Is this the end of ‘Scottish’ Labour?

Left Strategy, Political Parties, Scottish Policy Sep 26, 2012 24 Comments

It is hard not to conclude that Johann Lamont has retreated into a fantasy land. Cancelling devolution, retreating into local government and turning to the right to align herself with London Labour might solve her internal squabbles. But what does any of this have to do with Scotland?

It took me a while to work out what was going on in Johann Lamont’s mind after I read her speech yesterday. I usually get a fairly quick feel for the ‘big idea’ when I see political repositioning but this took me a little while. Because usually I think in terms of left-right (i.e. political ideology) and campaign strategy (how can we win the thing we want to win?). In both cases there was an analysis but it didn’t make a lot of sense.

Just to recap the new strategy for Scottish Labour as set out by Ms Lamont:

  • Abolish free care for the elderly
  • Abolish free concessionary travel for the elderly
  • Introduce top-up fees for university students
  • End the Council Tax freeze
  • Reduce the number of apprenticeships
  • Reintroduce charging for prescriptions

This is a sharp turn to the right, an outright rejection of the universal welfare state and a relaunch of the doctrines of Blairism. And before I get any of the ‘oh but we’ll target the freed-up money at the poor’ nonsense from Scottish Labour, that’s what Blair said. Unfortunately, it somehow never happens. Meanwhile the very underpinning of the Labour philosophy of the state (from the cradle to the grave and all of that) is dropped. It makes no more sense to say ‘why should poor college students pay for the education of rich university students’ than it does to say ‘why should poor cleaners pay for the heart operations on rich bankers’. If you’re going to end universalism, one way or another, sooner or later, it means the end of the NHS. We have seen this in England where it will son be all but gone as a universal public service. And Ms Lamont can object all she wants, it is the only theoretical end-point for the sorts of arguments on which she is now basing her leadership.

But since Blairism went down so poorly in Scotland, where’s the political strategy? I can see the usual flow charts and ‘voter segmentation diagrams’ somewhere in a strategy office. I can see a group of pointy-heads standing around fretting about ‘differentiation’. I can understand how some politicians have been heavily lobbied by (in effect) the Scottish financial sector on the need for ‘credibility’ and ‘good housekeeping’. I can even imagine the right-leaning columnists giving Labour credit for ‘facing up to reality’. I just can’t see how these things add up to a political strategy. Floating a set of policies which negatively hit virtually every voter in the country is usually seen as unwise, especially when the big idea is ‘more money to councils and colleges’. I can see my neighbours skipping down to the chemist to pay for their medicines whistling joyfully in the knowledge that Glasgow City Council will have more money to create directorships for more Labour councillors on ALEOs.

So when nothing makes sense, follow the money. Or more accurately on this occasion the benefits. Who benefits from this? Well, first the Labour local government sector which gets loads of name-check. I’m a big supporter of local government but even I started to find the emphasis on councils disproportionate. I tried to think who in Labour would like this. I concluded that Westminster Labour would be very happy. So local-government-Labour will like it and Westminster-Labour would like it. And that is two thirds of Scottish Labour’s warring factions. If – and it seems a big if to me – Scottish-Parliament-Labour can be persuaded that this is good for them, it solves Ms Lamont’s short-term problems, uniting the three warring factions of her Party.

The local government people get the nod that she sees them as Labour’s real power-base in Scotland. They get promises of more and more devolution of resource to them. Westminster Labour and all those under-employed, permanently sniping Scottish Labour MPs get what they’d really like, Scottish Labour un-differentiating itself from the London Party. And, presumably, the Scottish MSPs are being offered a truly differentiating position. They may be sold this on the basis that Labour can’t win a head-to-head with the SNP fighting for the same policies and so they need to fight on a different platform.

So Labour has now (it hopes) found a way to reconcile the three most important groups to itself. There is a problem though – you may have noticed that the three most important groups to Scottish Labour are all – well – Scottish Labour. Nowhere in this strategy is there any consideration of the public, of people. I fear that this is not a relaunch of Scottish Labour but something approaching its final demise. The more it tries to find a way to regain its place in Scottish politics, the more it seems to reflect itself obsessively.

