Breaking: Kezia Dugdale steps down as Scottish Labour leader

[Ken Burch]

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/500199/breaking-kezia-dugdale-step-scottish-labour-leader/

The Lothians MSP is understood to be citing the pressures of leadership and wanting to enjoy her life outside the spotlight for her sudden departure.
Her resignation triggers an ideological battle for the party, with a pro-Jeremy Corbyn candidate likely to face off against a centrist rival in a leadership contest.

Finally. There was never any excuse for her to stay on after she led the party to a third-place finish in the last Holyrood elections-BEHIND the Tories.

All Dugdale did was hold the party back and help sabotage its Westminster leader.

And had she not formed a electoral pact with the Scottish Tories against the SNP in the last UK election, Theresa May would not be prime minister.

[T_i_B]

1. I always felt sorry for Dugdale

She came to the role much too early in her career, and she was always going to get slaughtered by all sides no matter what she did.

I do hope that Labour has somebody decent lined up to replace her, who can stand up to the Tories, the SNP and even Jeremy Corbyn on occasion!

[Ken Burch]

2. She DID stand up to Corbyn...in fact, she spent much of her tenure fighting to remove him

and replace the guy with a "moderate"-i.e., a right-wing militarist committed to keeping austerity in place.

Dugdale did nothing but damage in doing that, and in using her seat on the Labour NEC(National Executive Committee), a seat she'd been appointed to by questionable means, to help the MPs who spent most of the last two years treating the man as if he had no right to even be in the job.

She was always too far to the right to lead Labour in a part of the UK where the party was traditionally expected to be deeply socialist.

[T_i_B]

3. Corbyn is a London politician...

Last edited Wed Aug 30, 2017, 01:26 PM - Edit history (2)

...with a political base in England's cities who all too often spends more time trying to appease retired ex miners in England than Scots. He's not infallible, and if Scotland needs a strong Labour party (which I think they do) then the Scottish Labour party needs leadership capable of standing up to the central party in London, regardless of which wing of the party is flavour of the month.

Let me put it this way, if the London leadership of the party suddenly lurches to the right will Scottish Labour still need a strong leader capable of standing up to them? Of course they will!

[Ken Burch]

4. Corbyn HAPPENS to be from London. He hasn't taken consciously anti-Scottish positions.

Both Milibands were London politicians, too. It's not as though Labour could win with a leader who said "I despise London".

And I wasn't saying Scottish Labour should have a leader who's a lapdog to the UK Labour leader.

It needs to be led by someone who will defend Scotland and Scottish voters at every turn. That goes without saying.

By the same token, it should never have a leader who colluded in plots to make sure Labour went back to standing for nothing and being meaningless-or who enabled the Scottish and Westminster Tories by forming an electoral pact with them last June. Had she not done those, the Tories would not have enough seats to govern now.

Kezia wasn't fighting for Scotland with either of those actions. She was fighting for the rich against the people, for the insiders against the grassroots.

Nor should it have had, before that, a leader("SLAB" Murphy)who sabotaged his party by having it join an alliance with the Tories and LibDems on the Indyref. Obviously Labour was going to campaign for a "Nae" in that referendum, but it was supposed to do that on its own, making a distinctively Labour case for the idea that it was possible for Scotland to prosper and be progressive within the Union.

As to the miners(I assume this is the EU thing again), Corbyn is walking a tightrope. He was solidly Remain, appeared at a thousand Remain events during that ref, he clearly wanted Remain to win-it lost because the Tory-dominated Remain campaign was a total disaster-but the voters spoke. Labour could only regain power if it regained the working-class Northern English voters who voted Leave. If he did what you wanted and fought all out for a second ref, those voters would all go back to voting UKIP and never break with that. He supports soft Brexit(he was never in line with Theresa May's position)because it's essentially the only stance he can take and hold Labour together. Most of the Northern working-class voters who did vote Leave(there were a handful of Northern areas where Remain prevailed, and I'm glad there were-I'd have voted Remain on anti-xenophobia grounds) did so because it was, for them, the only way to vote against thirty-six years of unionbusting, austerity, and job loss. They believed there was no way for any of that to change within the EU, and it's largely the fault of the Labour Right, along with the Lib Dems and Tories, that they do-all three of those factions have basically abandoned those people.

If Corbyn fought all-out for a second EU ref, UKIP would instantly be back at 15% in the polls and winning byelections, a restored Tory majority at the next election would be a certainty, and he would look like an antidemocratic elitist-a "London politician".

The only real hope is for everyone to focus first on defeating the Tories as soon as possible, and THEN for people who want a second ref to fight for one. The LibDems can't win the next election(there's no chance of the party being forgiven for its devil's bargain with Cameron), and Corbyn isn't going to be dumped as leader before the next election-it wouldn't help to dump him anyway, because there's no one the anti-Corbynites would accept as his replacement that could ever be popular-that lot still wouldn't allow anyone to the left of Yvette Cooper on the leadership ballot.

[T_i_B]

5. Location matters.

A politician from a certain town, who represents that town in Parliament will inevitably have their political views shaped to a large degree by that place above all others.

This is a pretty basic point, but it matters a great deal. Jeremy Corbyn could not be the same politician if he represented Grimsby or Dundee. Same is even more true of Labour's main rivals in Scotland the SNP.

It's also why my local MP bangs on endlessly about being "a local boy" despite having previously being a pretty awful Tory councillor in Westminster. The local connection in politics cannot be underestimated.

And ultimately, political parties need not just to be alliances across a wide variety of views, but a wide variety of places. That means the central leadership of parties in London paying greater attention to places like Scotland.

[Ken Burch]

6. OK...but since any politician from anywhere is going to have some local loyalties,

and they all have to be FROM somewhere, isn't location something that, in theory, that can be used against any party leader from any part of the UK?

Corbyn is from London, but has made an effort to have shadow ministers from all parts of the UK. In trying to connect with Northern English miners(which involves many things besides the EU) he is trying to address the need to build a national coalition.

Both Milibands were from London, too. Blair was from-well, wherever the hell he was from. Vince Cable is from York and then Twickenham.

And Corbyn himself, while he's long represented a London constituency, was actually born in Chippenham, Wiltshire. He had to learn how to connect with London voters as a non-Londoner, which is as important to being an effective Labour leader as anything else-any Labour victory requires an overwhelming sweep of London constituencies.

As to location, whoever takes over the Scottish Labour leadership from Dugdale will have to be able to re-establish regional support in a lot of areas that haven't voted Labour at Westminster or Holyrood level since at least 2010. It's hard to imagine yet another centrist doing that, OR a centrist being able to stand up to a right-wing Westminster Labour leadership should one be re-established.

[T_i_B]

7. Actually, it tends to be more of an asset for most politicians

Corbyn does make much of being from Islington, which he cannot be begrudged for. By contrast, you mention the Miliband's as being London politicians but technically that isn't the case. Ed Miliband represents Doncaster North and his brother represented South Shields. Neither of which are anywhere near that there London town.

Most politicians like to have a local connection, and in my experience most voters really like that as well, which makes it all the more important that the next leader of Scottish Labour isn't somebody who can be portrayed as the lackey of the London leadership.

[Ken Burch]

8. Agreed.

If Kezia Dugdale had any particular problems, though, nobody thought she was Corbyn's lackey. If anything, she came across more as his would-be political executioner.

I suspect Jeremy will give whoever replaces her plenty of space-especially if whoever does replace her extends the same courtesy.

And I've heard that the most recent polls put Labour in the lead in Scotland, which would seem to indicate that Corbyn is not a hated figure north of the Tweed.

[T_i_B]

9. I would ask Denzil about polls and popularity in Scotland...

...as he lives there and as such is in a much better position to explain the reality of the situation on the ground. If the polls are true then surely Dugdale deserves a fair portion of the credit?

Dugdales biggest problem IMHO was lack of experience. She took the job on with Scottish Labour at a very low ebb indeed, and at a very young age for such a role.

[Denzil_DC]

10. The "poll" Ken's referring to,

Last edited Thu Aug 31, 2017, 01:37 PM - Edit history (2)

which has been eagerly seized on by Labour hardline loyalists up here, is a small subsample of a national poll which amounted to around 125 people. You might as well disembowel a chicken.

