Scottish Labour needs yes-voters not yes-men & yes-women.

Saturday’s Scottish Executive Committee meeting will be remembered for preceding the bitter resignation of Jim Murphy but as a Constituency Labour Party (CLP) representative, I left the meeting feeling bitter too.

I was incredibly shocked and disappointed by those who denounced Scottish Labour “infighting” and praised the SNP for their party discipline; referencing the SNP’s generic, general election victory speeches. There was even some referencing of the SNP’s rules on public criticism, which due to changes to the SNP’s standing orders earlier in the year, now state that no MPs shall “publicly criticise a group decision, policy or another member of the group”.

As Scottish Labour’s parliamentary candidate in Perth and North Perthshire, I remember visiting SNP MP, Pete Wishart’s, online Twitter account for the first time and thinking to myself that members’ interaction with him was more like that of a cult leader than an MP. As a result I certainly was not surprised when I read about the change in the SNP’s standing orders. Initially my concern was the impact that this no-criticism culture would have if translated to scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament. However, my concern now is its impact on the Scottish Labour Party.

When I used to live in Northern England the most common thing voters would say to Labour activists on their doorsteps was that “you’re all the same”. In Scotland, that is not the case. In Scotland that is replaced with a look of “I don’t believe what you’re telling me”.

To regain trust in Scotland, Scottish Labour must recognise the importance of having elected representatives who are intrinsically motivated and are willing to speak up when needed. Having candidates and elected representatives whose primary concerns are their personal relationships with the leadership or their career will not bring about the changes that Scottish Labour requires to once more aspire to government.

I personally believe that it was the failure of a previous Labour government to defend working people from big business that was a major factor in the shift in support to the SNP. For this reason it essential that our elected representatives at all levels posses the courage to stand up for working people.   In the coming weeks there will be a lot of discussion regarding what is best for the Scottish Labour Party but let us not fear debate but embrace it. It is my belief that many Labour policies coming out of Westminster are too focused around winning votes in the South East of England and do not reflect what voters want in Scotland.

Scottish Labour must accept that 45% of Scots voted Yes in the referendum. I believe that regardless of the formal links, control over Scotland’s economy would still remain ultimately in the hands of British capital and the British State and for this reason it essential for Scots to maintain influence over the UK Parliament, which could be used to protect working people in Scotland.

However, that does not prohibit Scottish Labour from becoming fully independent from the UK Labour Party. The message that “we stand up for Scotland” is simple and it is easy to imagine that an independent Scottish Labour Party would be electorally appealing to voters, especially if it adopted the anti-austerity and anti-Trident stance that – I personally feel – Scotland is screaming out for.

If the independent party went further than the SNP, by engaging in class politics and challenging big business, I think the “infighting” that would be required to create an independent Scottish Labour Party could enable electoral success and the improvement of working people’s lives.

Scott Nicholson

Jim Murphy resigns as Scottish Labour Leader

Today’s SEC was, to put it mildly, something out of the ordinary.

The meeting was presented with a report on the general election that focused on the organisational aspects of the campaign. However, it swiftly moved on to concerns about the political message and of course the leadership, when a motion of no confidence in Jim Murphy as Scottish Labour Leader was proposed and seconded by representatives from the trade union and CLP sections.

It was an honest, comradely and even good humoured debate, however difficult the analysis might have been. The SEC fell into two broad camps. Those opposing the motion argued that we don’t need another leadership election. Those in favour argued that the party couldn’t move forward with Jim as leader.

It is an endearing feature of the Labour Party that it is reluctant to tell leaders when their time is up. The Tories would have sent in the ‘men in grey kilts’ on Friday morning after the election result. As socialists there is always a willingness to be positive and find a reason for not doing the difficult deed.

Not of course that the Party should have to spell out the obvious to its leader. It is implicit in the arrangements for Scottish Labour Leader that they have to be a parliamentarian. The rules are not explicit because that is obvious and set out clearly in the report recommending the new structure, that Jim Murphy himself co-authored. The Leader of any political party that presides over such a massive defeat resigns. Particularly when the electorate rejected them personally by overturning a big majority.

The SEC accepted many of the positives of the organisation of the campaign. However, it is simply undeniable that the political message was incoherent and the main messenger was not viewed as credible.

