategies for dealing with it will have on the Scottish budget it was hardly an irrelevance to the Scottish people or to Holyrood.
If Labour had won at Westminster Holyrood would have more money to spend over this parliament, and the Scottish economy would do better than it’s going to. Macroeconomics over the next few years matter.
#25 by Indy on May 11, 2011 - 4:39 pm
I’m nopt saying it was irrelevant just that Scottish Labour would have been wise to insist that some money was held back for the Holyrood campaign.
If I was in Labour the fundamental mistake I would identify was in assuming that the support for Labour at Westminster would transfer to the Holyrood vote.
Two totally different elections which required two different strategies and should have had parity as regards funding – which clearly did not happen.
#26 by Aidan Skinner on May 12, 2011 - 1:31 am
Assuming that people would vote the same way at Holyrood as they did at Westminster was a major mistake. As was attempting to re-run a Westminster campaign.
I’m not sure what the ratio of funding between the two is, but given the Labour party spent 8m in total in 2010 (against 16.7m for the Tories) I would be surprised if the Scottish total was even 2/3rds of what the SNP spent on this one.
#27 by Lost Highlander on May 11, 2011 - 10:46 am
Money helps but getting your message across if you have one is much more important and posting that message out is a lot more expensive than having activists knocking on your doors and delivering leaflets.
Labour is suffering from a severe lack of people willing to go out and knock on those doors. That lead generally to labour having to spend money to get its message out which its budget could not deal with.
It really comes down to lack of activists they provide money from subs and manpower to push messages. Through Labours actions over multi member wards and its decreasing appeal, it is losing membership and people willing to go out and help and that reduces its election chances.
#28 by David on May 11, 2011 - 10:48 am
Well I suppose I am one of those high-minded voters you are talking about Aidan. Last year I voted Lib Dem in the General Election. Last week, I did something I had never thought I would contemplate – I voted SNP. Blaming the Labour parties problems on money just does not cut it. As Doug Daniels highlights it failed to get the Tories a majority last year. As such, cash is not king.
No the reason I voted for the SNP is because Labour’s alternative was so poor as to barely register. Scottish Labour has an intellectual problem as has been noted elsewhere. It also has a policy problem.
I was surprised Labour decided to offer a council tax freeze for 2 years, only to be trumped by the SNP. Granted both parties were bribing the voters, but Labour could have taken a progressive stand and refused to freeze it. It would have put the SNP in the odd position of supporting a regressive tax (even though their long-term hope is LIT). Problem is Labour did not. In any event, even though I voted for them I doubt the SNP will be able to afford it. Furthermore, for a party that supports further devolution and ultimately independence, it shows an odd level of disrespect for local government in Scotland, as Simon Jenkins pointed out. I wonder whether some councils might try and break the concordat in future to make ends meet.
Anyway, I am straying off topic a little. My point is you state that Scottish Labour lost because it failed to get enough cash and spend it wisely. As Duncan made the point earlier in this blog, the main reason you lost is because you lost the arguments. If I were to vote again for Labour it would be due to the following list of ‘high-minded reasons’ which are as long as the supposed cardigans I wear.
Firstly, Scottish Labour needs to have competent leader. Problem is that following the wipeout of last Thursday, there is hardly any left. The main point is to have someone who can hold Alex Salmond to account. I do not think that is either Jackie Bailie or Ken Macintosh. As such, there are big problems in this regard.
Secondly, the most important brief will be finance. Scottish Labour needs to put someone in place who will be able to pick apart the SNP spending plans. As I have already argued on here in previous blog posts, these are strongly based on efficiency savings and I do not think there is much left to be cut without cutting jobs in the public sector. Mind you, Labour will be in a difficult situation since much of the policies supported by the SNP were also supported by Labour. Only plausible way out would to be hold your hands up.