Unless things have changed, all the evidence is that the "Corbyn bounce" has passed Scotland by. At the election, the most optimistic projections put it at an extra 10,000 votes - just enough to put Labour in third place behind the Tories, which is where they've remained in all the full pols I've seen (not that there've been many, and none I'd wager on).

Corbyn's visit up here was a damp squib. He had healthy audiences at indoor gigs in the Western Isles, Glasgow and at the Edinburgh Fringe, but other than that, the turnout's been pathetic. And even at those well-attended events, most were likely party loyalists, union delegates and Labour apparatchiks or elected members, so hardly effective outreach.

Corbyn also made a series of gaffes during his visit.

He accused the SNP of failing to mitigate Tory austerity in Scotland. Bollocks. The Scottish Government spends millions mitigating the likes of the bedroom tax, while Labour at Westminster either abstains or actively supports a great number of austerity measures, even in its last manifesto.

He claimed that the SNP privatized the Scottish railway system (earlier, he also wrongly claimed the SNP had privatized Scottish ferry services), indicating he's either a liar or a dunce. The SNP only gained the power to have a public-sector bidder for rail services last year, after the most recent contract with Abellio had been signed. Doing otherwise, let alone going for nationalization, would be have been illegal under current legislation.

He promised that Labour would build over 100,000 new public sector houses in Glasgow to overcome the drastic shortfall in supply. Labour was in control of Glasgow City Council until earlier this year, and had evidently done far too little to address this need. The SNP are now in power there and have already instigated a programme to address it. When Labour was in power in Holyrood, it built all of 6 (yes, six) public sector houses (some argue only one got built, and the other five were completed after Labour were ejected). Under the SNP, there's been a concerted programme of hundreds of thousands of public sector and affordable houses.

I could go on and on with examples where he's insultingly ignorant about Scotland (contrast this with his lifelong interest in Ireland), including an interview statement from Corbyn about having different rules under Brexit for different parts of the UK being impossible because you can't have different legal systems in the same country. Scotland has had its own famously discrete and independent judicial system since the Act of union. You'd expect a long-serving MP to know this.

Corbyn is largely irrelevant to Scottish Labour's problems except as a focus for division, as the weeks ahead will no doubt show. Those problems will always exist no matter who's the leader while Scottish Labour is literally just a branch office (technically, in electoral terms, an accounting unit) of UK Labour. We have different priorities up here, and asking us repeatedly to subsume them to the needs of the UK as a whole is one major reason Labour foundered in Scotland in the first place.

He majored on criticizing the SNP, only criticizing the Tories in the UK (and Tories in Scotland not at all) by blaming the SNP for the outcomes of policies over which it has no control - and Labour should know this because it voted against giving meaningful control to the Scottish Parliament during the Smith Commission (whose recommendations were further watered down to neuter Holyrood by the Tory-controlled Scottish Office). Labour only ever had the ambition of Holyrood being a sop to nationalism and a talking shop like a glorified regional council. Now it's no longer guaranteed to be a party of control in Scotland, it's got little interest in using the parliament as anything other than a venue to bash the SNP.

Almost all the positive messages Corbyn had to convey on his brief visit to Scotland were things the SNP is actually doing anyway - and often against bitter opposition from Scottish Labour! It would be a surprise to many of you who're used to critical coverage of the man in your media to see how easy a ride the press up here is giving him about all this.

He'd do better with the likes of me on his excursions to the northern reaches of the Empire if he acknowledged the good things the SNP are doing as an example of how things could work in the rest of the country. But he's tribal. Like a lot of the remaining Labour supporters. And while Labour in Scotland (and probably the rest of the UK) sees the SNP as "the true enemy", rather than Tory policies, he'll get nowhere with me. Make the most of him Down South. He doesn't have a message I'm convinced by, and I've lived long enough to have seen how Labour promises evaporate once they're in power more than once.

[Ken Burch]

11. I agree with you on some points:

1) He actually should acknowledge that the SNP have done some good things in power. I think he will be freer to do that now that Dugdale's stood down-she was a sectarian Blairite and her vote as a member of the Labour NEC, a body to which her membership has always been somewhat in question-gave the anti-Corbyn right wing of the party a one-seat majority. If she s replaced by someone from the Scottish Labour Left, I suspect you'll see a different attitude on that.

2) As I said in OP, there should never have been a Labour pact with the Tories in Scotland-Labour had an obligation to try and regain at least some of the Scottish seats it lost, but not by inadvertently helping Theresa May's allies gain enough ground to cling to power with the support of the Ulster Homophobia Party(sorry, the DUP).

3) Labour shouldn't see the SNP as a greater menace than the Tories. The SNP might assist on this by taking independence off the immediate agenda-and focusing more on just being a progressive "good government" party-the Parti Quebecois, the Quebec equivalent to the SNP, has recently taken a step along this line, promising that it they are returned to power at the next Quebec election, the PQ will not call another independence referendum during its first term in office.

Labour should pledge that, of returned to office, it will increase Holyrood's powers. The Smith Commission was years ago, at the height of New Labour. I can understand your anger towards the party on that, but not so much towards Corbyn and where he's going with things now.

Here's a dilemma that Jeremy faces on Scotland:

It's going to be tough for any party to defeat the SNP at Westminster or Holyrood level, if you are the leader of Westminster Labour, can you really get away with essentially giving up on writing off an entire nation within the UK on the electoral level? Is he supposed to say "I'm never going to even try helping my party regain ground in one of its historic strongholds"? He needs to show some respect to the SNP's achievements, but at the same time he has responsibilities to his own party. My own suggestion would be that he and whoever leads Scottish Labour need to put the Scottish wing of the party, for the first time since Holyrood was created, to the left of the SNP.

[Denzil_DC]

12. Point by point:

(1) You seem to have a very romantic image of who might be a leadership contender from Scottish Labour's "left". All of them are as tribal and unlikely to change tack on the SNP as the others, as that's going to be the last remaining sinew that holds Labour together up here. Take a look at the contenders so far. Not a pretty sight. The party's been hollowed out, and there's no strength in depth.

(2) The overwhelming dynamic that drove that Labour/Tory "pact" is anti-independence, and hence anti-SNP (independence and the SNP aren't synonymous, but they're the obvious and only credible target if you don't want to see it happen, or adopt that pose for cynical electoral gain). Only one leading SLabour figure has said the party should even debate whether to support independence in recent times, and he's ruled himself out of the running.

(3) Labour shouldn't, but it does, and has done as long as I've been involved in politics. It just became a greater focus once the SNP became able to pose a serious challenge electorally. I don't see why the SNP should adapt its political focus to make it more palatable to the third party in Scottish politics, which isn't even clear about quite a number of its own policies. The SNP's been doing fine as it is. It would, in any case, risk losing a substantial amount of its own support if it did as you suggest, apart from acting in as unprincipled a way as Labour, for no return.

You're kidding yourself if you think anything the SNP could do would change attitudes among Labour hardliners. Name me one initiative the SNP's undertaken, at Holyrood or Westminster, where Labour's had its back or shown its representatives any respect. A scant few individuals have done so, but the same could be said of the Tories (the less said about the Lib Dems, the better). The Welsh Assembly's First Minister was just up here for talks about Brexit with Sturgeon, and there did seem to be some mutual respect. But that's over a policy where Labour under Corbyn have been floundering. (What's the policy today? Don't blink or it'll change.) I also haven't seen Corbyn criticizing the Labour-controlled administration down there for not doing enough to mitigate austerity etc. As head honcho of the UK party, you'd think he might have some sway and want an example to point to of where Labour was governing well and leading the way in face of the problems that afflict the UK.

By the way, the Smith Commission wasn't years ago, it took place in late 2014. Here's how it panned out in terms of devolving tax-raising powers:



The watered-down recommendations in the Smith Report were further diluted then finally enacted in the UK Parliament in March 2016, after much wrangling. Who was Labour leader then?