The vote came down 14 for and 17 against. However, the 17 included the Chair, Jim and an unelected member of the House of Lords who appeared as a ‘representative’ of the Westminster Parliamentary Labour Party. It appears not even elected by her peers, but appointed by the acting UK party leader. Whoever dreamt up that stunt was showing minuscule political judgement.

So, far from the ‘small minority’ in Jim’s ungracious resignation press conference after the SEC, the motion was supported by a cross section of the party. Those MSP’s who had the courage to step forward and write to the SEC were given more weight than MPs who had lost their seats.

Of course Scottish Labour’s problems are not all down to Jim Murphy. But he didn’t just appear six months ago. He embodies many of the reasons the voters rejected Labour in this election and therefore was just not credible as the messenger that the party has changed. If Scottish Labour is to move forward it has to have a leader that doesn’t carry such weighty baggage.

The Party now has to move on quickly. Get a new leader in place and address the many challenges it faces. Scotland needs a strong Scottish Labour Party to stand up for working people.

Some post-election thoughts

Well, that wasn’t pretty. As someone who has participated in elections since the age of 12, that one rates alongside 1979 and 1992 in terms of outcome, and possibly worse in terms of the campaign itself.

It was very tempting to jump to instant analysis and solutions, but I have resisted the temptation. I think some analysis is justified, but I believe some careful consideration is needed on solutions, both for Labour and the other political parties as well as those outside the party structures who have to deal with the consequences.

So where are we? Will Hutton, in today’s Observer, summed up in a paragraph the likely failure of a Tory win to address the UK’s major problems; “David Cameron’s Tory party will not reform the structures that make business building so hard. The productivity crisis will continue. R&D will stagnate. The trade deficit will widen. Inequality will grow. Low wages and insecure jobs will proliferate. The housing crisis will deepen. Public services will become more threadbare. Foreign companies will plunder our national jewels. Public service broadcasting will shrink. Human rights and civil liberties will be weakened. Britain will continue to become more marginal in the world.”

The impact on Scotland could be just as serious. Austerity continues with two years of major cuts that the salami slicing of recent years will be unable to paper over. Relationships between Holyrood and Westminster are likely to be a combination of austerity max and grievance max, which again will distract from the need to take long-term decisions. While most nationalists I know would prioritise ending austerity over independence, a right-wing Tory government has long-term benefits for the fundamentalists.

The added factor in this election was the ugly short-termism of the Tories in playing an overtly English nationalist card. The polls in the marginal seats and my discussions with colleagues running campaigns in areas like the Midland’s, makes it clear that the Tories didn’t waste the millions they invested in this aspect of the campaign. As a consequence we have a further batch of Tory MPs who are not unionists at all. They can see that forty fewer Labour MPs and the damage it did to the Labour vote in England was a good thing for their short-term political prospects. This is likely to add fuel to the flames in the coming years.

So what about Labour?

At a UK level there is the predictable Blairite call for a return to the ‘centre ground’, whatever that is. They have spent years undermining Ed Miliband and now they can go public. Retro style may be fashionable, but back to the 90’s isn’t a coherent political strategy for any political party. The UK Labour strategy in this election did offer differentiation, but always fell short of convincing many of those who should have voted for Labour. For example, the employment rights offer was broadly positive, but an ‘inquiry into blacklisting’ was hardly likely to get those who care about fairness in the workplace, queuing up to vote.

Scottish Labour’s problems didn’t start with Jim Murphy’s leadership or the fall out from the referendum. It goes back to the Blair years when even the positives were played down because they didn’t match the New Labour narrative. This played out in Scotland with Labour led administrations that got no credit for taking radically different approaches. For example, it was Labour that abolished the market in NHS Scotland, but was asked to keep it quiet and as a result the SNP claims to be the party that ‘reversed privatisation’.

The same problem played out after 2010. The narrative that Labour’s overspending had caused the crash was allowed to gain credence, because ‘fiscal prudence’ was the narrative that Ed Balls championed.

Then there is the Westminster problem. Too many Scottish Labour MPs gave the impression that they were semi-detached from Scotland. Hostility to the Scottish Parliament and media briefings reinforced that view. The anti-politics driven by the expenses scandal had a more credible outlet in Scotland. Organisation on the ground was weak in seats that have never really been challenged, although in fairness, the same can be said of all parties in ‘safe’ seats. As Rob John’s analysis rightly identified back in February, “The shift to the SNP is the expression not of a mass post-referendum conversion to independence, but of longstanding preferences for self-government within the union”. Most Scottish Labour MPs have been on the wrong side of this trend for years and some even oblivious to it – not helped by an MP becoming a career choice. Student politics then parliamentary researcher may equip you for the Westminster bubble, but not for the real world back in the constituency. Labour simply hasn’t been selecting enough authentic voices with the skills and life stories to be credible. The tragedy of this election is that the good MPs are swept up with the bad.