But what is most awful of all is when you explain this strategy in simple language. Lamont wants to unite Labour by cancelling devolution. That’s the only way I can read this. She has systematically gone through every area where the Scottish Parliament (largely through the actions of Labour itself) has differentiated itself from Westminster politics and she has abolished the differentiator. The big selling point of devolution was Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. Scotland’s biggest problem has been that it really likes a strong welfare state and adheres to the principle of universalism. It has voted this way over and over. Yesterday it seems that Lamont called time on this experiment. She has signalled her intention to pull the party in line with the UK Party, means testing everything, breaking down universalism, championing fiscal conservatism. Meanwhile, she seems to see the real strength of Labour in Scotland as being in local government.

This should perhaps come as less of a surprise than it does. Lamont was always a reluctant devolutionists and has a tendency to identify with Labour first, Scotland second. She never liked proportional voting and that in itself is a signifier of someone who likes the political cartel approach to politics. It is like she has absorbed so much ‘Better Together’ rhetoric that it is now her defining belief in politics, that Scotland must be pulled into Britain, that Labour must become first-and-foremost unionist.

It is a retreat into two comfort zones from different decades. From the late-1990s she takes Blairism which was superficially effective (although not in Scotland). From the 1980s she takes a model in which the real power of Labour is held in two places – Westminster and local government. Both are fantastical memories of times past, neither seem to me to offer a way forward. I have come across very few people who have seen Scotland’s future as becoming more like the rest of Britain again. Even Cameron sees further differentiation as inevitable. Even many of the Scottish Tories see the future that way.

There is only one other interpretation – that Lamont is a sleeper agent for the Yes Campaign. Far from offering more devolution (something she has been trying desperately not to do) she is offering less. She is offering Scotland the chance to do as it is told. Even the anti-independence people I know see the future of the UK as more diverse politically. Lamont is a wholly new kind of unionist. The No campaign wants to offer Edinburgh-and-London as a balanced partnership in opposition to ‘Scotland alone’. With this, Lamont is not helping them.

And so I am simply dumbfounded. The snap reactions have all been that this is suicide because each of the things she attacked is popular. That is true – I fear for anyone having to sell that manifesto. But there is a greater existential issue about the relationship between Scotland and Labour. If you ask me, this is not only suicide, it is suicide-and-damnation all rolled up into one. If you support a welfare state and Scotland having the ability to follow its own path, this leaves the SNP or the Greens. If you want an end to the welfare state and Scotland to toe the line, there is the Tories. Labour will lose badly on this prospectus. The fact that this is not the real risk to the Party is, to my mind, staggering. Because the real risk is that after it loses, Scotland will struggle to remember why it identified with Labour in the first place. We like devolution, we don’t want it put in reverse.

It was a badly written speech. Oh well, few political speeches these days are worth remembering. But this one is. It is the moment when Labour pretended it was going to tear off to the right and abolish devolution. This speech is memorable for being possibly the most ‘politically risky’ in generations. And by ‘politically risky’ I mean inept.

So why did I write ‘pretend’? Because I very strongly doubt this will happen. That is the strategic stupidity of it. She has said that all of these policies are fundamentally wrong, but she is just not going to be able to follow-through. She can’t reverse them all. So now she is going to have to stand up and defend policies she has rubbished. Irrespective of left or right, that is inept.

Who is advising her? Who was consulted? How could this happen? Many people thought they’d seen Scottish Labour at its lowest ebb. I now very much doubt that. I wouldn’t want to be a Labour politicians in Scotland, and I would be sweating nervously if I was running the No Campaign.

This is insane. The ‘Scottish’ in Scottish Labour has to fight back. The ‘Labour’ in ‘labour movement’ has to fight back. Presumably a left-of-centre voter like me is the sort of person Labour might like to vote for it. So what is it offering me? What reason do I have to choose Labour? One wonders how much longer any progressive element left in Scottish Labour can stick this out. One wonders how long Labour has left as a credible force in Scottish politics.

Robin McAlpine


24 Responses to “Is this the end of ‘Scottish’ Labour?”

  1. Doug Daniel says:

    Stunning, Robin. Absolutely stunning. You’ve joined the dots that were staring us all right in the face here. I noticed her emphasis on 1,400 jobs at risk in Labour-led North Lanarkshire council and thought this was her trying to lay the groundwork for such job losses to be presented as “unavoidable” and the fault of the SNP. But I think you’ve managed to show that it goes far beyond that.

    Labour has lost its grip of Holyrood, and can’t figure out how to get it back. We all know that even if the referendum ends in a NO vote, the SNP will be the biggest party in Holyrood in 2016. So is this Labour facing up to that reality and deciding to just completely circumnavigate it, to try and get around the SNP by winning Westminster in 2015 and then dealing directly with their local councils, and blaming funding problems on the Scottish Government? It certainly looks like it.