Nothing in Corbyn's attitudes or statements makes me imagine he thinks Holyrood should get more power - if he even supports at all the continuation of an inconvenient parliament that just makes life difficult for Labour. He's consistently blamed our government for not doing things his own party blatantly refused to give it power to do. He really doesn't find us that interesting, despite being the home of Keir Hardie (himself a home-ruler) and all sorts of romantic guff about the Red Clyde and the nobility of hard and dangerous toil.

Why shouldn't I be angry at Corbyn? He's Labour leader and came up to my home country on a flying visit to yet again patronize us and spout a bunch of provable lies about what's going on up here while not being held to account for them. Why would I want to support that attitude being in government? If he cuts it out, I won't have cause to be angry. Simple.

Yet again, it's all about what Labour needs, Labour's internal struggles and problems etc. After a few decades, that gets very boring. I'm looking at what I and the people around me need. It's not a bunch of useless entrenched hasbeen hacks (13% of Labour's Holyrood members are ex-Scottish Labour leaders!) with an inexplicable lingering sense of entitlement ("they're our voters, our seats" ).

But what do I know? I just live here.

[Ken Burch]

13. I was wrong on the Smith Commission date.

I would note, however, that that was when Ed Miliband led Labour. Corbyn is not responsible for that decision at that time, and I think could be persuaded to take a different view. You disagree.

I'm not going to tell you, of all people, not to feel. Your anger towards Labour's historic failings and betrayals seems well-grounded to me.

It's possible I have excessive expectations of what the next Scottish Labour leader might stand for. I mainly felt that whoever comes next would probably be more reasonable and less limited in outlook than Kezia, and would recognize that Labour's only possibilities for recovery there lay in embracing policies to the SNP's left. I recognize that Sturgeon has done a lot of progressive things.

BTW, if I'd lived in Scotland in 2015, I most likely would have voted "Aye". I'm not an anti-independence zealot-it's simply that have a greater sense of the possibilities with Corbyn than I would have with Ed. You disagree, and you live there.

I was simply trying to have some sort of dialog with you-not convince you of the error of your ways or anything.

My point has never been to exalt the Labour Party as much as to achieve the most progressive future for all.

[Denzil_DC]

14. Corbyn was Labour leader when the Scotland Act 2016 was debated and voted through Parliament.

Do you remember any notable speech or move he made or stance he took about it at the time?

The bookies' frontrunner for Scottish Labour leadership at the moment is "newly converted to Corbynism" ex-MP and now MSP Anas Sarwar (beware that Wikipedia page, as it currently says he's now Scottish Labour leader and "On 1st of September 2017 he was announced as the new leader of the Scottish Labour Party. In an unusual twist he celebrated outside his family's cash and carry scoffing Tunnocks tea cakes whilst riding a Great British bulldog." - which I think may be vandalism). A highly ambitious rightwing, turncoating, carpetbagging, dynastic tool with a shady family past could be the new great white hope.

The only name that's emerged so far as a possible leftist candidate is Richard Leonard. He's a long-time GMB apparatchik with no public profile. Since most of the rest of the gaggle at the top of Scottish Labour aren't above trimming their sails to suit the weather (instant Corbynites if they think that'll further their careers) or proclaiming their commitment to "socialism" while championing Tory-lite policies, it's not going to be a gripping or constructive contest. Maybe finally my old pal Jackie Baillie will stand, rather than being the eminence grise behind the leadership.

Scottish Labour strongly voted for Owen Smith in the UK leadership election. I don't know that there's been enough of an influx of new Corbyn-supporting members into the party to tip the balance the other way, and the right wing are already shrieking about leftwing purges and a Corbynite takeover, so the next few weeks look like being fun.

Welcome to Scottish Labour - it's always been a broad church. We used to have to rub along with some terrible rightwingers (often union delegates) when I was involved in my CLP. The only thing that eclipses Scottish Labour hardliners' antipathy to the SNP is their hostility to opponents in their own party.

[Ken Burch]

15. As always, I learn from your posts.

Last edited Fri Sep 1, 2017, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

n/t.

[Denzil_DC]

16. You obviously shouldn't just take what I say on trust.

Here's just one example of some of the misinformation Corbyn and Momentum were spreading during Corbyn's visit to Scotland.

The Ferret's an independent bunch of journalists who're setting themselves up as a sort of mini-Snopes/Politifact for Scottish politics (they've not been slow to criticize the SNP when they felt it warranted).

Fact Check: The SNP could not have allowed public sector bid for ScotRail

The ScotRail franchise is back in focus after a viral video shared by grassroots Labour group Momentum caused controversy.

The video, produced by the Transport and Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA) and viewed nearly 60,000 times on YouTube, criticises the Scottish Government’s role in awarding the franchise to Dutch company Abellio.

Momentum and the TSSA are campaigning for Scotland’s railways to be brought into public ownership, and the video strongly suggests the SNP chose to award the Scotrail franchise to Abellio instead of awarding the franchise to a public sector body.

A press release accompanying the video included a statement from TSSA General Secretary, Manuel Cortes. It said: “If the SNP are complaining about our campaign it’s because they’re feeling on this issue because they continue to collaborate with the privateers.”

https://theferret.scot/snp-scotrail-franchise-public-ownership

The Ferret's journalists' verdict on these claims is False, just short of the most damning verdict of FFS! You can read their reasoning at the link. The TSSA didn't respond to a request for evidence.

There were other criticisms of what many saw as cheap xenophobia and unfortunate national stereotyping in the video, but those are different issues.

[T_i_B]

17. Thanks for the info about the likely sucessors to Dugdale.

Politicians have been "trimming their sails to suit the weather" for as long as there have been politicians and it cannot be a surprise if a number politicians who have previously been Blairites suddenly convert to left wing politics now that Corbyn's faction is in the ascendancy.

You have been taken aback by our Alaskan friends devotion to Corbyn in the past, but it's worth thinking about why you come across more people like our Alaskan friend south of the Tweed.

In Scotland a vast swathe of the sort of people Corbyn's politics attracts jumped ship from Labour en masse following the Independence referendum. In England those people are flocking to Corbyn but in Scotland there is a clear alternative for those people, whose disenchantment with Labour is often bigger than one man. Scottish and English politics are growing further apart, which is not always healthy IMHO. However, this does create a need for parties north of the border to be more independent of their central offices in London.

[Denzil_DC]

18. Well, yes to all that, T_i_B.

It really depends, in a Scottish context, what you mean by "Corbyn's politics". Up here, they seem to amount to airy promises of delicious pie in the sky when we've already got much of the pie he's offering already on our table, but he doesn't like the cook, so it turns to ashes in his mouth and he strongly discourages others from appreciating it.

Corbyn's bound by party policy, though message discipline from him and others in the UK Shadow Cabinet is often lacking - not least about Brexit! That problem is even more apparent when you throw the Scottish branch office and its motley crew into the mix.

So Corbyn at the moment, even to those who want to project the most favourable interpretation onto his politics, is a creature of contradiction, and whether you give him a pass for that depends on how on board the Corbyn train you are.

He favours nuclear disarmament, but the party's policy is to retain Trident and press ahead with its replacement with a successor system (albeit in some watered-down form that makes even less sense than the full replacement).

He rails against austerity, but Labour's last manifesto projected major continued cuts of the sort he'd slam the SNP for enacting.

I could go on, but I imagine you get my drift, and the article I posted a while back, "Reassessing Corbynism: success, contradictions and a difficult path ahead", covers these sorts of issues and triangulations and convenient obfuscations very well.

One of the main policy tensions between Scottish Labour and the SNP in power has been the question of universal provision of benefits etc. versus means testing. For instance, we have universal free prescriptions, universal free school dinners, etc. ("free" at the point of delivery, of course, as there's no such thing as a free lunch!).

The arguments for universal provision are that they're a lot cheaper and simpler to administer, they avoid stigmatization, and they mean that those who're being asked to contribute more of their taxes to the public pot see something concrete for their money, enhancing social cohesion and reducing resentment at the idea of others getting "something for nothing" (it's not so long ago, after all, that a UK Labour spokesperson was adamant in public that Labour was the party of working families, not dole scroungers). Scottish Labour's main argument seems to boil down to that those who have larger incomes should be penalized.