Aspects of the U.K. campaign didn’t help. Rachael Reeves “we’re not, the party to represent those who are out of work”, was to put it mildly badly thought through. Ed Ball’s reluctance to trumpet the difference in spending plans negated, from a trade union perspective, the best pro-Labour line. This allowed the SNP to claim to be the party to end austerity, even when their numbers didn’t add up. Even when Jim Murphy rightly recognised the importance of a different narrative in Scotland on this, Chuka Umunna went out of his way to undermine the narrative in a shocking campaign interview.

Ed Miliband may never have won over most Scots, but he had a good campaign that went a long way to improve his standing in Scotland. All to often, particularly during the referendum, he came to Scotland badly briefed and it showed. Sadly, that isn’t just down to his poor advisors, certain MPs also gave him poor advice. Whatever my political differences with Tony Blair, his private office would always check the ground out before a visit to Scotland. The only really bright moment was Ed’s speech to this year’s STUC. The failed auto cue seemed to liberate him and we got a speech of passion and content that we needed much, much earlier.

On the short campaign, we should firstly give Jim Murphy some credit. Scottish Labour’s campaign needed an injection of energy and he provided it. The problem was it lacked focus. If you are going to use the New Labour textbook, follow it through. If there was a big idea, a narrative in the jargon, it was lost on me. This is well illustrated by the alcohol at football matches issue. A focus group identified this as an issue for the very ‘Glasgow Man’ that apparently needed to be won over. The problem was that it was never that high in ‘Glasgow Man’s’ agenda and it turned off lots of other groups, particularly women, who were Labour’s strongest demographic. The Democrat’s in the USA learned long ago that collecting issues rarely adds up to a majority.

At the special conference in Edinburgh we were shown a frenetic video that jumped all over the place, but had no focus. It was a metaphor for the campaign. As one activist described it, “The problem is Jim is all over the place. He’s gone from putting a kilt on everything to now talking about socialism. It lacks credibility”. STV Stephen Daisley’s tongue in cheek piece on the manifesto launch caught the mood when he thought it was Neil Findlay not Jim Murphy launching the manifesto.

Iain Macwhirter summed up what a lot of Labour activists were saying privately in his Herald column during the campaign; “But the good that Mr Murphy is doing for Labour is being undermined by the air of contrived frenzy and by an unavoidable scepticism about his sincerity. Maybe Labour is now – as the party claims – more left wing and socialist than the SNP, willing to contemplate renationalisation of rail. But it is hard to see Mr Murphy as Scotland’s answer to Alexis Tsipras – it just doesn’t add up.”

I did a number of meetings and focus groups during the campaign. The participants didn’t have a problem with the kilt or socialism. They just didn’t trust the messenger. Those with some political knowledge referred to his political baggage and questioned the sudden conversion – the others just didn’t trust him. They didn’t like his presentational affectations (he did eventually drop the patronising whisper) and openly said he didn’t sound sincere. Actually many were less polite, but you get the drift.

When you have as much political baggage as Jim Murphy, it is difficult to persuade people of a Damascene conversion. The Iraq War, Trident, tuition fees, Henry Jackson Society etc were all trooped out.  Hiring John McTernan was a further gift. His ‘Thatcher’s economic reforms were a good thing’ and similar was a gift to the SNP – even if Alex Salmond once said something very similar.

So what about some solutions. It isn’t easy because the beauty of nationalism is that there is always someone else to blame for your own shortcomings. Labour also needs to have a calm rethink and I don’t claim to have the answers, but here are a few discussion points.

Party structure. Some activists have argued for an independent Scottish Labour Party. I remain unconvinced that this would be viewed as anything other than a rebranding exercise and doesn’t have enough support amongst activists, who value being party of a UK party. However, a more federal structure is possible enabling Scottish Labour to take control of its own organisation and take different policy positions, not just on devolved issues. This will be all the more important if Labour in England wrongly believes it has to tack to the right.

