Monday 21 December 2020

Keir Starmer's Scotland Strategy

Undaunted by the chaos unfolding in Dover as borders are closed to UK traffic, the iron law of the Labour media grid compelled Keir Starmer to deliver his Scotland speech this morning. The warm up, if you like, ahead of the big vision pitch planned for the New Year. What then did Keir have to say? Nothing surprising or eye-catching, alas, but a little bit more about his politics.

We learned Keir understands some of the reasons why support for the SNP and Scottish independence are galloping. In the speech, he argues a decade worth of cuts followed by Johnson's singularly reckless Brexit strategy have shaken the union. He said "... they are blind to the damage that their cavalier attitude is doing to our United Kingdom ... in Brexit and in austerity they’ve given separatists two big boxing gloves to pummel the United Kingdom." This is giving the Tories too much credit. They are blind to nothing where the party's immediate and medium term political interests are concerned, as we've seen before and will see again in their uses of Scottish nationalism. And then there is the recurring use of "separatists" and "separatism", which we'll note now and return to again.

Keir then moves on to surer territory. The SNP are criticised for their woeful record on education and rise in child poverty which, to be fair to the Scottish government, is also a problem cooked up using the ingredients provided by London. The SNP are also attacked for presiding over the third highest Covid death rate in Europe, and how this caused Scotland to have the worst care home death toll in the UK. After rounding on the SNP's performance, he said "... it’s no wonder that Nicola Sturgeon wants to make next May’s elections a referendum on another referendum. Because on education, health and social justice the SNP has no story to tell."

Then we come to the main event. Keir's test for the party's recovery is not just about rewinning trust in Scotland for Labour, but to rebuild faith in the UK state itself. And how he plans on doing this is via a social justice policy agenda and an ambitious devolution plan. Pushing power away from Westminster is the ostensible aspiration. Interesting. He notes how the Tories have rode roughshod over local concerns and ignored their expertise at the moment local and devolved authorities should have been empowered, and so Labour is seeking to spearhead debate on what a looser, less centralised UK might look like by sponsoring a constitutional convention in the new year. Here we find warm words about enabling communities to have more of a say over their lives, and the lowering of the costs of democratic participation. Beyond more devolution, nothing is being ruled out - a nod to those hoping for long overdue electoral reform, perhaps.

The priority, however, is Scotland. This isn't just to save Scottish Labour's bacon (and boy, does it need saving), but to focus on Scotland's persistent problems. As he put it, "Ultimately, there’s nothing that separatism can offer to a child living in poverty in Glasgow. Just as there’s nothing that nationalism can offer a child living in poverty in Camden." Hence, rowing back on the softer position he adopted a couple of months ago, Labour is now definitely against another independence referendum thanks to the precarious state Covid-19 and Tory Brexit recklessness has left the country in. And that, as they say, is the general gist.

Scottish Labour's problems are easy to diagnose but difficult to resolve. The party's working class base in the central belt has almost completely disintegrated, based as it was on the overwhelmingly unionist labour movement who reaped real benefits from its integration into the UK's manufacturing base. For as long as the post-war settlement remained in place, the politics of independence were a fringe affair because the union delivered in the language of livelihoods and decent living standards for enough workers. And when this fell away in the Thatcher years thanks to her government's efforts at driving industry to the wall and then using Scotland as the Poll Tax's test bed, Labour was put on time. Between 1987 and 2010 the party benefited in Westminster terms, but because New Labour did not make good the damage done, in set the rot. The SNP victories in 2007 and 2011 should have rung alarm bells and warned the party what might happen if they're seen to side with the party that had inflicted such terrible damage, but into bed they got with the Tories in 2014. Perhaps Labour's collapse was inevitable, but taking Tory talking points and backing George Osborne over how he'd screw Scotland in pre-independence negotiations was hardly the stuff of strategic genius.