I'd argue that Scotland's an extreme case of the political fragmentation that afflicts the whole UK. Regions all have different needs and different priorities, and the question is how to cater for those when the bulk of the population and political power is concentrated in the South East.

Some form of federalism is an obvious answer, but our experience and that of Wales and Northern Ireland of devolution hasn't been positive in terms of conflict with both Labour and the Tories' strong centralizing instincts. And the chaos of Brexit means that any such large-scale constitutional changes (probably involving more referendums - aaaaargh!) are going to be punted a long way down the road.

I can't see that preference for centralization improving under Corbyn, not least because he's so obviously and shamelessly out of touch with the situation in Scotland, and I've seen no evidence his grasp of the specific issues in the rest of the UK outside London is much better.

[Ken Burch]

21. There are contradictions, but it's not as simple as saying Corbyn is contradictory

The dilemmas he faces is that even though he is leader and the overall majority of Labour members and paid supporters are on the left, the Blairite party bureaucracy, which has entrenched itself through years of severe restrictions on internal party democracy, is still largely in control of the policy-making apparatus and still has a one-seat majority on the NEC(National Executive Committee, for the benefit of any other North Americans reading this)due to anti-Corbyn fiddling with the resuts, so there are limits, at least until the next couple of party conferences, on the ability of Corbyn and the democratic socialist majority within Labour to establish party policy. My feeling is that it was the party bureaucrats in Westminster and Kezia Dugdale and the Scottish Labour apparatchiks at Holyrood largely setting the policies you AND I(and most of Corbyn's supporters)disliked, and that most of the info Corbyn had on Scotland were filtered through Dugdale. The Labour gains were almost solely due to the promises in the Corbyn stump speech, which was well to the left of official party policy. The bad policies you rightly point out, Denzil, are Blairite holdovers with no support within the party other than the right-wing party bureaucrats and the right-wing MPs who were imposed as candidates by Blair in the Nineties, the ones who don't realize they are only in office because they stand in constituencies that vote Labour no matter what.

Until very recently, Corbyn was unable to move too aggressively to set policy, because there was, right up until polling day, a large faction of bureaucrats and MPs-supported by virtually no one in the rank and file-refusing to accept that seeking to oust the man as leader. It's not Jeremy that's contradictory, it's his party-a massive grassroots majority for socialist and democratic being thwarted repeatedly by a right-wing elitist clique that, in some cases, cares more about avoiding war crimes trials then they do about returning the party that elects or employs them to power or about doing anything to help those Labour exists to stand up for.

Is Jeremy flawless? God no. What I respect about him, though, is that, with his flaws, he is the first UK party leader in decades(I'm counting Nicola Sturgeon as a national, not UK leader here) to actually stand for a positive, idealistic, hopeful sense of life. That's why so many young people(other than in Scotland, where Labour seems to be a youth-free zone-why ELSE would a corporate lobbyist like Owen Smith run ahead there in the leadership race? It's hard to imagine him carrying the day if Labour north of the Tweed weren't mainly a collection of bitter old crooks)respond to him, and I stick with the guy because it's hard to see anything but a return to dreariness and irrelevance for Labour if he were to stand down as leader before internal democracy and grassroots control of the constituency parties and the annual conference were established. Until then, it's either Corbyn or Labour returning to the Harriet Harman era when it stood for nothing and had no reason to exist.



I agree with you on federalism for Scotland-and for much greater home rule powers for Wales as well, and I'd like to see Northern, Southern, Midlands and London regional assemblies for England, all elected by proportional representation. No one to Corbyn's right within the party(and the only people the MPs would allow on a ballot to replace the man would be hard-right sectarian Blairites, no
actual socialists or social democrats would be tolerated by the PLP)would be more decentralist.

[Ken Burch]

20. I can see a case for voting SNP in Holyrood elections.

Looking at it as an outsider, it's harder to see what voting SNP achieves in Westminster elections.

It may have been useful between 1976 and 1979, when there was a minority Labour

And I think that, while left-wing Scots have ample reason to dislike what UK Labour has often done on Scottish issues since 1974, Labour, virtually every working class or poor voter in Britain has one long-standing reason to distrust or resent the SNP:

The party's decision to support the Tory-introduced no-confidence motion against the Callaghan government in 1979.

That no-confidence motion, which passed by one vote as a result of SNP support, forced a general election at a time when the only possible result was a solid parliamentary majority for Margaret Thatcher(and also cost the SNP 7 of their 10 seats). That majority created the conditions for the dismantling of much of the welfare state, the crushing of the unions, and the manifest injustice of the Poll Tax-an injustice visited on Scotland before any other part of the UK. And it set back the Scottish independence cause by at least two decades. The SNP knew there was no way forcing an election at that point would do anything to advance any of their goals and would hurt Scots more than anyone else.

Voters with humane, progressive values and those not billionaires have just as much right to be angry about that as you have to be about anything Labour has done, Denzil. It would help a lot if Nicola Sturgeon-a person I quite admire, for the record-would acknowledge that the Nats made a disastrous choice in '79.

I realize that a lot of the kind of voters who back Corbyn in England and Wales threw their support to the SNP in Scottish constituencies in 2015. I'm not sure how praising the SNP government would achieve anything.


And I also believe that, once it was certain that that would happen-as it was as soon as the campaign was underway-Labour under Ed Miliband should have announced their willingness to work with the SNP in a minority parliament. Ed knew Labour had no chance of winning a majority and would be lucky to even be the largest party; in ruling out any cooperation with the Nats at all, Labour essentially promised to lose.

[Denzil_DC]

22. Dude, I'm not going to respond to your post above this one

Last edited Sun Sep 3, 2017, 11:24 AM - Edit history (2)

because there are so many hours in the day and all I'm seeing yet again is Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy and what Labour needs, and quite frankly I'm beyond tired of the whole pantomime when we have so many pressing issues that it's taking time and energy away from.

You excuse Corbyn for having his hands tied when he doesn't choose to acknowledge how a party in actual power has its hands tied. Make excuses for him and Labour's confused state all you will, I'm not impressed. Your assertion that "nobody could be more decentralist" than Corbyn is utterly lacking in concrete evidence.

On this post of yours, while it had its 56 SNP MPs (latterly 54), Scotland at least had effective representation at Westminster and gave the government a serious run for its money while Labour under Corbyn was agonizing about itself and sitting on its hands, abstaining or even supporting the Tories' legislation - a lot more current that anything that happened 40 years ago. Other Labour MPs, despite tribalism, were perturbed at how useless and self-preoccupied and careerist the previous bevy of Labour Scottish MPs had been.

But this is the most arrant bullshit you've come out with yet:

And I think that, while left-wing Scots have ample reason to dislike what UK Labour has often done on Scottish issues since 1974, Labour, virtually every working class or poor voter in Britain has one long-standing reason to distrust or resent the SNP:

The party's decision to support the Tory-introduced no-confidence motion against the Callaghan government in 1979.

Do you know who would have disagreed with you? Jim Callaghan himself.

The history's too long and complicated (and depressing) to relate here (as usual, a cheap one-sentence soundbite takes a lot more words to unravel), and I can't quote enough to make sense without falling foul of DU's fair usage rules, so here's a summary: https://wingsoverscotland.com/36-years-of-discontent/

Callaghan had the guts in retrospect to place the blame firmly at Labour's door. By refusing to make any concessions to the SNP (not least the result of having been hemmed in by circumstances, his own pigheadedness and the plotters in his own party), he basically defied the SNP MPs to vote against him. That was a very bad bet. The SNP could have folded and lost any credibility, or voted as it did.

Anybody who was alive in the UK at the time knows how much of a mess Callaghan's government was in. It was no fun huddled in the dark trying to study by candlelight in the latter part of the 20th century, and that was the least of the problems.

There would have had to be an election by the autumn of 1979 anyway, and Callaghan himself wasn't keen on waiting that long to go to the polls because Labour's support was in a continuous downward spin, as the Tories' vast majority at the election that did happen showed. It would quite possibly have been an even worse result if the election had been postponed.