    Lamont’s performances on Scotland Tonight and Newsnicht last night can be summed up as thus: “blah blah blah SNP’s fault blah blah blah we need to start a debate blah blah blah no I’m not saying that, I’m saying we need to start a debate blah blah blah the lady’s not for turning, there is no alternative, I’m all right, Jack, hello, my name is Margaret Thatcher and I’ve come to crush you rebellious Scots.”

    The referendum is now officially a left vs right dogfight. If you believe in universal benefits and social justice, you need to vote for independence. If you believe in means testing and the privatisation of public services, vote for the union and then you’ll have three flavours of neoliberalist to vote for. Which makes sense really – after all, the right are always on about “choice”…

  2. patkane says:

    Lamont’s performances on TV have been terrible and faltering – a sign that even she’s not clear about the position. It could sound like a re-statement of the Micheal Keating line – that independence politics will have to figure out how to make the argument for more taxes to support Scandi-style welfare universalism (which can sustain national prosperity and capacity, not reduce it). But this is perhaps a politics that a democratic-socialist party might hold AFTER the country has full resource and fiscal autonomy. To take that aspiration – and honesty about higher taxation is something both Greens and non-Orange-Book Lib-Dems argue for – and render it as Blairism-within-Westminster-budgets, just seems like tactical madness. Or, the dying spasm of Scottish Labour held in a Westminster death-grip. I can’t see their party integrity lasting these next two years on this platform – not remotely. The question is whether a “Scottish Left”, building around the Yes vote, can begin to coalesce. Reid Foundation, step forward…

  3. Craig says:

    This is an unbelievable analysis. It’s rare I can think of nothing to add to a debate, but you are spot on Robin and have left me speechless. I’m tweeting this article to EVERYONE.

  4. The Lady is for Turning | says:

    […] You are left with the realisation that Lamont and her advisors really think people will be motivated to vote to remove free bus travel for OAP’s. In Cameron’s austerity Britain that appears to be the most pressing issue for the Labour Party in Scotland. As Robin McAlpine sugests: “This is a sharp turn to the right, an outright rejection of the universal welfare state and a… […]

  5. Hydraargyrum says:

    I was content to previously give her the benefit of the doubt. Not now. Let there be no doubt that the Labour Party is a “Top Down” organization. I had hopes that Johann Lamont was proof of the opposite. But not after today. Labour activists, not just in Scotland but in the rest of the UK, need to work as hard as they can to return their party to its founding principles. Keir Hardie would be birling in his grave…..

  6. lochee says:

    I am reminded of the line about political suicide notes of which this is one *shakes head*

  7. douglas clark says:

    This is the clearest analysis yet of what has just happened. And you are right, this is a sticking plaster over an internal labour party wound. It has nothing whatsoever to do with public facing politics.

    Quite how they will ‘sell’ either that policy or deal with the toxicity that will now attach to a ‘no’ vote beggars belief.

    She may obtain internal unity but all I see is a wasteland.

  8. ChasP says:

    I think with the mainstream media,supporting Lamont they will bombard the public with misinformation,to turn as many as they can to follow the Thatcher way/Lamont way.
    She has the support of the Tories and the newspapers are Tory owned,and they see Labour ,as it is at present,to be a tame puppy,who will obey whatever London dictates,its not over this is just the start of the dirty tricks.
    The Daily Record has already given its backing in Wednesday’s editors opinion,just watch the media back her and push through the lazy money for nothing attitude.

  9. Johann Lamont and the politics of resentment | says:

    […] has been much analysis of Johann Lamont’s controversial speech on Tuesday. Robin McAlpine wrote perceptively about a retreat from devolution and the end of “Scottish” Labour. The fact […]

  10. Universalism | says:

    […] whether that’s on the environment, on land, on social policy or on health. In fact as the Reid Foundation points out: “If you’re going to end universalism, one way or another, sooner or later, it […]

  11. AndyEdinburgh says:

    JL was spot on 100% .
    I live in Edinburgh and see council services being slashed or now charged for while bankers and their like in the posh parts of Edinburgh have saved thousands thanks to the council tax freeze.
    OAPS freezing to death in Scotland with fuel poverty at an all time high in Scotland yet we give more freebies to the well off.
    We are losing nurses and midwives in droves ,we are closing hospital wings down to save £,s.
    Yet we give the rich free scripts.
    Food banks are popping up all over the place but you will not see the rich there.
    So if you want Scotland to treat its poor and vulnerable correctly then we must stop giving the rich freebies.

