Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Advice for the Labour at heart

Sep 8

Posted by Malc in Holyrood, Parties | 6 Comments

If they trusted him, WWTD would be the new motto of the Labour party:  What Would Tony Do?

Yeah, maybe not.  But as more information seeps into the public domain about the premiership of Tony Blair (I’ve just finished Mandelson’s memoir – which paints a particularly bad picture of Gordon Brown) Labour are once again at a turning point.  They are out of office – a situation not unknown to them – and, once again, they are considering a lurch to the left.  The problem for them here is twofold:  historically (1983) this was a disaster and the country is not where they think they need to go.  So a lurch to the left would probably have a similar disastrous outcome to that of 1983.

Ignoring the UK level issue at the moment and turning attention to Scotland, the situation is less critical in terms of policy programme but more so in terms of personality.  At least with the leadership contest for the UK party, Labour have an opportunity to fill the power vacuum left at the top of the tree.  In Scotland, that vacuum remains and, undoubtedly, needs to be dealt with.

Prior to their defeat in May, Labour effectively had three leaders in Scotland.  The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, as leader of Labour party, was constitutionally at least, leader of (what is known by name only) as Scottish Labour.  In order not to elevate the SNP First Minister to his level, the Prime Minister appointed Jim Murphy as Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with him for the UK Government – effectively becoming de facto leader of Scottish Labour in the process.  And finally, of least importance to the internal workings of the Labour Party but probably most prominent when it came to devolved politics, we have Iain Gray, leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament, to give his full title.  That was prior to the election.

Now we have a situation where Labour don’t have a leader at UK level (which removes them from the equation).  They also don’t have a Secretary of State for Scotland – being out of power, they have a Shadow Sec State, which is simply not as powerful.  I can’t see the First Minister calling Jim Murphy all that often now.  Iain Gray is still in position of course, but here’s the issue:  his remit only stretches as far as his MSPs.  Of course they can work out policy for the Scottish Parliament in devolved areas (although I think – but I’m not sure – that if it differs substantially from UK Labour policy, it has to be ratified by their NEC) but that’s it.  He has no control over Labour’s substantial group of Scottish MPs.

I think it is fair to say that Iain Gray has not exactly set the heather alight as leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament.  That’s not a criticism as such, merely an observation.  Time and again at FMQs he has barely grazed the First Minister (though on one or two occasions he has landed a punch, albeit one which tends to have been fairly easily parried).  And outside of Holyrood he has tended to be overshadowed by his Westminster colleagues.  And even in the four months that Labour have been out of power, he has not really come forward and owned the Labour agenda in Scotland.

I called this post “advice” for a reason… but I know those who are Labour-minded will not like it.  Iain Gray and Scottish Labour have to assert their independence (although they probably shouldn’t use the word independence).  Eleven years after devolution began it is time that the party north of the border – and its leader – took responsibility for their own actions and stopped deferring to the UK party.  I think if they do so – if they really are allowed to separate, or at least become a more “federally” organised party, like the Lib Dems – then they will be much better equipped to present themselves as a party which is in direct competition to the SNP in fighting for particularly Scottish interests.  I realise that Scottish MPs are unlikely to accept a ‘mere’ MSP as their leader, but this is a fight that Scottish Labour MSPs have to take on – and win.  Otherwise I really can’t see how the public will view them as anything other than proxies for UK Labour.

That, I think is the biggest challenge for Labour before next May’s Scottish Parliament election – make the Scottish party more Scottish internally, and reap the rewards of it electorally.  It won’t be easy, but that which is necessary for success never is.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Is an unholy alliance the divine intervention that SNP and Tories need?

Sep 7

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood, Parties | 23 Comments

In the previous post Malc suggested the “utter madness” of a grand coalition between bitter foes, the SNP and Labour, but pointed out reasons why it may be beneficial for both sides. To my mind, it is simply impossible. There is no love lost between the two parties and the visceral hatred that does exist is an insurmountable barrier, a barrier all the more strange as the two parties are not really so dissimilar. Perhaps opposites attract after all.

