Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Parties

To be or not to be independent, that is the (first) question

Oct 20

Posted by Jeff in Ideology, Parties | 86 Comments

‘You take the low road and I’ll take the high road and I’ll be in bonnie independent Scotland afooooore ye.’

Now, these warbling words will not form the opening line of Alex Salmond’s set piece speech at this weekend’s SNP Conference but they might as well do. The half a year since the storming election result in May has seen the Nationalist camp calmly and diligently go about their business, simultaneously advancing their cause of independence (as proven by favourable polling evidence), while the various unionist parties have squawked and clucked directionlessly as if the sky is about to fall on their heads. Which metaphorically it may well do when the independence referendum comes around, if a Yes result is delivered.

The latest strategy from the unionist camp is to hold the Scotland Bill up as being the most significant transfer of powers from Westminster to Holyrood in 300 years, a boast that they hope will distract Scots away from the underlying question of full independence by demanding attention is paid to the tax changes that are still being ironed out.

It won’t work.

Scots are proving remarkably pragmatically nonplussed when it comes to delivery of extra powers to Holyrood from Westminster, almost to the point where an expectation exists that such powers continue to arrive over the border on the conveyor belt of devolution. This situation has ensured that the SNP will always have the consolation prize of further independence by stealth, as opposed to its preferred result of full independence by referendum.

However, what I don’t understand, and this is what I do hope Alex Salmond will explain in his speech, sung or otherwise, is why the SNP is offering its backpocket consolation prize alongside its prized objective of full independence on the referendum ballot slip. Surely a straight up and down Yes/No to full independence is more likely to return a Yes vote if Scots didn’t have the option to split the difference, compromise and vote for Devo Max. Give anyone a choice of more than two options and they will almost always select one from the middle; it’s a proven conjuror’s trick and it’s something that the SNP should bear in mind if they are offering three futures rather than only two.

I suspect that Salmond has shied away from the risk of putting everything on the table and ending up going backwards. There is a danger to the SNP that decades of hoping and years of planning may well result in one terrible word from a one-question referendum – No. The wind could be knocked out of the SNP’s sails and the momentum could be momentarily lost but with monumental repercussions – a bitter leadership contest, factions emerging, back to the dark days of the 80s etc etc.

But is that safety first approach of guaranteeing a little bit of extra momentum worth the risk of missing out on the 2-3% of yes votes that could make all the difference? That’s one for the SNP to consider and answer.

Don’t get me wrong, SNP activists will be going into this Conference pinching themselves at the position they are in and full square behind the First Minister as their leader. I remember well the evident delight that party members had during Inverness 2009 and Glasgow 2009 when the party fortunes amounted to little more than a wafer-thin minority Government and a referendum that was situated somewhere between a hope and a prayer away. Nonetheless, I wouldn’t be surprised if some Nats have just a niggle of concern at the extra question being offered in the coming referendum.

When I took part in the Guardian’s blogging panel considering the future of the ‘Disunited Kingdom’, I was harangued, quite understandably, for not being fundamentally pro-independence enough, despite admitting quite freely that I’ll probably be voting Yes to full independence when the referendum comes around. The irony, quite possibly lost on my detractors, is that the satisfaction that I have with even a federal UK is seemingly one that I share with Alex Salmond himself, though I daresay even the most devout Nationalists wouldn’t say Salmond wasn’t pro-independence enough for any forum. Not yet anyway.

Alex Salmond once promised, and delivered, a political earthquake in the unlikely hunting ground of Glasgow East. Across all of Scotland, through hedging his bets with a second question, Salmond is already backpedalling on what can be delivered through his independence referendum and I just wonder if, far from the earthquake of independence, the wheels will come off the hefty SNP juggernaut as a result of not being brave enough. Nick Clegg went for the ‘miserable little compromise’ of AV in the end, is Salmond doing the same with Devo Max in the eyes of the SNP faithful?

After all, when a nation’s independence is at stake, is there really a middle road to be taken? It must be the strategic high wire road for the SNP or it will be the high jump for full independence.

Why are Scots leaning towards independence?

Oct 16

Posted by The Burd in Constitution, Parties | 31 Comments

As my esteemed blogging colleague, Jeff highlighted, today’s Com Res poll for the Independent on Sunday produces the astonishing finding that a majority of folk south of the border support independence.

The whole poll sampled over 2000 voters across the UK, but only 176 were in Scotland, so caveats apply about the representativeness of the sample size.  But the really interesting findings are on voting intentions and opinions about the performance of various leaders and parties.

First, the headline indie finding in Scotland – support is up to 49%, an increase of 11% since the last Com Res poll, and firmly within the direction of travel reported by other polls over the summer.