Thirdly, Labour are going to have to consider who they would want as coalition partners in five years, if they manage to get back enough seats. In which case open minds are going to be required. Even then Labour will struggle to win back some seats. For example, in this election Almond Valley was a supposed marginal yet ended up being a 5000 SNP majority. It also has no seats north of Dumbarton, barring list seats, which makes Labour look like a party of the central belt. In which case it will need to reconsider how it approaches strategy in the north.
To conclude, I just hope that in five years, there is a Labour party there for me to vote for.
#29 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 2:22 pm
We do need to address all the high minded issues, I’m not arguing we don’t (though it seems to be a common misreading so I should perhaps have set that out more clearly than “we absolutely have to address them”).
I agree with basically everything you say, particularly regarding council tax and the importance of the finance brief in the upcoming parliament. I’m not as pessimistic about the leadership candidates, we only need one good one after all.
But my point is that even if we had put forward better arguments (or, indeed, any), even if we had won over more of the high minded voters like yourself who actively engage with politics, even if we had a telegenic candidate we would still have been outspent and we would still have lost. Not as badly, but a loss nonetheless.
It’s not that the other things are unimportant, they definitely are. But I’ve not seen anybody else talking about fundraising and I think it’s an important point to consider.
I hope we rebuild the Scottish Labour Party in a way that you can vote for us 🙂
#30 by Doug Daniel (not plural) on May 11, 2011 - 11:32 pm
THERE’S ONLY ONE OF ME!!!!
#31 by Doug Daniel on May 11, 2011 - 11:36 pm
Incidentally, I have an email from a certain council leader ready to be put out in the blogosphere the second his council decides to obstruct the council tax freeze… We’ll just wait and see if that happens first, though.
#32 by aonghas on May 11, 2011 - 10:53 am
Too poor to succeed? The Scottish Labour party should unify with the English Labour party – together they’ll have the resources to prosper in the modern political world. It’s a tough world out there, you cannae dae it alone.
#33 by Keith Roberts on May 11, 2011 - 11:17 am
Money is certainly a factor, though I think what the root and branch review may want to consider is what drove many, many people to move away from a simple political awareness to becoming a bit more active.
In my case I can pinpoint it exactly. I was a regular to listener to FMQs, whilst collecting The Urchins from nursery. In listening to the programme, and then later following up on news bulletins and other reporting, I became motivated.
Motivated by the performance of Iain Gray and the reoprting of that performance by the media in Scotland. Motivated to do something more than just vote. My Scotland deserved so much better.
For the first time in my life I undertook to help a party in the seemingly unjust battle being waged, and to add funding to my voting. I joined the SNP, and subsequently added the odd pound or three to other campaigns.
My motivation was entirely down to the ineptitude and tactics of the opposition, and the compliant media peddling their own agenda.
Isn’t it strange to find the might of the union backed red tories complaining about financial imbalance, after the largesse which spilled out of their war chest 12 months earlier. Perhaps the lack of funding available for Scotland is just another indication of their contempt for their voting public north of the border and their belief that our role in life was simply to ensure that we would get them back in power in Westminster whilst remaining in the poverty that decades of labour rule at all levels have left parts this country with the shortest life expectancy in Europe.
I know where the limited support I can continue to provide will be going.
#34 by Tony on May 11, 2011 - 1:00 pm
Couldn’t agree more!
Adrian ignores the permanent parrallel universe type support of some media outlets for labour, the misreporting left the likes of me incredulous and steeled my determination to become involved. The media outlets that came on board with the SNP, mostly very late and bloody reluctantly did so because they could find very little wrong with the SNP message and sincerity.
I know the constituency I worked in we had no money whatsoever and relied on really hard working individuals and families out delivering by hand. In the end we were able to tell who hadn’t worked hard enough by how little colour they had.
As others have said, although Adrian means well he is loosing the essentials and seems to be relying only on the lessons labour learnt with Blair, ie. bullshit and bedazzle them. Perhaps we have all under-estimated the great Scottish public in our own way of late, but I don’t think they are that naive any more.