With that in mind, I’m going to go one better than Malc’s ‘crazy concept’ of an SNP/Labour coalition and that is to suggest an SNP/Conservative coalition. Yes, that’s right, thinking the unthinkable but you can call me names and throw things at the end but please hear me out.

For a start, the cuts are on their way, there’s no avoiding that so, if you can’t beat them, join them. The SNP could even use the Tories as a shield in the same way that the Tories are using the Lib Dems as a shield down south. Imagine putting Annabel Goldie up to bat to defend health cuts against a baying media scrum.

And hey, let’s be honest, the two parties get on very well indeed, arguably the best relationship among the four main parties. At the top, Annabel Goldie and Alex Salmond do not enjoy a working relationship, which could be a problem, but I envisage Annabel calling it a day at the next election, if the electorate do not decide to call it a day for her. Whichever of the young Tory turks were to take over, I would imagine there would be enough personal chemistry between the two parties for a stable Government to be formed, something along the following lines:

Alex Salmond – First Minister
Murdo Fraser/Derek Brownlee – Deputy First Minister & Education Secretary
John Swinney – Finance Secretary
Nicola Sturgeon – Health Secretary
Kenny MacAskill – Justice Secretary
Derek Brownlee/Murdo Fraser – Business Secretary
and so on and so forth…

Furthermore, the numbers make this prospect all the more possible if the Lib Dems haemorrhage seats, as current polling and knowledgable talking heads suggests they will do.

Let’s say the election result was:

Labour – 47 seats
SNP – 45 seats
Conservatives – 20 seats
Lib Dems – 10 seats
Greens – 6
BNP – 1

Labour, being the biggest party, unofficially receives the first chance to form a coalition. The Grand Coalition fails to take off (sorry Malc), a coalition with the Conservatives isn’t even entertained and the Lib Dems and Greens don’t offer enough seats. The Conservatives see their ‘Scottish Tory moment’ and let it be known that the SNP can have their referendum if a deal can be reached.

This is where timing would come into it.

An election has just been held so there isn’t another one for four long years, an election that will be taking place at the same time as (perhaps even on the same date as) the Westminster election in May 2015. The SNP will probably suffer in that election for the same reasons as why they suffered this May due to the TV leader debates and being squeezed out of the national spotlight. So, why not go for the ‘all-in’ strategy of an unholy alliance and take the only independence referendum that is open to them?

Sure, many Scots would go absolutely mental, I mean heads would explode kind of thing (not least of which would be Iain Gray himself) but the SNP/Tory administration would have four years to win them round, a philosophy that Nick Clegg has clearly adopted down South.

Ok, there’s the minor issue of the SNP having a clause in its statute book saying that it will not form coalitions with the Conservatives. I admit that would be a problem. However, if that could be erased in a Blair-esque ‘Clause IV moment’ or even an informal deal could be reached on a confidence-and-supply basis, some sort of deal is doable.

The Conservatives need some way back into Scotland’s hearts and the SNP needs some way past the Unionist blockade in order to achieve independence.

Perhaps this unholy alliance could act as divine intervention for both parties.

Coalition: sense or sensitivity?

Sep 7

Posted by Malc in Elections, Holyrood | 16 Comments

Looking forward to May 2011 and the Scottish Parliamentary election, I think the smart money is probably on a minority Labour administration (assuming current poll figures and mentalities within the ‘Scottish’ Labour party – and also a backlash to the lack of a referendum, though I seem to be in the minority in thinking this). Nevertheless, here’s a concept I’m floating, in the main because it seems so crazy: a Labour-SNP administration.

It’s crazy right? I mean, at the grassroots level they hate each other. Their campaigns are aimed at drawing votes from the other, most often in negative slogans and attacks on policies; their representatives have engaged in such Punch-and-Judy politics (see, Foulkes, G. who could not even bring himself to congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on her marriage) that you can’t even imagine them sitting next to each other in the canteen never mind around a government table; and, well, they won’t even engage with each other (see budget negotiations 2008, 2009, 2010). They also have the added distraction that at the moment their combined parliamentary representation would total 93 of the 129 seats in Holyrood – 28 more than required for a minimum-winning coalition. A coalition of these two parties on this scale would be utter madness.