That's how Labour got destroyed, but the way back is nigh-on impossible. The core constituency Jeremy Corbyn drew to Labour in England and Wales decamped en masse to the SNP in 2014 and haven't come back. Nor does much of Scottish Labour seem fussed. Richard Leonard knows the way back is through consistent community organisation and making it relevant at the point of struggle, but most of the party - especially its wretched establishment - see this as a waste of time. Madness, they say, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And so, once again, Labour will enter battle for Holyrood and, no doubt, for Westminster in 2024 targeting the declining unionist vote. Keir Starmer's warm words about constitutional change with added Gordon Brown aren't going to wash, because the last time Labour signed up to a vow absolutely nothing came of it.

Why are we going through with this then? Well, naturally, the path to a majority Labour government is impossible in the immediate future without winning back some Scottish seats, so the leader has to be seen to lead. But ultimately, this is about an English audience and fighting elections south of the border. As Mr Remain with recent baggage for ignoring the result of one referendum, that ghost has to be put to rest by accepting any putative Brexit trade deal, and enforcing the outcome of the previous 'once in a generation' referendum. There is brute calculus here. Nicola Sturgeon grates on many soft Labour/swing voter/red waller voters because she is seen as banging on about independence to the exclusion of everything else. Plus the First Minister is, particularly in the imaginary of older voters, a vector of instability - and we know how they feel about uncertainty. You don't even have to get theoretical about it: the Tories deployed the Scottish card with skill in 2015, despite Labour sacrificing itself for the union, and it worked. Keir's Scotland speech is more than constitutional promises, it's an attempt well ahead of time to blunt the Labour/SNP coalition fearmongering the Tories will reach for.

The language of separatism is important too. This is only partly about using something more emotive and negative than 'nationalist', it speaks to the statism of Keir's politics. As we saw with calls for social media bans and preference for process criticisms over political critique, this is only so much about "optics" - it's part of an effort to restore trust in the authority of public institutions. I.e. the state. Indeed, his attack on the SNP is explicitly couched in these terms, of how their attempts to divide authority results in neglecting the business of government. Keir's approach is nothing new, it's in the DNA of Labourism and the Fabian tradition in particular, of politicians getting elected and implementing policy while for everyone else politics is a spectator sport. Hence the concern for restoring authority: it's indispensable for his project.

This, however, raises an awkward question. How seriously can we take Keir's commitment to the results of Labour's constitutional commission when, despite the efforts of noted friend of grassroots democracy Gordon Brown, it makes recommendations that frustrate the will-to-centralisation? I'll leave readers the space to guess the answer.

Image Credit

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's back to Tory-lite for Starmer's Labour, isn't it? Streeting's positioning himself for a leadership challenge; and Akehurst's back on the NEC. The intellectual void that is Jess Phillips is on the frontbench. It's a nightmare!

I wonder if they'll bring back the EdStone.

Anonymous said...

I think you meant to write madness is doing the same thing and expecting a different result not the same result

cherson said...

"Keir Starmer's warm words about constitutional change with added Gordon Brown aren't going to wash, because the last time Labour signed up to a vow absolutely nothing came of it."

Completely agree. This will not win back voters in Scotland. It is the same kind of guff we saw back in early-September 2014. Once bitten twice shy.

Blissex said...

«it speaks to the statism of Keir's politics. [...] part of an effort to restore trust in the authority of public institutions. I.e. the state. [...] in the DNA of Labourism and the Fabian tradition in particular, of politicians getting elected and implementing policy while for everyone else politics is a spectator sport»

This point of view is really funny, because it is a criticism of Keir Starmer from a *process* perspective instead of a *political* one. Because while it seems to me that he is a "deep state" (english name: "The Establishment") member or agent (certainly not a principal), and he does work to strengthen the power of the state, this is not a politically neutral position: the UK state is run by and for that "The Establishment" which is largely whig and tory, certainly not socialdemocratic or socialist, not even in the very watered down socialdemocracy of the Labourists and Fabians (e.g. Gordon Brown). The UK state has become thatcherite, as the Mandelson entrysts in Labour, rather than the wishy-washy but still not thatcherite Fabians.