#35 by ianbeag on May 11, 2011 - 11:41 am
Aidan, How interesting that you fail to acknowledge that the seeds of failure were planted in Labour’s performance in Holyrood long before the election campaign started. The lack of talent within their ranks as measured against the SNP cabinet was highlighted on a weekly basis during FM questions and whilst I acknowledge that the wider public were not habitual followers, anyone seeing these or reading about Gray’s and Kerr’s embarrassing contributions would have made judgements well before the start of the campaign. Labour’s big problem now in Holyrood is that their ‘talent’ pool is further denuded and that will also impact on their ability to raise money for future campaigns.
#36 by nellie boy on May 11, 2011 - 11:55 am
mmm, is that a typo, `But we have fewer MSPs than the SNP because we were outspent.~
corrected to, `But we have fewer MSPs than the SNP because we were spent.`
#37 by CassiusClaymore on May 11, 2011 - 12:55 pm
On the topic of party funding, it remains outrageous that the parties are allowed to spend money raised outside Scotland on the Scottish election. I can’t think of another national election where parties can be bankrolled from outside the jurisdiction.
Labour should quit whining about money and count themselves lucky that they are able to rely on English trade union funding. Without that, there’d be an even bigger gap between them and the SNP.
CC
#38 by Angus McLellan on May 11, 2011 - 1:07 pm
I wouldn’t dispute the numbers in Aidan’s article. I had a look at the 2008 accounts for the SNP and Scottish Labour on the Electoral Commission website. They show that a substantial SNP advantage existed in 2007: 2.6 million income for the SNP but only 1.0 million for Scottish Labour. Adding Souter’s increased funding and a smaller increase for the matching donations, even a small fall in Labour income shifts this nearer 4 to 1. QED.
But since almost everyone agrees that Labour learned nothing from 2007, why the surprise that this was as true for fundraising as for everything else?
#39 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 2:27 pm
I’m not really saying it’s a surprise. I’m saying it’s something we need to address, and hasn’t been talked about elsewhere AFAIK.
#40 by Jeff on May 11, 2011 - 1:08 pm
Good post Aidan, definitely a valid point you’re making, at the very least.
I had a look at the money in a recent post spent in the 2007 election and there was an unmistakable correlation between cheque receipts and the number of MSPs. I look forward to doing the same for the 2011 results when the figures comes through.
However, they say that ‘those who ignore the mistake of the past are forced to repeat them’ and that could be the case here. Are the SNP popular and successful because they have money or does the SNP receive money because it is popular and successful?
In other words, if Labour had made a better fist of 2007-11, would it have enjoyed better funding this time around? And I don’t think Labour get to complain when historically they have enjoyed better-resourced campaigns than its opponents.
I do agree that funding can make elections unfair, (if you think Labour is hard done by, just look at the Greens!). An interesting suggestion I heard recently was that, under AV, a first vote for a certain party would also come with £2 of state funding and outside donations, at least over a certain limit, could be banned.
If one person’s £1/2m donation can swing an election (although there’s no evidence here that it did), then most would surely agree that that can’t be right in a fair and equitable democracy.
#41 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 2:32 pm
I’m definitely not claiming we were unfairly fouled, I’m a big boy and money is part of politics. There’s definitely a wider debate to be had about the role that it plays and the way that it’s gathered – even if untrue the perception of a link between, say, Souter and Transport policy or City funding and Tory Finance policy or supermarkets and Labour’s opposition to the supermarket tax looks grubby.
There’s also a feedback effect – good policy, and being in government, gathers money which can be used to develop policy, stay in government, get more funding and so on. Bad policy and poor conduct turns off donors just as surely as it turns off activists.
My point really is to try to bring up an issue which, AFAICT, has largely gone unnoticed in the laundry list of failings.