But… it’s not like we’ve not seen this before. Remember the 2005 German Federal election? No?  I forget you’re not all geeks like me. Well, it resulted in the first Chancellorship of Angela Merkel. The two largest parties – Merkel’s (Christian Democratic) CDU/ CSU (226) and former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s (Social Democratic) SDP (222) – won 448 of the 614 seats in the Bundestag.  Neither an SDP-Green-PDS (left) nor CDU/CSU-FDP (liberal) coalition was workable, so after some negotiation, the two largest parties formed a coalition which lasted until the 2009 election.

Rhodri Morgan and Ieuan Wyn JonesAlso, in Wales – which I guess is a more similar case – Labour and Plaid Cymru decided on coalition in 2007, despite reservations among their respective memberships and similar tension to that between the SNP and Labour at the grassroots level. Combined, they have a total of 41 of the 60 seats in the National Assembly and have worked together to establish the All-Wales Convention as part of the coalition agreement, as well as leading the charge for a referendum on expanding the powers of the Assembly.

So from the two examples above we can see that a) dominant parties in particular systems can work together and b) Labour can work with nationalists. And a Labour-SNP (or SNP-Labour) coalition would have its advantages. For a start, they could combine to offer a much stronger, united, Scottish voice against the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition at Westminster. Whatever else they are, Labour are pro-devolution (of sorts), and would like the Scottish Parliament to have more powers while the SNP… well, a gradual increase in powers is better than nothing for them. Also, for Labour, this may be their only chance to have meaningful power in the UK for the foreseeable future (opposition beckons at Westminster for a long-ish time while the Welsh Assembly hardly has the levers of power Labour are used to). And both parties are “social democrats” (in loose terms James – don’t batter me for that definition!) so their policy formulations are not too dissimilar.

I know. I know. It’s crazy talk.  This is politics we’re talking about.  The negatives of such a deal would always outweigh the positives. And I guess one thing I should have mentioned about the German case is that the SDP got slaughtered at the next election. So there’s always a big loser. But in so many ways this makes sense. It’s just a shame that ‘sense’ does not always dictate how politics works.

NB – This post was written before James’ post (and, indeed, before the Sunday polls came out) but after Hamish Macdonnell’s Cal Merc piece (which I never read until James’ post cited it).  It was also written before yesterday’s debate on the dropping of the referendum bill, which doesn’t quite render the idea irrelevant, but means it is moving in that direction. It probably also directly answers/ comments on Andrew BOD’s comment on James’ post.

Tags: , ,

Paradise Lost

Sep 6

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, Holyrood | 52 Comments

John Milton’s classic poem ‘Paradise Lost’ had the stated purpose of justifying the ways of God to men and elucidating the conflict between God’s foresight and free will. For the SNP’s particular view of paradise, Alex Salmond may have to elucidate and justify the foresight that he is claiming to possess (not to mention free will that he is exerting) over the best route to his party’s paradisical view of independence.

There are many reasons why the SNP will have decided to not push any further with its somewhat bruised and battered Referendum Bill but the most pertinent of these reasons is that there is now insufficient time to vote on it, discuss it and actually pass it before next year’s elections.

Further to having it passed in sufficient time, there are also good reasons why the SNP should have made sure that they pushed as hard as possible to implement their manifesto commitment of holding an independence referendum in the past few years, not least because they are now leaving themselves wide open to charges of hypocrisy (as these quotes from SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson regarding the Lisbon Treaty show)

On Labour:

It is no wonder there is so much cynicism about politicians and the political process, when parties like Labour vote to deny the country the referendum they promised, and the Liberal Democrats sit on their hands.

On Lib Dems:

“the Lib Dems promised a popular vote on the failed EU Constitution in their 2005 manifesto, and just yesterday a poll showed that Lib Dem voters back a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty by more than two to one. Calamity Clegg is not only out of touch with public opinion, he’s clearly out of step with his own party. At one fell swoop he’s broken a manifesto promise, divided his MPs and lost his authority as party leader.”

Is there much difference between Labour’s aversion to a Lisbon Treaty referendum and the SNP’s aversion to putting forward an independence referendum?