Apparently, at the last General Election, 28% of Scots voted “other”, one presumes mainly for the SNP.  If there was a UK election tomorrow, 33% would vote SNP, 30% would vote Labour, 11% would vote Conservative and 6% vote Liberal Democrat.  Again, in tune with other polls, the SNP is increasingly becoming the party of choice for voters at all elections.  Would a 33% result be enough to see constituencies topple like dominoes, as happened in May?  Doubtful.  They need more swing towards them and away from Labour, particularly in the central belt.

The poll suggests the Lib Dems are finished in Scotland, at least for the foreseeable future.  On a series of attitudinal statements, the Scots are much more down on the Liberal Democrats than other parts of the UK or indeed the UK as a whole.

*Nick Clegg is turning out to be a good leader for the Liberal Democrats* – 83% of Scots disagreed compared to 53% at UK level

*The Liberal Democrats have done a good job of moderating Conservative policies in the Coalition* – an oft repeated assertion by Scottish Lib Dems in particular – 61% of Scots disagree compared to 47% for the UK

*Being in coalition with the Conservatives has shown the Liberal Democrats to be a credible party of government* – 17% of Scots agree compared to 24% of total participants across the UK.  Only Wales has a lower percentage agreeing (15%).

There is divergence in opinion amongst Scots voters compared to the UK as a whole and whatever the Scottish Liberal Democrats do, they are facing an uphill battle the whole time their party is in coalition with the Conservatives at UK level, because Scots do not believe it is making any difference to UK government policies or behaviour.  That belief is no doubt affirmed every time a Scottish Liberal Democrat MP pops up in the news bearing bad news – as the water carriers for the government in Scotland they are intrinsically linked to it all and it is doing nothing for their reputation with Scottish voters.

The poll also suggests a link between the Conservatives being in power, the austerity of the times we live in and growing support for independence.

*The Coalition Government’s policies share the burden of hard times fairly so that we are “all in it together”* – over one in four UK participants agree with this statement (27%) but in Scotland it’s less than one in five (18%).

And while one third of respondents think David Cameron is turning out to be a good Prime Minister across the UK, in Scotland only 18% think so.  If the Liberal Democrats have a hill to climb to turn around their electoral fortunes in Scotland, then the Conservatives clearly have a mountain to scale.

It is supposition – and it would be great if someone, other than the parties themselves, was prepared to engage in qualitative research that explores why Scottish voters are headed towards independence – but with a UK Government not to their liking, and not behaving in a way which finds favour with Scottish voters, you can see why people might be turning towards independence as a credible alternative.

And there are other polls indicating the key role that the economic situation might just be playing in that shift.  To be blogged on later….

 

 

RIP Red Ed

Oct 8

Posted by The Burd in Ideology, Parties | 18 Comments

Labour’s Shadow Cabinet reshuffle is interesting – no, really – because it finally lays to rest the myth of Red Ed.

Previously, the shadow Cabinet was decided by a vote in the party, a bizarre type of beauty contest but it also showed where the party’s heart lay in terms of who it wanted to represent it in Opposition.  Changes to party rules did away with this contest, widely viewed as having hamstrung the party leader.  Well, no more, for this reshuffle ensured he got the chance to start drafting his people in to the Shadow Cabinet, the people he feels most comfortable with working.

A quick run through the winners and losers:  John Denham and John Healey stood down of their own accord, and who are we to doubt the veracity of that claim, especially as the correspondence backs it up.  Gone are Ann McKechin, Angela Eagle is moved sideways, Shaun Woodward also steps down and Meg Hillier vanishes.  A bit of musical chairs – Ivan Lewis and Harriet Harman swap roles at media, culture and sport and international development respectively;  Andy Burnham moves from education to health and the supposed big hitters of Balls, Alexander, Cooper et al stay where they are.

Incomers include returnees Stephen Twigg to education, Caroline Flint to energy and climate change [update:  thanks to commenter who pointed out this is in fact a sideways move but arguably still a promotion, as a more high profile role than previous one at communities and local government?] and Tom Watson to a party role as depute Chair and campaign co-ordinator.  Newbies are Chuka Umunna, Rachel Reeves, Liz Kendall, Margaret Curran and Mike Dugher. And big black marks for the Guardian for ignoring Margaret Curran’s elevation and conversely to the Scottish press for overly focusing on this appointment almost to the exclusion of others.

None too subtly, Ed has put to bed all the supposed monikers of Red, Purple, Blue and returned to what he – and the rest – know best:  New Labour.  Some commentators suggest he has brought in Brown’s bruisers to add a bit of muscle to his front bench, but Tom Watson is actually the only one who can be categorised thus, and his is a backroom role.  Mike Dugher may have been close to Brown but his role previously was in the shadows, not out in the open.