Nevertheless, the SNP did use those circumstances and the consequences of its 11 votes (out of 311) to take a leftward turn under Salmond (thereby starting the process that eventually - quite recently - saw the likes of me feeling comfortable giving them my vote), which with a few glitches has continued to this day. It learned a lesson. I don't think Labour has, because this ahistorical tripe keeps getting trotted out as a justification for opposing policies that actually benefit people today.

To have to reach back 40 years for such a cause of resentment says it all about Labour and people like you who buy into the propaganda (the very fact you bring it up makes me want to suggest you find some better, less hopelessly partisan, sources of information on Scottish politics, then we might not be at loggerheads so often). The fact that so many Labour supporters and members have defected to the SNP is testimony to its irrelevance and redundancy.

The 40% rule could be held up as the root act of betrayal (and a particularly useless one given what happened about devolution later). I wasn't paying much attention to politics at the time, but I remember being outraged by it even as a teenager living in Wales. As Callaghan himself wrote:

{The rule} was instigated by another Labour sceptic, George Cunninghame {sic}, with the support of Labour and Conservative opponents. He proposed that if the consultative referendum contained in the bill resulted in less than 40 per cent of the total electorate voting in favour of Devolution, then the Secretary of State for Scotland would be required to lay an Order before Parliament, wiping out the whole Act.

This provision was carried by a majority of fifteen, with as many as thirty-four Labour Members voting against the Government. On the other hand a small number of Conservatives and the Liberal Party supported us.

I have since wondered whether those thirty-four Labour Members would have voted as they did if they had been able to foresee that their votes on that evening would precipitate a General Election in 1979, at the least favourable time for their Government.

But there have been plenty other outrages since that give a more current focus for anger.

[Ken Burch]

24. I know Callaghan's government itself was a trainwreck

And that Denis Healey's indefensible decision to accept an IMF bailout that forced large cuts in the welfare state did its own damage. I was a supporter of the Eighties Labour Left(and recall that Michael Foot would almost certainly have defeated the Tories after one term had it not been for the corporate-backed creation of the SDP-a party that had no reason to be born).

What I was saying there that forcing an election at the moment that motion forced it was the worst possible choice for Scotland, in addition to the grievous and still-unhealed wounds it inflicted on people in the rest of the UK. It made it impossible to stop the Tories from winning a majority(having the vote even in July rather than May might have made the difference). It caused the Poll Tax. It caused a massive increase in unemployment among Scots. It caused the crushing of unions throughout Scotland. Given that there was never any chance of Margaret Thatcher disregarding the 40% rule, and given that the SNP were nearly wiped out, what was the POINT in forcing an election?

And I brought up 1979 to make a point: You and others in Scotland bear long-term resentments and grudges towards Labour(some of which I share, at least when it comes to the pre-Corbyn era). Can you not see how a lot of people have just as much reason to resent the SNP for putting Margaret Thatcher into power as you feel about Corbyn not giving SNP government at Holyrood the credit it deserves?

(side note: I'm not sure where you were going with the complaint about Labour punishing people with higher incomes. You do realize it is impossible to do anything social democratic without imposing higher taxes on the rich? It would be far worse to increase VAT or impose other consumptive taxes, because those punish people with lower incomes).

And I don't claim that Corbyn is infallible...he's got his flaws and I'd recommend he read your posts in this thread...but is it an indefensible proposition to say that the man is a better leader for his party, represents a kinder and more compassionate politics, than anyone the PLP would allow on the leadership ballot if he stood down? That it would be a tragedy for all, including Scots, if Corbyn was replaced by somebody like Chuka Umunna or Yvette Cooper or maybe Liz Kendall? Is there anybody who could even possibly lead Labour that you actually think would be better for Scotland(given that Labour as a party is never going to simply vanish)?.

If I sound protective towards the guy, it's because most of the people in his own party who spent years trying to remove him as leader were reactionaries and that many remain apologists for the Irag/Afghanistan invasion. The ones who want him out want Labour to be massively to his right, want it to match the Tories nearly-cut-for-cut, want to keep taxes down on the rich and UK troops continually invading Arab/Muslim countries(while pretending that revived imperialism-which is what any UK military intervention would automatically be-can somehow be "progressive&quot .

You're going to keep voting SNP and I respect that...but I'm not going to apologize for supporting the first decent human being to lead the Labour Party in decades and the first one in generations who believes Labour should actually stand for something beyond power for power's sake.

[Denzil_DC]

25. Listen. Listen good, because I'm about done wasting my time on you.

What I was saying there that forcing an election at the moment that motion forced it was the worst possible choice for Scotland, in addition to the grievous and still-unhealed wounds it inflicted on people in the rest of the UK.

Can you not see how a lot of people have just as much reason to resent the SNP for putting Margaret Thatcher into power as you feel about Corbyn not giving SNP government at Holyrood the credit it deserves?

Try an experiment. Actually come over to the UK, since you seem so concerned about the situation here.

Talk to people about the late 1970s. Talk to the impoverished, the "voters with humane, progressive values and those not billionaires" you claim to be so concerned about. Ask them about the political situation of the time.

I'm willing to bet good money I can't afford that if they remember it at all, they will recall the utter disaster the Callaghan government made of its time in office.

They'll remember the unburied bodies.

They'll remember the vast piles of garbage festering high in the streets.

They'll remember the three-day week.

They'll remember the regular power cuts.

They'll remember the Winter of Discontent.

They'll remember "Crisis, what crisis?"

They'll place the blame firmly at the feet of those who were actually responsible - the Labour government and the overreaching, irresponsible unions of the time.

A vanishingly small percentage will blame the SNP for all this because they're not fucking insane.

What part of "It would quite possibly have been an even worse result if the election had been postponed" are you unable to grasp?

How the hell do you think Labour would have been able to overturn the polls that showed a landslide majority for the Tories in the few months between March and autumn 1979?

Evidence for this?

People voted for the Tories in large numbers.

They voted for them again and again.

Many who voted for them were from what was termed "the working class".

Many voted against their best interests in the long term because they were bribed with short-term gains or the myth that one day they'd benefit.

Many from across the board, and from those afflicted parts of the population, to this day will tell you gravely that "Thatcher did what had to be done."

Very few will express any affection for Callaghan.

Probably even fewer, even within Labour, will express affection for Foot.

And this comes from someone who actually consistently voted Labour at general elections of the time and after it.

Barely any will express sympathy for the unions.

Labour and the unions have never regained the ground lost during that period.

Labour has spent all its time since then running away from the spectre of it all, and with good reason.

Callaghan refused to do a deal with the Ulster Unionists over a pipeline that would have defeated the motion.

Callaghan decided not to call on MP Sir Alfred Broughton to risk his very fragile health to attend and vote in an ambulance.

The Labour Chief Whip was grudgingly but generously offered a deal by Tory Chief Whip Bernard Weatherill that he would abstain himself since Broughton couldn't vote - a move that would have ended Weatherill's career. He turned it down.

The Liberals - bitter ex-partners in government with Labour - had their own role to play, and would have put forward their own no confidence motion if the Tories hadn't.

The Irish nationalists refused to back Labour, but were generously willing to campaign for Callaghan's re-election if the vote was lost.

And you're going to sit there and blame the SNP?

Away and boil yer heid.

[Ken Burch]

26. It was Heath that did the three-day week. And I'm not defending Callaghan.

n/t.

[Denzil_DC]

27. Mea culpa.

I suspect, like many, that whole period of union unrest and incompetent governments blends into one for me. The rest stands.

You're not defending Callaghan? But you're condemning the SNP for a bit part 40 years ago in a mammoth sustained balls-up of Callaghan and Labour's making.

I really am done with you now.

[Ken Burch]

29. My point about the no-confidence motion was not about claiming Callaghan was brilliant.

Callaghan was a disaster and from what I've seen, Healey spent much of the Seventies actively working to sabotage his own party-using alarmist rhetoric about Labour's tax policies in the run up to the 1974 elections, and then doing the IMF deal when there was no need for it. Most of the problems in the late Seventies were down to the IMF deal and the assault on the welfare state begun by it.