Well, there is actually. In ‘publishing’ a white paper, the SNP has matched what it stated as one of its priorities in its 2007 referendum:

“Publication of a White Paper, encompassing a Bill, detailing the concept of Scottish independence in the modern world as part of preparations for offering Scots the opportunity to decide on independence in a referendum, with a likely date of 2010.”

The “likely date” of 2010 never did come to pass but there is no unbroken pledge in there as far as I can see.

Of course, this is technical details and politicking that we are all supposed to be moving away from though one wonders just how far into the future the SNP was thinking when it penned its popular 2007 manifesto. However, the bottom line is – surely believing in and arguing for your principles is more important than ducking the argument because you know you are going to lose; as was the case with Lisbon and is the case now.

So, how smart the politics of all of this is remains to be seen but it is worth mentioning that this seemingly newly adopted strategy is a departure from what the perceived plan for this parliamentary term was for the Nationalists – namely to have a Referendum Bill voted down by the Unionist parties and then take their case and their umbrage to the people at the 2011 election.

The current situation is more nuanced and involves pros and cons for Alex Salmond as he tries to beat off the strong challenge from Labour, (if not strong specifically from Iain Gray). The White Paper was called ‘Your Scotland, Your Choice’ and so it remains as we are back to hearing the same arguments as we did in 2007.

Advantages to dropping the Bill

– The Bill has not been blemished by the stain of parliamentary defeat so maintains a purity that may invite public popularity while simultaneously repelling attacks from opposing parties.

– One cannot reasonably take a rejected proposal to the people to ‘let them have their say’ when those same people’s representatives have just voted down that same policy proposal. Although we know what the result would have been had a vote taken place, an independence referendum is as valid a topic for discussion as, say, the economy and education, if Parliament hasn’t just had its say on the matter.

– Party morale will remain higher knowing that it won’t just be an SNP majority or SNP/Green coalition that can deliver a referendum, as would have been the case if each of Labour, Lib Dems and Tories had just voted no to a referendum in late 2010.

– With unionist MPs from both sides of the border already having considered backing a referendum in order to end the issue once and for all, there is every chance that such a view may be taken once more after the heat of an election contest has faded and the posturing gives way to consensus-building.

Disadvantages to dropping the Bill

– this adds credence to the various suggestions that the SNP has broken too many of the manifesto commitments that carried it into Government in the first place (LIT, dumping student debt, class sizes, PE in schools, free fruit in schools, Scottish Futures Trust). The din will soon be a cacophony, with varying degrees of justification for each pledge.

– a sceptical public may wonder at the lack of urgency from the SNP, urging Scotland to be independent for its economy’s sake, but reluctant to get on with discussing the merits of holding a referendum which would get us there and oddly content to procrastinate on the matter.

– What was the National Conversation for, not to mention the civil service hours spent on referendum questions, if the corresponding Bill wasn’t even going to be put before Parliament? Money has been wasted in the past four years and, given the cuts that are on their way, that could be a damaging mistake if the amount is quantified and significant.

Were Labour to win power next year and the SNP to find themselves coming through their perfect storm and into the calmer but unwanted waters of Opposition with little to nothing to show for it, history may not be kind to the Nationalists with regards its tactics on independence and the 2007-2011 parliamentary term.

The situation would beg the question – how did a decades-old Nationalist party, having formed the first Government in its history, fail to put a Referendum Bill before Parliament and argue their case for independence in the national Parliament in the full glare of the public and the national media?

I do not know how Holyrood works in detail but, for the SNP’s sake and if there is still time, this Referendum Bill should be put before MSPs as the strawman that it is and Gray, Goldie and Scott should be forced into voting it down. Only then can the opposition leaders be clearly painted as the obstacles to Scots having a say on Scotland’s future.

I am sure historians would pick better words than these but ‘bottled it’ might be the settled historical opinion if this reported rethink on a referendum is realised.

Indeed, Alex Salmond famously claimed that Gordon Brown was ‘the feartie fae Fife’ but the First Minister’s not very brave manoeuvrings with this referendum could ironically peg him as ‘the bottler fae Banff’.

