UK General Discussion: Rishecession

[EastAnglianLefty]

The argument that Scottish Labour lost because it was insufficiently leftist is undermined by the fact that the SNP isn't either. Scottish Labour lost in 2011 because it was hideously, hilariously incompetent, it lost in 2015 because it was incompetent and unpopular and it's still losing because it's still not viewed as competent, even when the point of comparison is the SNP.

[TheTide]

The argument that Scottish Labour lost because it was insufficiently leftist is undermined by the fact that the SNP isn't either. Scottish Labour lost in 2011 because it was hideously, hilariously incompetent, it lost in 2015 because it was incompetent and unpopular and it's still losing because it's still not viewed as competent, even when the point of comparison is the SNP.

Scottish Labour has long lacked a stand-out communicator from any of its factions. The Scottish Tories reached what was probably close to their ceiling under Davidson due to her being a good communicator. Since her they seem to have also been saddled with nonentities and disasters in the leadership.

[JimJamUK]

Forbes would maybe be the best successor, *but* for the "social conservatism" elephant in the room - and that alone may be enough to in reality sink her chances.

Possibly. But she is fairly pragmatic about them. But being a 'Wee Free' is a bigger liability than social conservatism stemming from it.

Is she actually socially conservative (including politically) or just a member of a church which is? Just seen a graphic from Sky News which states she is against gay marriage and abortion, but a quick Google could only find her opposing abortion (but not necessarily legally) and nothing on gay marriage.

[MABA 2020]

Was never much of a fan of Sturgeon, but she clearly had more political talent than most party leaders these days and credit to her for that.

[afleitch]

The argument that Scottish Labour lost because it was insufficiently leftist is undermined by the fact that the SNP isn't either. Scottish Labour lost in 2011 because it was hideously, hilariously incompetent, it lost in 2015 because it was incompetent and unpopular and it's still losing because it's still not viewed as competent, even when the point of comparison is the SNP.

It's incompetence was built in before that as was it's decline. It was just masked by effective leaders (like Dewar) and nationally driven GE rallies (1987 and 1997) that rose all boats.

It's party machine, campaign style, focus and a swathe of it's MSP's were ripped straight from the local council play book and it was ill suited to what the Parliament could do and what it's supporters wanted.

A mistake Welsh Labour (the model of national consciousness the SNP most, underrated-ly, models itself after) never made.

I did have a big effortpost about this somewhere but can't find it.

[Silent Hunter]

Was never much of a fan of Sturgeon, but she clearly had more political talent than most party leaders these days and credit to her for that.

Indeed. Not very often a politican here can do a surprise resignation like that. It was clear she was damaged by recent stuff, but it wasn't like the Tory ministerial resignations of date.

[Zinneke]

Scottish Labour are not seen as distinctively Scottish.

I've got a question on this : aren't scottish labour at least something like distinctively Scottish given how big the territorial cleavage question is in Scotland? Like its a bit of a paradox but don't Scottish Labour attract both voters who are charmed by their stance on the issue but otherwise apathetic to the economic issue, and also Unionist (in a big U sense, like those guys in Trainspotting 2 but a little less drunk) element whereas down across Hadrian's Wall you may find Labour activists at least quietly supportive of independence/autonomy for the peripheral nations? How does it compare to the PSC in Catalonia (that is regaining its status as a party that unites sane, non-mouth frothing anti-independence electorates)?

Also does Anas Sawar directly take orders from London?

[Blair]

The argument that Scottish Labour lost because it was insufficiently leftist is undermined by the fact that the SNP isn't either. Scottish Labour lost in 2011 because it was hideously, hilariously incompetent, it lost in 2015 because it was incompetent and unpopular and it's still losing because it's still not viewed as competent, even when the point of comparison is the SNP.

It's incompetence was built in before that as was it's decline. It was just masked by effective leaders (like Dewar) and nationally driven GE rallies (1987 and 1997) that rose all boats.

It's party machine, campaign style, focus and a swathe of it's MSP's were ripped straight from the local council play book and it was ill suited to what the Parliament could do and what it's supporters wanted.

A mistake Welsh Labour (the model of national consciousness the SNP most, underrated-ly, models itself after) never made.

I did have a big effortpost about this somewhere but can't find it.

I’d be very interested in reading it- it’s equally criminal how few people in U.K. labour understand why Welsh Labour has been so effective.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Forbes would maybe be the best successor, *but* for the "social conservatism" elephant in the room - and that alone may be enough to in reality sink her chances.

Possibly. But she is fairly pragmatic about them. But being a 'Wee Free' is a bigger liability than social conservatism stemming from it.

Is she actually socially conservative (including politically) or just a member of a church which is? Just seen a graphic from Sky News which states she is against gay marriage and abortion, but a quick Google could only find her opposing abortion (but not necessarily legally) and nothing on gay marriage.

I don't think her church membership will beome a massive issue unless people within the SNP want it to become an issue.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well there must be a decent chance that at least some will, so.....