#42 by Kevin Adamson on May 11, 2011 - 1:15 pm
I wonder when former Labour party supporters like myself will just give up trying to explain why Labour have hemorrhaged support so badly, and when it will become just a non-issue. In my own opinion, Labour lost the election because it does not stand up for social democratic values. It stopped doing this a long time ago.There’s a lot of tlak of a need to put a kilt on the party, but this is not the issue. The issue is that the Labour party in Scotland has allowed itself (or even pleased itself) to be dragged to the right. Scotland is not that far right – what do the three parties that just got drubbed have in common? They are all to the right of the SNP. Westminster is unpopular also, because it is dominated by right wing parties, two of which claim to be in the centre or centre left, and the Scottish voters don’t really believe that. The SNP fills this gap.
As if to underline this, today I read in the Scotsman an eyewatering article by a certain John McTernan, suggesting that what is needed for Scottish schools to flourish is ‘diversity of provision’ – I don’t think the election last week endorsed such ‘diversity of provision’, it was rather a comprehensive rejection of Blairism as a sort of watered down Tory agenda. What is was actually an endorsement of is another question.
#43 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 2:41 pm
There was some good old fashioned Labour policies in the manifesto – living wage, national care service, big emphasis on co-operative and community ownership of power generation and investing in the grid to enable that. We just didn’t talk about it. No, what we talked about was truly dire “tough on crime, ignore the causes of crime” knife policy that made no sense.
John McTernan needs to go to the back of the class and think about what he’s done and not speak for a very, very long time.
#44 by John Ruddy on May 11, 2011 - 6:00 pm
I think the words that you are looking for, Aidan is “I can assure you there is widespread resentment in the Party at your activities and a period of silence on your part would be welcome”
For instance, McTernan has said that the reason we lost is that our campaign wasnt negative enough. Enough said.
#45 by Aidan Skinner on May 12, 2011 - 1:32 am
Those are indeed exactly the words I am looking for!
#46 by Zoe Smith on May 11, 2011 - 1:39 pm
Whilst I agree that our campaign was terribly short of funding I still think the money issue is a bit of a red herring- and what you say Aidan is reflective of the attitude within the party. If the Scottish Labour party asked me and other members for ideas, footwork or phonework as often as they asked me for money they might’ve got somewhere.
To be honest I struggle to pay my subs every month so donating more money for the campaign was almost out of the question (I did it anyway out of guilt eventually).
It comes back to lack of imagination- I, like many others have a mobile phone contract with free minutes I’ll never use, I’d happily have spent a couple of hours phoning on behalf of the party at my own expense- but no, phonebanking has to be done in a room, 30 miles away from my house, at a specific time, on a specific day with other activists.
The finance issue you raised also brings the focus back to what we do during campaigns- the reason we’ve lost our way (mistress of the understatement me!) is that we only invest (time and money) during campaigns. Save for a few seats that I know of- there is very little campaigning or ongoing community involvement/profile raising outwith the quantifiable time leading up to an election.
It doesn’t cost any money to write to a newspaper, attend a meeting about park benches or dog poo and it doesn’t cost any money to go out and knock on a few doors and chat to a few people. Scottish Labour has lost its presence in our communities- that’s what we need to work on.
Of course in order to do this we will need to find a way to reconnect with members and get them active again. I honestly have no idea how we’re going to do this. We obviously need a new leader to “inspire” us but just who the heck do we choose given the options?
The SNP had more money than us for sure but they also had more activist willing and able to do the work- and the work was clever and well co-ordinated- you can’t buy that.
#47 by Aidan Skinner on May 11, 2011 - 2:37 pm
I’m really not saying that money was the only issue, or that we should fix it by sending more emails to members asking for donations.
I totally know what you mean about phonebanking, membersnet has the infrastructure to do that as well which is quite frustrating.
I think you’re absolutely right about needing to be more active within the community and getting members involved on a regular basis, in ways that suit them.