    Andy Edinburgh

  12. hamishkirk47 says:

    She has guaranteed that Labour will lose a great deal of support. She is either a paid agent of the SNP oir, morer probably, just not very bright. Remember the Labour Party Appartchiks decided lang ago, as supporters of the Union, that their CLEVER people should head for Westminster !

  13. hamishkirk47 says:

    Lets have inspectors at the gates of public pares and at the doors of public libraries checking that only poor people get in there for nothing !

    More seriously I have not been a great fan of the Guardian since it moved its spiritual home from Manchester to Hampstead but this is a good analysis

  14. BuchanLoon says:

    In the very least this is a bizarrely timed move, one could see London Labour moving their party to the right on welfare and NHS reform over the course but to do it at a time of such constitutional uncertainty in Scotland? Scotland has a tradition of social justice and egalitarian politics that stretches back beyond the previous century. Socially and culturally the Scottish structure has always been much flatter than our Anglican neighbors and since the days of John MacLean we have respected the notion of social justice and the redistribution. To brazenly throw these principles out seems to simply be calling Scottish Labour’s base supports bluff. Do they truly believe SLP’s base in the central belt care more for the Union than they do for their traditional socially responsible principles? Do they believe they can afford to concede the centre left to the SNP so emphatically? After all it will only take a relatively small swing toward the YES campaign and the Union shall continue but minus Scotland. This shift would seem to hit them hardiest in the central and urban area. Parts of Scotland were this may be an easier sell Labour are less of a factor so it’s not going to benefit them much in rural areas such as the NE, borders or Highlands. It’s this same central belt that so long eluded the SNP and prevented them making the national break thru so recently achieved so conceding this ground seems all the more questionable. Have I been underestimating the love of the Union all these years? Shirley not! Small nations, small energy rich nations who wisely invest in their infra-structure, people and country can retain a social concise in the face of “I’m all right Jack” policy. Free education, universal health provision and compassion for the weak and elderly in our nation is not something we as Scots should apologize for, its something that we should trumpet and use to put clear water between the YES campaign and the “hoodies that cry doom”. The choice in 2014 will be stark and simple thanks to this London driven stake thru the heart of Scotland’s Labour Party.

  15. Wings Over Scotland | Putting the boot in says:

    […] IS THIS THE END OF SCOTTISH LABOUR? (Robin McAlpine for the Jimmy Reid Foundation) […]

  16. Wings Over Scotland | One nation under St George says:

    […] week we linked to an excellent piece by Robin McAlpine of the Jimmy Reid Foundation. Speaking of the apparent insanity of Scottish […]

  17. Does Liam Byrne & Johann Lamont’s Attack on Welfare & Universal Benefits Signal The End of The Union? Posted on October 4, 2012 by JJ - | says:

    […] the new ‘Suicide Party’ following universal benefit-cutting ‘radical policy re-think’ Is this the end of ‘Scottish’ Labour? ~ The Jimmy Reid Foundation ‘We’ve had the debate: Universalism won’ ~ The Jimmy Reid […]

  18. Leaps of Faith | BaffieBox says:

    […] fees, prescription charges and personal care if we are to trust Patricia Ferguson and her party? No. These simple questions, on major policy areas, show a massive amount of uncertainty should […]

  19. Where Does it End? | BaffieBox says:

    […] general platform she is building has been roundly criticised here and here, but that she is now providing some detail demonstrates Scottish Labour are fully […]

  20. For a’ that an a’ that, it has been a good year for the Yes campaign | says:

    […] Johann Lamont and Labour’s decision to mount an assault on universalism and Scottish distinctiveness/devolution was astonishing and could be the single most important factor in the run up to the referendum. The […]

  21. Wings Over Scotland | 2012: Unity Of The Year says:

    […] IS THIS THE END OF SCOTTISH LABOUR? (Robin McAlpine for the Jimmy Reid Foundation) […]

  22. Lamont Finally Admits What We Knew All Along | Sex Worker Blogs says:

    […] one gives good insight into the political consequences of SLAB’s swing to the right – This one gives an excellent trade union angle on the traitors’ abandonment of universalism […]

  23. Labour’s retreat from Home Rule | says:

    […] to the UK level (eg prescription charges, care for the elderly, tuition fees). As Robin McAlpine wrote in 2012 at the time of Lamont’s “something for nothing” speech, “Lamont wants to unite […]

Leave a Reply

You must be to post a comment.