UK Politics: Labour Is In Trouble

munroburton wrote:From what I've been able to glean, Labour peers declined to join a Liberal "fatal motion" which would have killed the tax credits cut and triggered a constitutional crisis the Tories are ill-equipped to handle.

Instead, they have forced a grandfathering delay of approximately three years. That would mean they'd go into effect in 2018-9, for people who are currently receiving tax credits.

It occurs to me that 2020 is an election year. And in the meantime, the peers get to roll in some good PR for doing it. What were you saying about machine politicians, Mike?

They do say that nature abhors a vacuum. Given the current state of affairs in the Commons (full of minnows, intellectual light weights and non-entities), it's not altogether surprising that the political "big beasts" that have been "retired" to the Lords have used their far greater experience and nous to derail Osborne's plans.

Ironically, the delay may be of some benefit to the Scottish Tories. At least they won't have the effects of unpopular cuts hanging over them during the campaign for Holyrood.

Given opinions I've seen expressed by some English Tories, I think it would be in the best interests for the Scottish branch office (as that is what it is) to split off and become a completely separate party. It does appear that there are some very distinct differences in opinion between the Scottish and English elements in the Tory Party, anyway. They'd possibly stand a better chance than a "semi-detached" SLab as at least they occupy a different enough part of the Scottish political spectrum to make them distinguishable from the SNP.

Given that Scottish politics seems to be "50 Shades of Social Democracy", it would be nice to have something on the centre to centre right part to have balance.

Mike.

Looks like Labour's troubles are only going to get worse.

I believe that the Scottish branch office has voted for an anti-Trident position, whilst the main UK wide party is generally pro-Trident.

As far as I can tell, the Electoral Commission states that it would be illegal for an accounting unit of a party to have different policies from the main body of that party (and SLab is an accounting unit, not an independent entity).

As far as the UK's Trident nuclear deterrent is concerned, I view it as a necessary evil in an imperfect world. However, I wouldn't object to it being moved from the Clyde and Glasgow's vicinity. Primarily to get Glasgow to stop whinging about it and to see if the area is willing to take the economic hit from it's relocation for the sake of a philosophical position.

Mike.

This just in, after a party conference on policy today:

Scottish Labour's leader is pro-Trident renewal, Scottish Labour is against it. It's already been confirmed UK Labour's leader is against and UK Labour(including a majority of the shadow cabinet, but not the shadow Scottish Secretary) is for.

No signs of Labour's troubles ending, then.

Michael Riddell wrote:Ironically, the delay may be of some benefit to the Scottish Tories. At least they won't have the effects of unpopular cuts hanging over them during the campaign for Holyrood.

Given opinions I've seen expressed by some English Tories, I think it would be in the best interests for the Scottish branch office (as that is what it is) to split off and become a completely separate party. It does appear that there are some very distinct differences in opinion between the Scottish and English elements in the Tory Party, anyway. They'd possibly stand a better chance than a "semi-detached" SLab as at least they occupy a different enough part of the Scottish political spectrum to make them distinguishable from the SNP.

Given that Scottish politics seems to be "50 Shades of Social Democracy", it would be nice to have something on the centre to centre right part to have balance.

Mike.

The delay may not have much effect, as Ruth Davidson says she believes the tax credit cuts were a bad idea anyway. Scottish tories in Holyrood do an enormously different job from their colleagues who squeak into Westminister.

IMO the only vacuum in the Scottish political spectrum is a centre-right independence party. When the SNP moved left, they opened that volume up whilst squeezing the other left-independence parties.

The Scottish Tories can't really move into that space, not so long as they remain unionists or so obviously adjunct to the British Conservatives. I do know they passed a party rule several years back which stipulated that no MSP could serve on a list seat for more than two or three terms without winning a constituency seat. That is about to kick into effect with most of their senior MSPs forced to retire next year, so they'll have a new team in training for the next election beyond.

It will be interesting to see what different approaches the new team tries and how those affect Labour's attempt at recovery in Scotland. I think there are two more crashes for Labour to come - Holyrood next year and the next council elections.

munroburton wrote:IMO the only vacuum in the Scottish political spectrum is a centre-right independence party. When the SNP moved left, they opened that volume up whilst squeezing the other left-independence parties.

-------

It will be interesting to see what different approaches the new team tries and how those affect Labour's attempt at recovery in Scotland. I think there are two more crashes for Labour to come - Holyrood next year and the next council elections.

Hmmm, although the SNP's tacked leftward, I don't think they've gone far enough over to completely vacate a centre-right pro-Indy position. They're nowhere near as far left as the right wing London media have made out. As point of fact, I'd say that the SNP are largely in "Tartan Lib-Dem" rather than out and out "Tartan Labour" territory. At least they are outwith their new won Clyde Valley constituencies! In that area the SNP structure has probably been overwhelmed by disaffected ex-Labour types!

As for Scottish Labour, I agree that the Holyrood 2016 and the Council 2017 elections will be painful for them.

The big question for 2017 is if Glasgow can finally break it's habit of continually electing Labour Councils. If that city is to have any hope of a proper economic recovery it needs to rid itself of the George Square Politburo!

Mike.

True. I'm thinking more of Labour's steady erosion after Blair moved it rightwards rather than an immediate vacuum. The SNP may experience irreconcilable disagreements between the fundamentalists and the gradualists. Indeed, several thousand members left the party but weren't noticed during the mass inflow.

The disagreements will likely be over what constitutes enough of a changed circumstance to have a second referendum. The most extreme(mostly Yes grassroots groups for now) are arguing that we've already crossed that line with polls levelling out at 50-50, the failure to deliver the Vow, etc etc. and that a majority at Holyrood in May with a clear mandate could move for a fast short campaign plugging the holes in their arguments last time round. October or November 2016.

The gradualists realise these holes aren't plugged yet, they're skint and are afraid of repeating what happened in Quebec. Two defeated referendums a few years apart destabilised their movement. They would prefer to wait until 2021... at the earliest, as that qualifies as a political generation.

Nothing quite confirmed yet, but the UK's EU referendum will obviously end up as the compromise between those two sides.

I have to wonder what the Leave EU campaigns plan to do about that landmine, if Sturgeon is legitmised with a majority and a mandate to hold IndyRef2 in the event of a Brexit where Scotland voted to remain a member of the EU.

It seems strange to me that campaigning hasn't even begun yet, that there isn't a fixed date yet. It has to be held before the end of 2017. Perhaps that's due to negotiations being in progress - however, there'll be a great deal to consider, all sorts of consequences from either outcome and how they're reached.