The Seventies was a bad period...but what would have made that a better time? It's not as though Scotland would have benefited from Heath staying in power or from the Liberals moving past Labour as the main non-Tory party. And there's a "chicken or egg" question as to whether the unions would have been that militant had Labour not agreed to austerity policies that put workers under direct attack.

It would have been far better for all concerned if Foot, rather than Callaghan, had won the Labour leadership in '76 when Wilson stepped down. I'll grant you that Foot may not be a beloved figure, but he was at least respected as a man of principle and did nothing to deserve the treachery of those who formed the SDP just to prevent a Labour victory on an actually socialist manifesto. If the Gang of Four hadn't done what they did, Thatcherism would have ended after four years and the trade unions-the only means working people have ever had of defending themselves from exploitation-would not have been crushed.

I also think that, had Tony Benn held his seat in 1983 and then replaced Foot as leader rather than the deeply disliked and principle-free Neil Kinnock, Labour would have won or at least reduced the Tories to a minority in the 1987 election. Benn knew how to present himself on television, was never intimidated by Thatcher in the way that Kinnock was, and would have turned Labour's unilateralist position on the Bomb into a plus rather than a minus by actually making a case FOR getting rid of nukes and using the funds required to maintain them for social good, and would not have wasted endless party resources expelling socialists FROM the party instead of building a broad movement for socialism. As the 1990s prove, when Labour isn't socialist and when it is casual about starting wars, Labour ends up not standing for much of anything at all.

I used the no-confidence motion simply to illustrate that political grudges can go in more than one direction.

[Denzil_DC]

19. A backgrounder from the Glasgow Herald's Tom Gordon

The first part of the article recaps the last UK election results in Scotland (it's worth bearing in mind any talk of a "collapse" in the SNP vote is in comparison to the almost certainly unrepeatable swings and astonishing highs of the 2015 election). Gordon's as unimpressed with the "Corbyn bounce" in Scotland as I am.

The second part looks at Scottish Labour's finances:

There were other figures for Scottish Labour to ponder this week, as the Electoral Commission released the accounts of the main parties for 2016. Most of the attention fell on UK Labour’s bulging coffers thanks to union donations, and on the SNP going £1.2m into the red. But one of the wildest facts was that Scottish Labour, at least on paper, had less income (£400k) and a smaller expenditure (£504k) than the Scottish Liberal Democrats (£772k and £592k) and even the Scottish Greens (£448k and £630k).

How on earth, in the year of a Holyrood election, could the party which started out as the official opposition be so outgunned, even by the fourth and fifth parties?

Despite Kezia Dugdale’s best efforts to make Scottish Labour more autonomous in policy and election matters, it is far from independent. It’s not even strictly a party, but an “accounting unit” of UK Labour. According to this unit’s accounts, its campaign expenditure was £539,000 in 2015 and £198,000 in 2016. But it told the Electoral Commission it spent £1.64m and £338,000 in those years. (Yes, Mr Murphy spent £1.64m, more than the SNP, for one MP.)

The difference comes from UK Labour heavily subsidising the Scottish operation. Without it, the unit would be flat broke. Hence Scottish Labour finds itself is in a bind. The election data suggests Scots are yet to be convinced by Mr Corbyn, and a pro-Corbyn leader might struggle to win them over. But the accounts show the accounting unit can’t afford to be on bad terms with the UK party as it needs its handouts, and a centrist leader might struggle on other fronts. Ms Dugdale certainly found UK Labour less than generous in the June election. An interesting contest indeed.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/15510866.Tom_Gordon__Scottish_Labour_s_numbers_don_t_add_up

The Wings Over Scotland blog takes a closer look at Scottish Labour's finances and what they might reveal about its membership figures, which are a closely kept secret (How secret? Wait and see whether the coming leadership election results are expressed in numbers of votes rather than the uninformative percentages for each candidate that were released after the last leadership election.):

Motes and beams

The Times today carries an article sparking the annual revival of one of the evergreen mysteries of Scottish politics: just how many (or more accurately, how few) people are in the Scottish Labour Party?



The piece sees leadership contest avoider Alex Rowley crowing about a fall in the SNP’s membership income, based on this year’s party accounts as just released by the Electoral Commission.

...

A few paragraphs later on, the piece reveals that the decrease in the SNP’s revenues from membership fees in 2016 was £156,500 – a fall of 5.7% on 2015’s figure of £2.74m, down to £2.59m.

The amount of the SNP’s loss alone, however, far outstripped Scottish Labour’s entire membership income for 2016, which was just £108,024.

That’s a drop of 10.3% on the 2015 total of £120,479. In other words, proportionately Scottish Labour’s membership income has gone down by almost twice as much as the SNP’s in the last year, despite endless talk of surges of new members.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/motes-and-beams/

Wings' analysis reckons Scottish Labour's membership may be closer to the low thousands rather than the 30,000 often bandied about - if true, worse than where it was before Jeremy Corbyn came along, when 10,000 members seemed a reasonable estimate.

Membership doesn't equate directly to votes, of course, but it may be some indicator of enthusiasm.

[Denzil_DC]

23. Another backgrounder from the Herald, this time from Paul Hutcheon

And the leadership election's off to a swimming start:

Kezia Dugdale: the wasted talent who left her party in the lurch

SCOTTISH Labour’s away day in an Edinburgh hotel on Friday was supposed to be a relaxing affair, but the MSPs, MPs and councillors who bothered attending must have wished they'd stayed at home.

With Kezia Dugdale quitting two days earlier, supporters of the two candidates tipped to replace her – left-winger Richard Leonard and New Labourite Anas Sarwar – had their minds on securing endorsements and printing materials.

But instead they had to listen to party number two Alex Rowley drone on about the “right-wing press” and praise Dugdale in a way he rarely did when she was leader. Others called for “unity” and appealed for colleagues across all sections of the party to come together.

However, a figure in the upper echelons of the party offered a more sceptical assessment of his organisation to this newspaper: “There are more snakes in Scottish Labour than in an Indiana Jones film.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15511514.Kezia_Dugdale__the_wasted_talent_who_left_her_party_in_the_lurch/

And here's a piece from our Canadian friend's heroine (though apparently not to the extent that he'll pay her the respect of actually digesting her arguments, preferring to see her as a young firebrand somehow "stolen" by the SNP from Labour) Mhairi Black:

Mhairi Black: Changing the branch manager won’t improve Labour’s fortunes

IT was great to see the opening of the new Queensferry Crossing this week, or the Saltire Bridge as many people have started to call it after the wonderful lighting display which highlighted the structure. It is remarkable when you realise that this bridge was built without any funding from the UK Government and was completed with around £245 million to spare – enough to supply around 30 years of baby boxes. There were lots of compliments for the new bridge even from Labour politicians who until very recently had objected to it and described it as a vanity project.

However, Labour’s attention was soon drawn to yet another leadership contest with Kezia Dudgale’s surprise resignation from the branch office in Scotland. Not counting the temporary, stand-in leaders this will now put Labour on to their ninth leader in Scotland since the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999.

The decision to stand down as leader seems to have come as a surprise to many within Scottish politics and has already resulted in many commentators assessing the success – or otherwise – of Dugdale’s tenure in the post. She certainly inherited a disjointed and downbeat party which had suffered the massive shock of losing all but one of their MPs. However, her role as leader was hampered by many poor interviews where it seemed she was badly briefed and was making up policy as she went. The main driver of Labour policy seemed to be an instinctive hatred of all things SNP; if the SNP proposed a policy then Labour would oppose – without any thought given to the benefit of said policy. Her antipathy to the SNP came to the forefront in the recent snap UK General Election where she seemed very relaxed at the prospect of voters in some constituencies voting Conservative instead of Labour in order to defeat the SNP – a move which certainly helped Theresa May remain as Prime Minister.

...