No, Ed has re-introduced a flash of Blairism but is also creating a Cabinet in his own image.  The new folks – Margaret Curran aside, who actually has real government experience and an interesting hinterland to contribute – might ostensibly represent Labour heartland territory but like Ed, they are party appartchiks or are unrepresentative of Labour’s traditions.  Nothing wrong with that, when it is talent that counts, but it finally puts to rest the idea, stubbornly held by some, that Ed Miliband’s election as leader would represent a return to old Labour values and approach.

Rachel Reeves has a banking/business background, Liz Kendall came up through think-tanks to be a ministerial advisor, while Michael Dugher has also served in a number of advisory roles and Chuka Umunna represents all that is hopeful and shiny but is definitely on the right side of the party.  Some of them, then, have very similar backgrounds and trajectories to Ed and other current Shadow Cabinet members.

And it is interesting because despite signals to the contrary – the conference speech, the ditching of public symbols of New Labour – some instincts are hard to ditch.  Ed Miliband is a creature of New Labour whose career was nurtured and weaned at the knee of Blair and Brown.  His party – as evidenced by its vote in the last Shadow Cabinet elections and the response to his recent conference speech – yearn for a turn to the left, to rediscover old roots and values, albeit with a modern twist.

Yet Miliband seeks succour and progress elsewhere. Constructs like the “good society” and the “squeezed middle”, as well as key planks of the plan for growth announced by Balls sit comfortably within the New Labour tent;  their links to old Labour values of fairness, equality and social justice are also evident but actually are more contrived.

Ultimately, it is the neo-liberal policy tendency and culture which is triumphing here, that accepts the basic tenets of a market-driven and oriented society; where home ownership is good, renting bad;  where work is the only route out of poverty;  where the private sector has as big a role to play in service design and delivery as the public;  where performance-driven targets related to crude outputs still reign;  and where wealth is okay, so long as it was earned productively.

Taking all that into account, his choice of shadow Cabinet members becomes less surprising.  He is surrounding himself with like-minded people, people he feels can create the platform he wants to project and offer the electorate, and it ain’t one that is going back to the future.

The idea that Ed Miliband would usher in a new era for the Labour party and construct a social and economic policy platform that cut ties with New Labour’s recent past was clearly fanciful.  New Labour might be being wiped from the public memory banks but its instincts and influence remain.  It’s old Labour that is being buried, along with Red Ed.  RIP.

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,

Priorities, priorities…

Oct 6

Posted by Malc in Parties, Westminster | 44 Comments

Cameron: Running a pro-Union campaign? Or just running?

So, the big three UK parties have had their conferences, ending in each case with the big set-piece event: the speech from the all-conquering leader.  Leadership speeches at conferences are big events, setting out the priorities of the respective parties for the coming year.  Bookies take bets on what will feature (then stop taking them as soon as parts of the speech are leaked).  If an issue makes it into the speech, chances are that is what you’ll be hearing about from that leader continuously until the following year’s conference.  If an issue doesn’t make it, then its importance has been relegated, the leader not considering it a priority.

This year, obviously, the economy continues to play a large role in leadership speeches – indeed it was the focus of them.  How to encourage growth, how to improve the fortunes of the economy, how to secure its recovery.  All very important indeed – you can’t argue that the economy deserves its position as an issue of top importance to political parties.

What’s interesting – from a Scottish perspective – is that between the three leadership speeches, Scotland was mentioned only THREE times.  Nick Clegg mentioned us only once, saying we need: “An economy for everyone: In Scotland, Wales, in every part of the United Kingdom.”  Laudable sentiments I guess.  David Cameron only mentioned Scotland in the context of our armed forces, and not specifically just ours: “In Afghanistan today, there are men and women fighting for Britain as bravely as any in our history. They come from across our country: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland.”  Ed Miliband also mentioned Scotland just the once, but not the country.  Nope, he was taking a pop at Fred Goodwin in running RBS.  Three leadership speeches, and Scotland mentioned twice – and then, only to emphasise that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister recognised that they were parts of the UK.

And what of this Union that each of these leaders have pledged to defend?  Nothing.  Sure, each of them mentioned the word union, but it was in relation to Trades Union, and if David Cameron’s pledge is to defend that kind of union, then I think I’ve walked into some kind of parallel universe.