Paradise lost? Power lost? Party leader lost? We could see the SNP selecting a new party leader in mid-2011 if this all goes horribly wrong and, amidst the internal conflict that that would inevitably cause, also the prospect of the Nats remaining in Opposition for a few parliamentary terms to come. Poetic justice perhaps for those outwith the SNP who have so consistently failed to shine in Salmond’s shadow.

This is an enormous decision for the SNP and, while there is still all to play for for the Nats, there is also everything to lose.

Is Labour minority now the most likely outcome?

Sep 5

Posted by James in Holyrood | 13 Comments

Graphic based on Mail on Sunday pollThe Holyrood electoral system was explicitly designed to make one-party majority virtually impossible, some say to “dish the Nats”. Sure enough, eight years of stable but unambitious coalition have been followed by three years of stable minority administration.

The polls suggest Parliament has settled into a relatively constant formation, with two large parties competing for first place, two medium sized parties competing for third place, then Greens and sometimes others. The most obvious coalition shapes are a large party plus a medium party, given the unlikelihood of the grand coalition.

To narrow that down still further, the Tory brand has never been properly decontaminated in Scotland, despite the odd sensible young buck on their Holyrood benches, and neither Labour nor the SNP could formally go into coalition with them here. You can’t point and shout at London cuts implemented by your Deputy First Minister’s Ministers at Westminster.

This also means the Tories’ partners down south are also off the table come May next year, at least as far as Ministerial office goes. To my mind, this leaves a limited range of options for the next Scottish Government. They are, starting with the most likely (based on current polling):

  1. Labour minority. They’ve seen how it’s worked for the SNP, and they quite like the idea of not having to share office, even if they’d share power with Parliament.
  2. Labour supported by another party more informally. The Confidence and Supply model might allow them to be propped up by the Lib Dems, or potentially by Green MSPs.
  3. SNP minority supported through Confidence and Supply. It’s hard to see them coming out ahead of Labour in May, semi-irrelevant though that is for making a majority.
  4. Either an SNP or a Labour formal coalition with the Greens. Again, looking at the numbers, it’s even less likely for the SNP and Green votes to make 65, so that alone puts Labour as the most likely partner. On the pro-side for either large party, we’re not contaminated by Westminster. However, the actual policy differences would be stark, starker than the (non-constitutional) differences between the two largest parties themselves.

Today’s poll in the Mail on Sunday is just another straw in the wind, but it is clearly blowing against the SNP and also the Lib Dems. I haven’t seen a non-SNP-commissioned poll which had them close to Labour at the top, and it’s been a while since the Lib Dems were as close to the Tories as they used to be. This one is also current, conducted this week, unlike the last one to get attention, which was from early August.

Voting intention
Constituency/list/seats

Constituency:
Labour: 39%/36%/55 (+9)
SNP: 29%/26%/35 (-12)
Tory: 16%/15%/18 (+1)
Lib Dem: 11%/12%/16 (0)
Green: na/6%/4 (+2)
Other: 5%/5%/0

(note, I used Weber Shandwick’s predictor, and am not sure if it reflects the new boundaries. Either way, the result was one more Green MSP than John Curtice estimated for the Mail on Sunday)

Again, the SNP couldn’t form a two-party majority with anyone except Labour, and SNP plus Green plus either Lib Dem or Tory isn’t a majority either. Conversely, Labour would only ever need any one of the three largest parties to win any given vote, and given how well Bruce Crawford’s dealt with the need to find Labour or two others, that would look pretty tempting.

This would be a radically changed Holyrood after May. A massive swath of the SNP back benches would be out after one term, and the fight for first and second place would be very clear. Salmond would surely be gone as leader, too, despite the desperate counter-polling, which would almost certainly lead to a mouthwatering contest.

Labour’s substantial lead over the SNP in voting intention would put them 20 seats ahead, yet the Lib Dems’ constituency strengths mean they wouldn’t fall much behind the Tories. The gap for third would still be very clear, though, at least in votes. As Malc suggests, if you back the Coalition, why vote Lib Dem instead of Tory? The Green Group would double in size but no longer hold the balance of power. One wee thought – an extra one percent on the Green list vote from the Lib Dems, and we’re up three more to seven. It’s going to be a hard-fought eight months.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,