Constitution. Neutrality or support for independence won’t work because most centre-left, pro-independence voters already think there is a party for them. However, Labour should still offer a home for those who support independence, but recognise that the SNP isn’t a socialist party and accept that the constitution wont always be the first priority. Labour managed these apparent contradictions in the past over issues like Europe and could do so again. Scottish Labour should also emphasise that it has consistently delivered on devolution and will be more radical, which after all is the majority position in Scotland.

Values and policy. Trident replacement is a big millstone around Scottish Labour. Why would you join a party and try to defend the indefensible cost of a useless weapons system. It may not be Scottish voters biggest issue but looks like one policy where changing it could win a lot of people over.

Even more important is values – the ‘what is Scottish Labour for’ question? Lord Ashcroft asked different voters what the main motivation behind their choice was, with 75% of voters saying that trust in the motives and values of their chosen party drove their decision. In the case of the SNP, the number rises to 91%. Among Labour voters, trust in the party’s motives and values drove 75% of their voters, while among Tories it was lower, at 71%. If Labour becomes the ‘whatever works’ party – it’s doomed electorally and why would you want to join it?

Election strategy for 2016 and 17. It was noticeable in the leaders debates that Nicola Sturgeon was much less comfortable defending her own government’s record. It’s easy to say what you would do when you don’t have to deliver in a UK election. In 2016 the SNP will have to defend its record in government over two terms. Labour may benefit both from being the challenger, but it will have to be more radical and have some clear red water on key issues.

Scottish Labour has already started chipping away at the SNP claim to be Scotland’s progressive party. The SNP are very good at rhetoric and process, they are less good at delivery. Issues like fracking, colleges, police, transport and housing, particularly in the private rented sector are all issues on which the broad ideological SNP coalition can be stretched.

These issues also point to a different approach for Scottish Labour. The SNP, both as a party and as a government are instinctive centralists. Differentiation for Labour could be based on greater localism. Not the Tory ‘choice’ localism, but one rooted in new approaches to local democracy. However, this also requires all Labour councillors to recognise that they are part of a political party, not semi-detached local administrators.

Tribalism. I have an instinctive dislike of tribal politics. I can disagree with the SNP on policy issues, particularly their grasp of economics, while acknowledging common ground. I can do the same with the LibDem’s, even occasionally with the Scottish Conservatives, if not their UK counterparts. Labour politicians can be quick to condemn tribal nationalism, but allow their own, sometimes virulent, dislike of the SNP to influence better judgement. It becomes almost a Pavlovian reaction, rather than an objective response based on Labour values.

Leadership. While I didn’t vote for Jim Murphy, I at least understood the views of those who believed he would deliver a sharper campaign. Sadly, it reflected a view of politics that all you need is a sharp marketing strategy, rather than addressing the basics. As it turned out, for the reasons I set out above, the campaign didn’t even have that. A marketing friend of mine, experienced in testing celebrity endorsements, said to me after a focus group session – if this is Labour’s message, then I’m afraid Jim Murphy isn’t the right messenger. Jim was always going to be associated with campaigning alongside the Tories for the No vote – to deliver the new narrative of Scotland’s champion. As for socialism, well his political baggage makes that a very difficult sell.

The question now is arguably less what happened in the campaign, but what is the strategy going forward. Once you have a clearer view of that, you then ask the question – what leader can take that strategy forward? Some members and affiliates have already answered the leadership question; others will have to if Jim Murphy becomes possibly the first leader not to take responsibility for his own campaign.

While long-term trends for Labour are not positive, don’t forget that events outwith your control can also be damaging for any political party. For the Tories, Europe will be a huge challenge, but also an opportunity for distraction from the economy. For the SNP, I wouldn’t rule out the chances of the new Tory English nationalists saying, if Scotland voted for Full Fiscal Responsibility, let them have it – as Boris Johnson is already doing. That really would be Armageddon for public services and must be resisted, but it would highlight to voters how the SNP plays fast and loose with economics. Chinese levels of economic growth wont save the day. However, I suspect Treasury orthodoxy will win through, and for once we should be grateful for that.

For trade unions and more importantly their members, patience with Scottish Labour is running very thin. On the few occasions when advice is asked for, it is often ignored. Unions warned about the second referendum question and Better Together, not to mention many policy issues. Trade unions don’t always get it right, but they are far more rooted in the workplace than anyone in the political bubble. The real risk for Scottish Labour is not just institutional separation, but something far worse – indifference.