As for leader, I’ve got my fingers crossed for Malcolm Chisholm. 😉
#48 by Gregor on May 11, 2011 - 2:20 pm
It seems Labour will not learn from their mistakes:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Ed-Miliband-Scottish-Labour-won39t.6766140.jp
#49 by Dubbieside on May 11, 2011 - 4:28 pm
Some of the comments here mirror my involvement in SNP atavism.
I was totally dismayed at the BBC political coverage and spend a lot of time swearing at the TV. My wife said in stead of swearing here go out and do something, so I joined the SNP.
At my first branch meeting when asked why I had joined I said Glen Campbell sent me.
I found the welcome warm, but the sense of achievement was far better than I could have hopped for. I will continue to campaign for the SNP, hopefully for a long time to come.
We may have had more money, and that money was spent wisely, but far more important than that we had the atavists who were prepared to put in the miles to ensure our success.
P.S. The SNP maybe has more to thank the BBC for than we think.
#50 by Richard on May 13, 2011 - 6:48 pm
“we had the atavists who were prepared….”
The dictionary defines an “atavist” as:
An individual or a part that exhibits atavism. Also called throwback.
I hope that’s not what you meant! 🙂
#51 by Zoe Smith on May 13, 2011 - 7:22 pm
I was coming back every day to read that comment and giggle!
#52 by Stew on May 11, 2011 - 5:39 pm
It is a big factor for sure but I don’t think any amount of money would have given the people in charge of the campaign a vision to sell, which would have defeated SNP. The problem was with decision making; the choice of policies; the rationale/evidence for these, how these were presented and defended.
The populist, anti-expert, ‘we know what the problem is we don’t need studies or research’, arrogance was truly startling. The manifesto looked awful, mistakes and lack of research were apparent throughout. For the amount of time in opposition and preparing for a pre-set election date there was no excuse for the shoddiness of the campaign. I have felt really let down and disappointed by the leadership over the last 6 weeks. If only we had known that the campaign-plans were so basic…
#53 by Brian Nicholson on May 11, 2011 - 7:08 pm
Money follows enthusiasm. In recent years, the SNP has grown in members, increased its standing in local councils, increased interaction with civic Scotland and its agencies, reached out to various ethnic communities to make them part of the new aspirational Scotland and developed relationships with enterpreneurs, labour and small business leaders. At the same time, Labour has concentrated its efforts on a dwindling core group, taken labour unions for granted, ignored partnership opportunities with business and civic Scotland, and treated its members as mindless footsoldiers to be used as electoral cannon fodder.
The result is one party gaining in members, votes, enthusiam, energy and momentum and the other clinging to what can be salvaged. It is no wonder that those with money, large and small, prefer to contribute to one over the other.
Labour’s problems with funding will not be solved easily. The core group is smaller and less well off. The Labour unions grow more disenchanted and this indispensable source of funds is declining. The business community grows more distant and sees better opportunities for its funds and lastly, Labour’s removal as the governing party of Scotland only increases the decline.
Westminster Labour offers no panacea as its situation mirrors that of Scottish Labour albet a few years behind. Milliband 2011 is eeriely similar to Labour 2007.
#54 by Allan on May 11, 2011 - 9:38 pm
Well I never thought “You know what I’ll vote for the party with lots of money to spend”…
Sure it might come down to money, but you still have to have the know how and for Labour they showed nothing to suggest that they were government material. No amount of money can hide that.
If you want further proof of that, look at my posts on my blog about the leaflets i recieved. The SNP one had policies & pictures of the local candidate. The Labour one had the usual Grey platitudes, a picture of a middle class family and… er… that’s it. No mention of Evan Williams (the Labour candidate for Paisley) at all on the leaflet.
#55 by AliMiller on May 12, 2011 - 3:28 pm
Why has such a poor quality post been allowed on BN? The issue of money is a good topic but this kind of desperate denial is not in keeping with the generally thoughtful and honest views given here.