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Note that the SNP believe in washing their dirty linen in private and technically (!) ban doing so in public. Their members are also good at following the rules and the implications of them. They have as distinctive a culture as Labour does, and if things like e.g. Forbes membership of the Wee Free's become an issue, it's possible that we will never actually know that they did.

[afleitch]

Kate Forbes advocacy is disproportionally coming from outside of the party. Or from people who think THAT ISSUE is of overinflated relevance to the public, the party or to Sturgeon's resignation. Or to Kate Forbes.

Socon views aside, Forbes is actually a Sturgeon loyalist. There's also very little indication that she has any particular desire for the job.

The issue for the SNP is that it's more stridently Sturgeonist West of Scotland talent is at Westminster, but at Holyrood, it's talent is broadly from more established and from older SNP backgrounds/areas of the country.

The streamlining of the Cabinet may also make people overlook talent outside of it; Angela Constance, Jamie Hepburn etc.

---

The SNP membership isn't particularly factional and some of the more obstinate members left in early 2021. The youth wing is substantial and the active membership base remains quite broadly Central Belt.

[CumbrianLefty]

Kate Forbes advocacy is disproportionally coming from outside of the party. Or from people who think THAT ISSUE is of overinflated relevance to the public, the party or to Sturgeon's resignation.

Yes, but as we all know a big part of it is from the media - especially opinion formers. And we can see from south of the border what a disproportionate influence they can sometimes have in these things.

(unfortunately)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've got a question on this : aren't scottish labour at least something like distinctively Scottish...

Scottish Labour are extremely Scottish and always were, but they are so in an old-fashioned way that they have not been particularly effective at expressing coherently in recent years. They may find it easier with Starmer (who, though extremely English, is at least a translatable and understandable figure in a Scottish context) as the wider, national leader than they did when Corbyn (who is not) held the same post, but fundamentally they have to do most of the running themselves.

Also does Anas Sawar directly take orders from London?

No. There's a degree of co-ordination and, of course, the rules set by the National Executive apply to Party members across the United Kingdom, but he has as much of a free hand as Mark Drakeford does. The thing about Lamont's deeply stupid 'branch office' remark wasn't that it was true (the irony is that Scottish Labour would often have been in a better position between 2007 and 2015 if it was), but that that precise charge had been made by the SNP for years, and to have it then echoed by the incumbent Scottish Labour leader as she quit... well, it's fairly obvious to see why that had such a catastrophic impact on the party's credibility.

[CumbrianLefty]

Though the suspicion remains that Wendy Alexander had to, fatefully, end her brief tenure as Scottish leader because the then PM declined to give her his public support. And some have inevitably drawn the conclusion that was because he wanted somebody more "controllable" in her place.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Though the suspicion remains that Wendy Alexander had to, fatefully, end her brief tenure as Scottish leader because the then PM declined to give her his public support. And some have inevitably drawn the conclusion that was because he wanted somebody more "controllable" in her place.

I do wonder whether we'll ever find out quite what happened there, but, of course, if those particular suspicions are true the critical point would be that the PM in question was a Scottish Labour figure himself.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Though the suspicion remains that Wendy Alexander had to, fatefully, end her brief tenure as Scottish leader because the then PM declined to give her his public support. And some have inevitably drawn the conclusion that was because he wanted somebody more "controllable" in her place.

I do wonder whether we'll ever find out quite what happened there, but, of course, if those particular suspicions are true the critical point would be that the PM in question was a Scottish Labour figure himself.

Yes, there's distinction between the period prior to 2010, when Parliament was full of senior Scottish Labour figures, and after 2010, when those who were around were clearly standing down in 2015. That itself had a consequence on the health of the party (especially since it's extremely rare for non-Scots to get selected for Scottish seats, which means you can't deal with occasional shallowness in the talent pool by redistributing people from other regions who then establish local credentials.) It's often said that the problem is that Scottish Labour sent the B-team to Holyrood. It's not entirely untrue, even if it is somewhat harsh to B-teams, but in the 2010-2015 era the A-team was also underwhelming.

[oldtimer]

Forbes would also be the more conservative candidate economically. Which will win plaudits in some quarters but creates difficulties in others.

It would very possibly make the "left of Labour" schtick in the central belt a bit harder to pull off.

It's however very easy to be left of Labour today. Certainly in contrast to 2017 when the SNP got a central belt fright.

Labour's problems electorally, which you can trace back as far as 1987 (relative to rUK) in it's old Scottish heartlands are exactly as they always have been.

Correct.

Labour lost scotland because it drifted too much to the right on the economy under New Labour.

Glasgow with it's extreme poverty has always been a political paradise for socialist politicians.

They didn't exactly rebound much when they shifted much further left under corbyn.

Swings to Labour in 2017 :
Glasgow

Glasgow East 12
Glasgow N.E. 13
Glasgow North 11
Glasgow South 10
Glasgow N.W. 9
Coatbridge 13
Rutherglen 9

Edinburgh

Edinburgh East 6
Edinburgh South 14
East Lothian 9
MidLothian 11
Edinburgh North 3 (Labour actually fell)
Edinburgh S.W 4 (Labour actually fell)

In all those seats Labour where 2nd in 2015, and you can see the difference of socialist economic appeal between Glasgow and Edinburgh quite clearly.