Labour’s attitude to Scotland has always been one of relying on a steady supply of MPs to warm the green benches in the House of Commons. There is no interest in Scotland unless it is something that can benefit the UK. Jeremy Corbyn’s recent fleeting visit to Scotland highlighted this attitude where he even mentioned Scotland as part of the “regions and nations of England”. If this lack of knowledge wasn’t bad enough his comment about it the problems of establishing a separate legal system in Scotland simply underlined his complete lack of knowledge of this country.

http://thenational.scot/politics/15510549.Mhairi_Black__Changing_the_branch_manager_won___t_improve_Labour___s_fortunes

If you see any resemblance between her take on things and my earlier posts, it's not because I'm psychic or a frikkin political genius, she's just telling it like it is.

For good measure, here's her take in 2015 on Corbyn's election:

Mhairi Black: The election of Corbyn changes nothing

THE election of Jeremy Corbyn was one of those occasions which prove you can never truly predict politics, especially when watching events unfold from within the cynical walls of Westminster.

When he announced his candidacy for the leadership I had multiple conversations with Labour MPs, old and new, who spoke of their frustration and anger that he had put himself forward.

He was, they said, “bringing the party into disrepute” and causing them to have “an old 1980s debate” that they didn’t need to have. The fear that they would be forever unelectable was palpable. If the SNP landslide was considered cataclysmic by many Labour MPs, then the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader was to be considered apocalyptic.

I, like so many others in Scotland, know that this is not an attitude shared widely among a substantial number of the people in the UK, especially in Scotland. The election of a socialist leader is to be viewed by many as a sign of hope. A sign that Labour in England and Wales may actually begin to work with the SNP and take the hand of friendship that has been outstretched. What has been questionable is the insinuation that this is evidence that Labour is returning to its roots as the party my grandpa and father used to vote for. I have received many (often taunting) emails and tweets asking me when I will be “coming home” to join Labour under Corbyn’s leadership. The answer is that I won’t be, and I hope to use this article to articulate exactly why.

http://www.thenational.scot/comment/14855745.Mhairi_Black__The_election__of_Corbyn_changes_nothing/

[Denzil_DC]

28. Well now ...

I saw this coming:

Labour frontrunner faces backlash over wealth, schooling and opposition to Corbyn

THE frontrunner to become the next Scottish Labour leader is already facing a backlash over his wealth, children’s schooling and an “unforgiven” call for Jeremy Corbyn to stand down.

Millionaire Glasgow MSP Anas Sarwar, whose children attend a £10,000-a-year private school, has emerged as the favourite to replace Kezia Dugdale after she quit on Tuesday.

However some senior figures in the party believe his privileged background means he faces a credibility challenge preaching the party’s mantra of “For the many, not the few”.

Mr Sarwar also signed an open letter last year calling on Mr Corbyn to consider his position and “do the right thing” after a vote of no confidence by Labour MPs.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15504860.Labour_frontrunner_faces_backlash_over_wealth__schooling_and_opposition_to_Corbyn/

But not this:

English row in Scots Labour race

The battle to become Labour’s next leader in Scotland has been marred by claims of dirty tricks after opponents of one of the frontrunners claimed it could be disastrous to pick a privately educated Englishman.

MSP Richard Leonard, an organiser for the GMB union for 20 years, is believed to be preparing to confirm his candidacy as the choice of the left after Kezia Dugdale unexpectedly quit last week.

He would be the first Englishman to lead the Scottish party but some Labour opponents say his broad Yorkshire accent and private schooling would play badly among Scottish voters as the party tries to regain ground lost to the SNP after a spate of poor elections.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/english-row-in-scots-labour-race-tc8n9vxjs

[Denzil_DC]

30. YouGov: "Why the Labour centrists stand a better chance in Scotland"

Kezia Dugdale’s recent resignation means that for the third successive summer year Labour will have a leadership contest. However, this contest will take place amongst Scottish party members and not the UK wide “selectorate” that twice voted for Jeremy Corbyn.

This may make a difference in terms of what kind of candidate ends up winning the most support. After being twice burned by Jeremy Corbyn’s overwhelming victories, the more centrist factions of the Labour party will hope that in the upcoming contest they end up on the winning side of a leadership election.

Our data suggests that they may have a better chance than in the previous two summers’ national votes. In last year’s contest, Scottish members were noticeably less “Corbynista” than the rest of the UK. YouGov’s data indicates that while England and Wales were both overwhelmingly in favour of Jeremy Corbyn, Scotland favoured the challenger, Owen Smith.

Furthermore, party members in Scotland are slightly more centrist than their English and Welsh counterparts, with over a quarter (27%) describing themselves as “slightly left of centre” compared to 20% in England and Wales.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/09/13/why-labour-centrists-stand-better-chance-scotland/

This polling falls foul of the usual problems of small Scottish subsamples, but it's all there is at the moment (other than some other recent routine polls that show Labour stubbornly stuck in third place in Scotland).

If there's been any noticeable "Corbyn effect" in Scotland, it seems to have been more reflected in an increase in membership of the Campaign for Socialism (established in 1994, nowadays allied with Momentum) than an increase in Labour membership.

So the outcome of the Scottish Labour leadership election (currently between two uninspiring candidates whose supporters are already engaged in heated media and social media campaigns to discredit the other) hinges on entryism, and what membership time limits will be set for being eligible to vote in it, between now and 18 November, when the election will be held.

[Ken Burch]

31. As you pointed out, most of those who would be "Corbynyista" ended up in the SNP.

The remaining SLAB membership is to the right of the Labour rank-and-file in the rest of the UK by default. the people who are still part of SLAB are basically the ones who vote Labour out of tribalism and nothing else.

It wasn't Corbyn's fault that those people switched to the SNP-Ed Miliband was leader when that happened-but it is his task to somehow get them back for Westminster elections. it does leave him with a challenge there. He should ban any further electoral pacts with the Scottish Tories and propose greater federalism, and probably will at some point.

BTW if you don't like him, remember that nobody to his right at Westminster Labour is going to take a more sympathetic position towards Scotland-the Blairites are the ones who made sure the Scottish Parliament did not have taxing powers. The "we have to stay away from that socialist nonsense" crowd are also the "we have to stay away from federalism" crowd.

Given the continued weakness of Holyrood Labour, I'd argue that they should simply cease standing in elections for that body. It's pointless for them to keep contesting elections where they're just going to keep finishing third. Were Holyrood election run on strict FPTP, Holyrood Labour would probably have about the same percentage of MSP's as the old Liberals had at Westminster in the 1945-1970 era.

[Denzil_DC]

32. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you don't actually read what I write,

or if you do, you have the memory retention of a gnat.

Somebody on this thread spent far too much time on DU over the last year or so defending Corbyn against smears of being anti-Semitic, against the undemocratic antics of the Labour hierarchy, against shameful propaganda levelled at Momentum supporters, against accusations of being unelectable etc. etc. (OK, the last one I may be wrong on - time alone will tell).

That somebody was me.

It's nothing to do with "liking" Corbyn. I'm not looking for a pal or a boyfriend.

I have criticized Corbyn because he's consistently either lied about the Scottish Government and the political situation in Scotland, or he simply can't be bothered to research what's actually happening up here. Either is inexcusable, and I have every right to be angry about it. I also feel he's been lamentably weak in his opposition to the Tories' utterly predictable Brexit power grab and very conveniently vague and contradictory on too many issues that will come back to haunt Labour at the next election. I don't give a stuff if that rattles your cage as a slavish Corbyn supporter.

I'm hard pressed at the moment to think of anyone in a position of influence within Labour who'd take a less sympathetic position towards Scotland (he has a publicly available voting record as an MP, and his stance and votes have never been favourable to Scottish devolution, let alone independence). He apparently doesn't even pay us the respect of finding out what's actually going on, he just wants our votes. That's very Old Labour.

Labour didn't generously "grant" Scotland a Scottish Executive (only later, under the SNP, did it become a parliament), it had to be dragged into doing it against its will under UN pressure and the threat of severe sanctions from the Council of Europe after some canny behind-the-scenes politicking. If it takes that sort of hard-nosed move to disentangle us from this almighty mess, I guess we'll have to find a way to do it, no matter what May, Corbyn or any other politico thinks about it.

I added a few posts with up-to-date information and analysis to this thread because the Scottish Labour leadership election's going to be a tiresomely long haul and I doubt many are going to be that interested in a string of whole new threads when something else comes up. That wasn't an invitation to go over the same old tired ground again and again.

