Tweets referring to my column in The National in Scotland yesterday seemed to cost me about one hundred Twitter followers last night as Labour supporters abandoned their interest in what I had to say.
My premise in that column was simple. I said:
Let me suggest what Scotland can unambiguously do to improve its wellbeing this year. It can send a message of rejection to Keir Starmer's Labour Party.
I then outlined my case, starting with this:
Why is Labour so bad? I offer five reasons, but could add many more.
The first is that whatever principles Labour once had have been abandoned by Starmer. He has backtracked on all the promises he made to become Labour leader and not a hint of social democratic principle remains in what he is now offering.
You should recall that this is also true of the Labour Party itself, which is no longer committed to working people, tackling inequality and creating a fairer society. Instead, its constitution says its primary purpose is to get Labour MPs elected, and that's all it is now about. Starmer wants to be prime minister for reasons that no one knows, and that is all that Labour is telling us. Voting for a megalomaniac without a cause has never been a good political idea.
The other four examples then followed.
Starmer did his best to support my argument yesterday, with a vacuous speech. And this morning, I noted Sky interviewing leader Shadow Cabinet member John Ashworth and asking him about policy. In response, he offered aspirations, like wanting to reduce cancer deaths. When challenged for actual policy, the supposed gains from cancelling the non-dom tax rule were rolled out to deliver their 25th role in Labour thinking, but still without giving any detail.
What I did not say in the column was that until Labour can tell the difference between an aspiration and a policy, and a costing from a single tax reform, they will remain in deep trouble with the electorate, and rightly so. If some of their tribalists don't like me saying so, then so be it. Labour wants power. Truth has to be said to those in that position.
The rest of my National column is here, but it may be behind a paywall depending on how often you have visited the National before.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The electorate wants positive change but Labour are offering nothing but more damaging austerity.
Well said indeed.
I would go further and say that Labour are now the Tory Continuity Party (TCP).
That is where they are pitching themselves but the reality of that is going to have consequences.
I for one will not be voting them. I find them repugnant.
Infact, as a working person who has voted Labour all his life, I think that the current Leader of HM Opposition and his frontbench are nothing but traitors to people like me.
Is that forthright enough for you PLP fanboys and girls out there?
Because you ought to be ashamed. However, the inherent Thatcherite in you will not see that, will it?
I think that Blair and Brown were manifestly TCP.
Going to CoL in 97 saying it’s ‘Business as usual’.
Brown (2009) “I saved the banking system by inventing QE.”
The PRIVATE banking system, the banksters and the CoL.
Look how the grateful money has rewarded Blair.
We have another undynamic duo from Banking and Legal. More establishment plants.
Has the ‘Westmonster’ ever been properly representative? No.
I voted for Starmer as leader, against my political instincts. I hoped for basic competence, and believed in his promise of representing the traditional broad church that had supported Labour values for a century. It was this last aspect that tipped the balance in his favour, as I factored into my decision the treatment both candidates were likely to receive from the commentariat.
Having experienced the internal party machinations directly, I don’t need anyone, inside the party or outside, to tell me that promises were not broken. They were.
Add to that Reeves’ refusal to accept economic reality, as explained tirelessly on this blog, and the latest shameful equivovation on Gaza. Add to that the refusal to accept membership support for electoral reform. Etc…
Starmer is rightly criticised for his shortcomings. It’s perfectly legitimate to demand more of the Labour Party. Those of us who are disappointed in Labour do not want a Tory government, but we do want an honest and courageous Labour alternative, not a pale imitation.
Agreed
A someone who is not (and is never likely to be) a member of any political party, my hope is that the c50% of Scotland’s electorate who consistently poll in favour of an Independent Scotland will vote for Independence at the next UK General Election. Given that the SNP is the only Independence party with the structure to handle complex negotiations with Westminster if/when an exit from the UK is on the table, it’s crucially important that the pro-Independence vote is not split among 3 or 4 parties, when realistically only the SNP has the clout to make it happen. For those who have to hold their noses to vote for SNP, the reward comes post-independence when democratic all-party elections will decide Scotland’s first independent government.
In Scotland we’ve had our own Parliament to debate and legislate on devolved matters for nearly 25 years. An over-whelming percentage of the electorate value that forum despite the skewed allocation of powers that the Devolution Settlement (presided over by UK political parties) imposed. We’ve recently seen the Tory Gov’s Secretary of State for Scotland deliberately undermining these limited powers by refusing to pass Holyrood Bills for Royal Approval. Another flaw of the Devolution Settlement was demonstrated recently when the UK Gov’s fixation with austerity significantly reduced public sector spending in England, which in turn reduces the Block Grants to the devolved nations and that in turn reduces the funds available to devolved governments to implement their policies. The result was a hotch-potch Scottish Budget for the next fiscal year and the likelihood that some of the mitigations in place to counter Westminster’s most egregious policies may now have to be scaled back or cancelled. Such is the myth of devolution in the UK: the devolved parliaments can debate and legislate to improve life for their peoples, but the UK Gov can summarily reverse them if they don’t like them i.e. too humanitarian, too “socialist”, too sensible, or just plain different.
The 2 UK Parties with any chance of winning the next UK General Election have both confirmed their opposition to any talk of Independence in the devolved nations. This includes ambivalence towards reunification of Ireland (despite the electorate of N Ireland having the right to secede from the UK embedded in an international agreement) and outright refusal to consider secession by Scotland and Wales. This is blatant colonialism by any definition and more restrictive than the conditions applied on the break-up of the Empire: they had the right to secede if they chose to do so and could demonstrate it was the will of the people.
We agree Ken