#56 by Jeff on May 12, 2011 - 3:58 pm
One could equally ask why “poor quality” comments are allowed through 😉
Indeed, your suggestion that this is a “desperate denial” smacks of a telling kind of ‘move along, nothing to see here’ when someone gets close to the truth.
There’s no denying that Souter’s money helped the SNP’s chances enormously otherwise, quite simply, they wouldn’t have spent it. The impact it had can be debated (healthily, as has been done in the many other 50+ comments) but I think you’ll find analysing and considering the impact of relatively considerable wealth and resources for one party’s campaign from a guest poster is perfectly in keeping with what Better Nation is all about.
#57 by AliMiller on May 12, 2011 - 9:36 pm
The “poor quality” is not in the topic itself – a very valid one as I recognised. There is no doubt that money makes a significant difference in terms of resources and indeed morale. What I was commenting on was the poor quality of the way the argument was advanced. The sentence “But we have fewer MSPs than the SNP because we were outspent.” can be termed nothing other than desperate denial. Of course, if the parties had been on equal financial footing the SNP would certainly not have as many as 69 MSPs, but to say that their victory was primarily down to money (which that sentence categorically means) is not a realistic comment. Money is both a cause and symptom of success, yet the author makes no attempt to analyse why Labour had less money.
The other very dissatisfactory aspect of the comment was the excuse that a lack of money is the cause of their policy inertia. Surely betwen 46 MSPs and their researchers there is sufficient brainpower for at least some policy development? What on earth are these people doing in Parliament if they are so intellecually incapable that they require vast sums of money to pay unelected, unnacountable people to doall their thinking for them? Perhaps the answer is not more cash but to actually ensure that at least more of the MSPs in the Labour Group have some real-life experience. More people like the Police Cheif Greame Pearson who is a South of Scotland MSP for them.
The piece recognises Labour’s other issues, which is at least more than can be said for Ken McIntosh, and it explores an important issue, but it has such a blatantly whinging tone and ridiculous assertions that McTernan would be proud of that it looks very out of place on this spin-free and substantive blog.
#58 by Aidan Skinner on May 13, 2011 - 9:55 am
I’m terribly sorry you found the tone whinging, that’s always a risk with an essentially inward looking argument I suppose. There are deep, fundamental problems with the party, some of which affect and are affected by our problems with fundraising. I quickly enumerated a couple of the things we need to do generally that will help in my final paragaph.
Rather then denying the other reasons for our loss, my aim was, as James points out, to try to tease out one big factor which had been largely ignored.
I actually disagree with your assertion that Labour was inert policy wise, we had some decent, distinctively Labour ideas in our manifesto such as the national care service. But they were either badly presented or weren’t fully fleshed out, and it’s those areas where money helps most.
#59 by The Burd on May 13, 2011 - 6:20 pm
The fundraising issue is intrinsically linked to the points Johanna Baxter made about your base and membership. The SNP had one big donor then relied on its members/supporters to match it – could Labour have done the same? I doubt it. You are right to point out that this is a problem for Labour but not so sure it had such a big impact on the campaign as you think. The most effective things the SNP did actually cost very little money eg the Obama software programme only cost a few grand. Peanuts in a national campaign.
The issue with funding is linked to the wider malaise – over reliance on the likes of the unions to cough up for years meant folk got lazy and had a sense of entitlement that they did not know how to address when those funding sources dried up
#60 by Aidan Skinner on May 14, 2011 - 10:47 am
Johannas Labour List piece was excellent, said everything I felt needed saying about the deep and fundamental problems we have (I regret not linking to it in first paragraph of this post, would have saved some misunderstanding).
The cost of buying the software is always the smallest bit of any IT project, actually implementing it and training people to use it effectively will have been a lot more.