My guess is that the *politics* of Keir Starmer's direction to reinforce the authority of the thatcherite state are those of reassuring the thatcherite constituencies he is looking to "steal" from the Conservatives that the state under New, New Labour will be more effectively thatcherite, to support better their rentier interests. A state better able to achieve the hard brexit they want, a state harder on the "scroungers" that they despise, a state stronger in foreign military operations, a state organizing bigger and faster capital gains and economics rents for incumbents property and finance and business beneficiaries.

So I reckon that the politics are those of pandering to affluent whig and tory voters, the statism is a means to that political end.

cherson said...

"Keir Starmer's warm words about constitutional change with added Gordon Brown aren't going to wash, because the last time Labour signed up to a vow absolutely nothing came of it."

Precisely. I tend to agree with your overall argument that this is about a non-Scottish audience. Few up here will be buying this again.

Issue can also be taken with his charges about a failing SNP Govt (e.g. compare A&E waiting times pre-pandemic across the 4 UK nations). "The SNP are also attacked for presiding over the third highest Covid death rate in Europe" - a bit Trumpian. I've just checked the John Hopkins site and Travelling Tabby's UK data and from that can see at least 10 European countries (not counting the UK) with higher death rates than Scotland.

cherson said...

"Keir Starmer's warm words about constitutional change with added Gordon Brown aren't going to wash, because the last time Labour signed up to a vow absolutely nothing came of it."

Precisely. I tend to agree with your overall argument that this is about a non-Scottish audience. Few up here will be buying this again.

Issue can also be taken with his charges about a failing SNP Govt (e.g. compare A&E waiting times pre-pandemic across the 4 UK nations). "The SNP are also attacked for presiding over the third highest Covid death rate in Europe" - a bit Trumpian. I've just checked the John Hopkins site and Travelling Tabby's UK data and from that can see at least 10 European countries (not counting the UK) with higher death rates than Scotland.

Dr Zoltan Jorovic said...

The problem is that to get into government in the UK, Labour needs some Scottish seats, but they can't appeal to the Independence constituency because that would alienate English voters they need to secure a majority...but if they don't win many Scottish seats, they won't win a majority...and they can't by pushing Unionism, because that's Tory position and so alienates those anti-Tory Unionists...so they try a half-baked on-the-fence "middle" way, of offering some unspecified and non-guaranteed Devo+...but Nationalists have been burned by this once, so it won't wash.

When faced with the Gordian knot, the correct approach is to just cut through it - i.e. take a principled position based on what you think is right and in the best interests of the people of the 4 nations in the long term, and stick to it. It is even possible that this is what he believes he is doing, not realising that his principled position is indistinguishable from his politically calculated hang-the-principle feel-the-width-of-my-carefully-targeted-marketing-strategy managerial approach.

Whatever the motive, forcing Scotland to remain part of the UK against the will of a majority would be both unprincipled and disastrous.

Alan Story said...

Does anyone here seriously think Starmer /Labour can win a majority in the next election?

Reason #37 as to why we need to GET PR DONE!

Playwright said...

I'm wondering, in a post-Independence world, how many political parties there will be in Holyrood? Could Labour [obviously not under Rodney] ever support independence? How might they do this?

Blissex said...

«I'm wondering, in a post-Independence world, how many political parties there will be in Holyrood?»

Presumably the SNP would largely disappear, as it is too left wing for its right-winger, and too right-wing for its left wingers. The Sturgeon side would merge with the Scottish Liberals, the rest with Scottish Labour. It is very likely that Scotland would retain AMS or perhaps switch to STV for Holyrood, thus with relatively little penalty for large parties splitting. Coalitions would probably become the norm.

«Could Labour [obviously not under Rodney] ever support independence?»

UK Labour not likely to do that :-). And after independence why would it be an issue for Scottish Labour? I doubt very much that Scottish Labour would start to campaign to reunite with rUK. I doubt that even the Conservatives in Scotland would do that.