[oldtimer]

The argument that Scottish Labour lost because it was insufficiently leftist is undermined by the fact that the SNP isn't either. Scottish Labour lost in 2011 because it was hideously, hilariously incompetent, it lost in 2015 because it was incompetent and unpopular and it's still losing because it's still not viewed as competent, even when the point of comparison is the SNP.

It's incompetence was built in before that as was it's decline. It was just masked by effective leaders (like Dewar) and nationally driven GE rallies (1987 and 1997) that rose all boats.

It's party machine, campaign style, focus and a swathe of it's MSP's were ripped straight from the local council play book and it was ill suited to what the Parliament could do and what it's supporters wanted.

A mistake Welsh Labour (the model of national consciousness the SNP most, underrated-ly, models itself after) never made.

I did have a big effortpost about this somewhere but can't find it.

I’d be very interested in reading it- it’s equally criminal how few people in U.K. labour understand why Welsh Labour has been so effective.

The main difference is that Welsh independence is not credible as Scottish independence.

The main characteristic of British elections is that parties there don't bend they break, especially if given a credible alternative (depending on why voters get angry), and can produce massive swings in just a single election.

[Torrain]

As a heads-up, there’s now a dedicated thread for the SNP Leadership Election, over on the International Elections Board:
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=539535.0

Not here to rain on the Scottish discussion, just linking for the curious.

[Benjamin Frank]

Has this been mentioned before?

There are some rumors? that Boris Johnson will make a comeback as Conservative leader right before the next election.

[Torrain]

Has this been mentioned before?

There are some rumors? that Boris Johnson will make a comeback as Conservative leader right before the next election.

It’s an ongoing soap opera within the party. When Truss resigned, Johnson did a whip around, and got somewhere north of 80 backers in the party, although it’s unclear whether he had the 100 MPs he would have needed to run for PM. (He says he had enough but “chose not to run”).

Ever since then, a small band of hardcore loyalists have been making the case for his return. Former minister and party chairman Jake Berry has tried to undermine Sunak, and has stated on several occasions that if Sunak does particularly poorly at the May local election, he would support a move to try and force out the PM. He’s repeatedly stated that he thinks Johnson will be back in office by 2024.

Nadine Dorries is being very on-brand too (in fact, her retirement announcement specifically called other MPs fools for bringing Johnson “one of the most successful PMs” down).

Thing is - there’s likely enough of them to trigger a confidence vote (although one can’t be held until October, without a rules change), but no one thinks there’s enough for Sunak outright lose a confidence vote. So it’s just discontent, rather than a real threat at this stage.

Johnson himself seems to still be holding a pretty hefty grudge, and while happy to rake in cash on the lecture circuit, seems to think he can still make a comeback at some point.

[Cassius]

I’m sure Johnson would enjoy the symbolism of being PM twice a la Churchill as well (albeit as with all Johnsonian-Churchillian comparisons, repeating history as farce).

[EastAnglianLefty]

YouGov have released a Scottish poll (for Westminster) which was conducted just before Sturgeon stood down:

SNP 38 (-7)
Lab 35 (+17)
Con 16 (-9)
LD 5 (-4)
Green 3 (+2)

Changes are since 2019. Usual caveats that you should be sceptical because it's just one poll and even more sceptical because it's one poll showing a big shift, but if those numbers were borne out in reality then most of the Central Belt would flip and Labour and the SNP would be approximately equal in terms of seats.

As I say, I'm sceptical, but I imagine that this is going to have some impact in the discourse.

[oldtimer]

Has this been mentioned before?

There are some rumors? that Boris Johnson will make a comeback as Conservative leader right before the next election.

It’s an ongoing soap opera within the party. When Truss resigned, Johnson did a whip around, and got somewhere north of 80 backers in the party, although it’s unclear whether he had the 100 MPs he would have needed to run for PM. (He says he had enough but “chose not to run”).

Ever since then, a small band of hardcore loyalists have been making the case for his return. Former minister and party chairman Jake Berry has tried to undermine Sunak, and has stated on several occasions that if Sunak does particularly poorly at the May local election, he would support a move to try and force out the PM. He’s repeatedly stated that he thinks Johnson will be back in office by 2024.

Nadine Dorries is being very on-brand too (in fact, her retirement announcement specifically called other MPs fools for bringing Johnson “one of the most successful PMs” down).

Thing is - there’s likely enough of them to trigger a confidence vote (although one can’t be held until October, without a rules change), but no one thinks there’s enough for Sunak outright lose a confidence vote. So it’s just discontent, rather than a real threat at this stage.

Johnson himself seems to still be holding a pretty hefty grudge, and while happy to rake in cash on the lecture circuit, seems to think he can still make a comeback at some point.

There will probably be a no-confidence vote against Sunak this year.

However no Conservative PM has ever lost such a vote, all of them won just to be kicked out a while later.

The symbolic trigger of a no-confidence vote is an indicator that the PM is on his way out.