Its funny – the day before his big speech, David Cameron announced on “Scottish night”(?) at the Conservative Party Conference that he had “one core belief” about Scotland – that the Conservatives “were a party of the Union”.  Yet the following day, those sentiments did not appear anywhere in his set piece speech.  In an interview with a Scottish political journalist, Ed Miliband said we have a “shared history” and a “shared common bond” with the UK and that “devolution had made the Union stronger”.  But then he couldn’t remember the name of one of Scottish Labour’s leadership candidates (emphasising just how important that “common bond” between Scotland and the rest of the UK is, since he hadn’t bothered being briefed on it) and also didn’t mention either Scotland or the Union in his speech.

Look, I know party leaders will claim everything is important to them, and their speeches are limited in time, and thus they can’t fit everything they might want to into them.  But for parties who recognise the threat to the Union posed by the SNP, and who are gearing up to defend that same Union, it seems to me just a little strange that neither merits mention in a 45 minute keynote address to party delegates.  You can be sure that this slight will not have gone unnoticed by the SNP – and Alex Salmond will likely draw attention to this fact in his own conference speech in a couple of weeks.

The point is – are the UK leaders really serious about their defence of the Union?  Because the evidence from their conference speeches suggests that defending the Union doesn’t rate highly upon their agenda.  If they are going to win a referendum on the issue, that’s going to have to change.

This post isn’t supposed to be negative.  What I’m trying to say is that the debate needs to be happening at the top levels.  The parties need to engage with the issue of independence – and argue the merits of their case.  Ignoring the issue won’t make it go away.  And as much as I’d be happy with the outcome should the pro-Union campaign continue to falter, I’d much rather the argument was won after a positive debate.

EXCLUSIVE: Tom Harris, calling all parties to the unionist cause

Sep 25

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Parties | 97 Comments

In yet another exclusive guestpost for Better Nation, Labour leadership contender, Tom Harris MP, responds to Pete Wishart’s call with one of his own – and he doesn’t pull his punches. 

What are the chances of an all-party campaign for “No to Independence”?

Well practically zilch, if we are to listen to Pete Wishart, writing on this site on Friday.

It would seem that he and the SNP have set themselves up in a bizarre contest to be the keenest defenders of separatism, and in that defence they will be steadfast. But why have they allowed themselves to be so entrenched on the nationalist side of the debate, and is there any prospect whatsoever of them even entertaining the notion of Scotland continuing as part of the UK…?

You get the idea. Such is the arrogance of the SNP post their impressive Holyrood victory in May, that they are filled with scorn for anyone so dim-witted as to disagree with the central driving force within Pete’s own party.

Labour, writes Pete in that patronising tone that might have well been patented by the SNP, has a “proud tradition” when it comes to constitutional change. Well, that’s nice of him, eh? Scottish Labour Action was an excellent example of “free thinking” on Scotland’s constitutional future, he writes, patting Wendy Alexander and Jack McConnell on the head and offering them a lump of sugar. So why the poverty of thinking on the issue now?

Well, Pete, I have the answer to that one: it’s because SLA achieved their aim. Remember that? Remember when the Scottish Parliament was opened in 1999? Come on, it must at least ring a bell!

In calling for Labour Party members to support a pro-independence campaign, Pete ignores the fact that there are many, many more SNP voters who support the Union than there are Labour voters who support independence. And yes, Pete, you’re right that no-one joined the Labour Party to protect the Union; they’re a bit more concerned about the economy, poverty, inequality and progress – you know, important stuff. None of these issues is at the top of SNP members’ list of priorities – without their obsession on constitutional issues, they have no guiding mission.

That’s the difference between the politics of identity and the politics of progress.

Labour and all the other unionist parties, says Pete, risk irrelevance in a “new Independent Scotland” (although he doesn’t quite explain what is “new” about turning the political clock back 300 years, but I’ll let that one go) by not getting on board the independence bus now.

Do you see what he’s doing here? In the week that the SNP government were obliged to talk about what they’re most uncomfortable talking about – budgets, services, the economy – Pete wants us all to move back on to the nationalists’ ground – the constitution. Just as the media and much of Scottish business are beginning to suspect that the future being shaped by Alex Salmond isn’t quite as rosy as they had been led to believe, Pete wants us all to close our eyes, click our heels together three times and imagine that he was right all along to talk about the “inevitability” of independence. I wonder why?

To Pete (and, I assume, his attitude is entirely typical of his fellow SNP members), everyone of all parties and of none accepts that independence is as right as it is inevitable, but that only the SNP are honest enough to admit it.  Nationalists are true and honourable, unionists are dishonourable and base.  We’re all nationalists, if only we were brave enough to look inside ourselves and admit it.

The alternative – that some Scots genuinely believe that we’re better off in the UK than out of it – isn’t even considered by him as a possible alternative.

Memo to Pete: you’re wrong. Prepare for a fight.

Tags: , , , , ,