But I digress, even if we addressed all the other problems with the campaign unless we specifically tackle money then we’d still have been outspent and still have lost. Most of the evidence around campaign finance is that you can be outspent a bit if you’re an incumbent but not if you’re a challenger. While Scottish Labour may be perceived as an incumbent in some ways it’s normally on the negative side of things 😉
#61 by Malc on May 12, 2011 - 4:00 pm
I think you are being a little harsh. Aidan recognises all the factors (see first paragraph) relating to Labour’s defeat. He just sees this as the defining factor. By all means disagree with him – but he’s surely entitled to his opinion.
I disagree with him, incidentally – I see the money as further down the list than say, negative campaigning and the fact that the SNP’s professionalism in campaigning made Labour look rather amateur at times – but I do think money is important as well. We just thought he should have the chance to say it.
#62 by James on May 12, 2011 - 4:46 pm
Aidan’s a smart guy and he knows that isn’t the only reason. But it’s one that had been neglected in the narrative.
#63 by Aidan Skinner on May 13, 2011 - 9:58 am
Yeah, our terrible loss was a multi-faceted thing, with deep roots into systematic and cultural failures, but those had been well explored elsewhere.
Malc, I think even if we’d run a positive campaign without significantly more money over both the long and short campaigns we’d still have ended up losing. Not as badly certainly, still a loss.
#64 by Gaz on May 12, 2011 - 4:23 pm
Of course money matters but in terms of the long campaign, the SNP didn’t have funding in place before March, so the arguments about policy development and training ring a little hollow.
Anyway, I’m not even convinced Labour was outspent by the SNP. In Almond Valley, we were bombarded by mass, first class direct mailings from Labour. In the final week, some households received up to 10 pieces of literature from Labour – only two of which were via the free Post Office drop.
It is impossible for me to put an accurate cost on this because only the mail organisers will know exactly how much mail went out but let’s assume (conservatively) that each household received 2 pieces of 1st class mail from Labour. That is 35,000 * 2 * 46p = £32,200 in a single constituency BEFORE you even think about printing costs (which would not have been cheap either).
I know from talking to colleagues across the country that Almond Valley was not an exceptional case. I reckon Labour was trying this in about 20 seats and maybe more. Easily in excess of half a million quids worth and I would not be surprised if the total spend was in 7 figures. I would imagine that each separate mailing will have been sponsored by a union and, if so, I think it is about time the members of those unions thought carefully about how their money is being wasted by the vested interests that claim to represent them.
Labour was most definitely not short of money in this campaign – it just didn’t have the organisation and skill to put it to good use and had to rely on blunt, very negative, centralised mailing campaigns.
#65 by Martinb on May 12, 2011 - 7:07 pm
Gaz, it was the same here in Linlithgow (Bathgate anyway) – loads and loads of leaflet drops from Labour, both via the Royal Mail and hand-delivered by activists.
However, not one of those activists bothered knocking the door (in the interests of fairness, none of the other parties did either), so Labour were squandering their free assets in favour of the centralised mis-directed campaign messages.
I may be getting old and losing my memory, but didn’t Labour go into this promising an energetic ground war, with thousands of flying pickets^W^W activists from down south?
I saw no evidence of this whatsoever, so it was left to the public and social media where money helps most.
If the only battlefield you’re fighting on is where the enemy has the advantage, then yes, you’re going to lose. But that’s down to your choice of battlefield, not your disadvantage on it (insert appropriate Sun-Tzu quote here).
#66 by Aidan Skinner on May 13, 2011 - 10:00 am
I did nothing but door knocking in Glasgow! I suspect if you weren’t identified as either a Labour voter or an unknown you’d have been ignored though: there was a big focus on the core vote, which was definitely a mistake.
#67 by Chris on May 31, 2011 - 5:17 pm
Sorry guys, but it was not a failure to get the message across – it was having the wrong message. Scarey soreys worked in the past, just not this time.
There were few (anot many really) moments of sheer stupidity such as .Ed Balls lecturing Salmond aout the Scottish economy….serioulsy folks….Balls? Lecruring Salmond? To cite the foremost social and politcal commetator of the day – D’oh!