I'm really, really tired of you lecturing me about the situation in my own country, and I'm within a hair of placing you on ignore, because I think these endless exchanges benefit nobody, and risk sucking the air out of the group.

[Denzil_DC]

33. Finally, the leadership election results, and the winner is ...

Richard Leonard:

Leonard won a total of 56.7% with his opponent, Anas Sarwar, only managing to pick up 43.3% of the vote. The contest had a turnout of 62.3%.

The MSP said Sarwar will have a "vital role to play" going forward.

https://stv.tv/news/politics/1402509-richard-leonard-elected-as-new-scottish-labour-leader/

Leonard's seen as a Corbyn ally. He's only been an MSP since 2015, having been a GMB union organiser for many years, so has little track record in government (which may be a good thing for him).

He inherits a party riven by the often bitter leadership election and recent scandals and kerfuffles:

... ex-interim leader Alex Rowley was suspended from Labour on Wednesday over accusations of sending a string of abusive messages and controlling behaviour by his former partner.

This leaves Scottish Labour currently without a deputy leader (Rowley's official permanent post), so another election may be on the cards.

Meanwhile, ex-leader Kezia Dugdale has been drafted in at the last minute to appear on I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me out of Here (no, this is not The Onion), which is causing unrest among the ranks of a party that's been keen to accuse the SNP (in chorus with the Scottish Tories, whose leader is due to take part in The Great British Bake-Off) of "not getting on with the day job":

Leonard: Dugdale may be suspended in next few days

New Scottish Labour leader Richard Leonard has told STV News he will hold talks with his MSPs about suspending his predecessor Kezia Dugdale in the next few days.

Dugdale has decided to leave the country to star in the hit ITV reality show I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out Of Here in Australia.

Her decision to leave her duties behind at Holyrood has been met with fierce criticism from her colleagues.

Labour MSP Jenny Marra tweeted: "Election to parliament is a privilege to serve and represent people. It's not a shortcut to celebrity."

https://stv.tv/news/politics/1402512-leonard-dugdale-may-be-suspended-in-next-few-days/

Dugdale says she will donate her MSP salary during the time she's on the show and part of her appearance fee to charity.

[T_i_B]

34. "Reality" TV shows?

This is why, as much as I dislike the SNP, I think that the main priority for Unionists has to putting our own house in order.

Which is something you don't do by appearing on stuff like Great British Bakeoff and I'm a twat get me out of here.

[LeftishBrit]

35. What is it about politicians swanning off from their jobs to appear on reality shows?

Two of my less favourite Westminster politicians, Nadine Dorries and George Galloway, did that too!

[Denzil_DC]

36. On the brighter side, I reckon it finished off the serious period of Galloway's career!

What a disappointment he's been. He was never a pleasant or savoury character (we saw him close up in Scotland), but his evisceration of that Senate Committee had me punching the air.

I think the justification/excuse in both Dugdale and Davidson's cases is that it's for charity.

The fact that neither have held a constituency surgery in living memory (only barely an exaggeration) isn't going unnoticed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Davidson on a Bake Off special wouldn't have taken much time

A few days at most, and they're not isolated or out of the country. And there's no ritual humiliation involved, so I really can't criticise her for that. Lack of constituency surgeries doesn't sound good, though.

[Denzil_DC]

38. Yeah. If she's a crap baker, she could be out of there in no time!

She's openly angled for a slot on Celebrity Strictly Come Dancing as well, but I think Susan Calman got the slot instead (not that I ever watch it). Whether there's ritual humiliation involved in that depends on the performance, I guess - John Sergeant and Ed Balls hammed it up and made bad dancing a popular success (honest, I don't watch it), but it could have easily gone Pete Tong.

It's the combination of hammering on about "the day job" while not properly representing their constituents/voters that grates (Davidson's now finally a constituency MSP, Dugdale's a list MSP, but should still hold surgeries), though they're far from the worst offenders among the new intake.

Part of me thinks Dugdale might have done this partly as a "fuck you" to Scottish Labour, who've treated her pretty poorly in recent times (social media allegations that she's an SNP plant might be taken as a joke, but the assholes making them, like Ian Smart, aren't renowned for their sense of humour). The fact her current partner's an SNP MSP, Jenny Gilruth, probably doesn't help.

I reckon she might resign and go do something else pretty soon, as I don't think her heart's been in it for a while. Much as she's annoyed me at times (more than annoyed me with the teaming up with the Tories at the last election, though that may not have been her idea) and I don't think she was good at her job, I hope she finds something to do that suits her better. The only time she's absolutely impressed me (and many others) was an impassioned speech she gave at Holyrood about the "rape clause" and two-child cap on benefits. She could be a good advocate on those sorts of issues.

[T_i_B]

40. Does make you wonder about the list system

If MSP's elected off the regional list aren't holding surgeries, is that indicative of an underlying problem with the list system?

The other point of comparison here is the European Parliament, and elections to that legislature have thrown up some horrendously bad representatives (more often than not from UKIP I admit, but still)

By contrast, the only MP local to me who doesn't do surgeries is Jared O'Mara, who is currently suspended from the Labour party.

[Denzil_DC]

41. It does.

On the other hand, without it, we might never have had Sturgeon as First Minister.

We don't have a perfect PR system in the Scottish Parliament - it wasn't designed to be so!

[Denzil_DC]

39. Ugh. This is NOT a promising start from Leonard.

BiFab, a fabrication yard with its main base in Methil in Fife (northeast across the Firth of Forth from Edinburgh), was in danger of closing because of cash flow problems, with the possible loss of 1,400 jobs.

The Scottish Government worked hard (as it did before in the case of the Tata Steelworks, securing a deft deal that stopped it being mothballed) to find a solution in collaboration with the unions:

Union leaders from Unite and GMB have praised the Scottish government for its role in brokering the deal.

In a joint statement, Unite's Pat Rafferty and GMB's Gary Smith said: "Make no mistake these yards would be closed today if it wasn't for the dignity and determination of the workers and their families in Fife and Lewis to save their jobs and industry.

"With their futures on a knife edge they worked for nothing, stayed strong and resolute and by staying united they have won their future.

"Further, the Scottish government said they would leave no stone unturned and their efforts have been pivotal in bringing BiFab back from the brink."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-42026628

The GMB was Leonard's old employer before he became an MSP.

The GMB's Twitter reaction?

Link to tweet

GMB Scotland @GMBScotOrg



Full credit to @NicolaSturgeon and the Scot Gov for battling for #BiFab. Future of the contract delivered. Now to build for the long-term. #battleforBiFab

Leonard's Twitter reaction?

Link to tweet

Richard Leonard @LabourRichard



I welcome the fact that the combined pressure of BiFab workers, their trade unions and the public have forced a deal from the Government.

As we await the details of the deal, we must ensure that it protects all the 1,400 jobs under threat now and in the future.

At least some among Scottish Labour have the grace to go beyond tribalism in the face of an important victory against common odds:

Link to tweet

Pauline McNeill MSP @pauline4glasgow

Amazing news. Totally unexpected. Well done to all the workers @GMBScotOrg and @NicolaSturgeon https://twitter.com/nicolasturgeon

Leonard's first outing at next week's First Minister's Questions could get a bit bumpy.

[Denzil_DC]

42. It's not getting any better

(I'm not inclined to start another separate Scottish Labour thread at the moment, but this performance out of the gate is depressing even me!)

Richard Leonard accused of gaffes galore in first major speech as leader

...

Calling for a massive expansion of public ownership, he was meant to say: “The people of Scotland deserve public services owned and publicly accountable: our railways, buses, energy and water.”

However what he actually said was: “The people of Scotland deserve public services which are publicly owned and publicly accountable: our railways, our buses, energy and Scottish Water need to be taken back and remain in public ownership.”

The SNP said Mr Leonard appeared not to know Scottish Water was already in public ownership, or that the Scottish Government was committed to making a public sector bid for the Scotrail franchise, or that it wanted councils to be able to run bus franchises.

In her speech to last month’s SNP conference, Nicola Sturgeon announced the creation of a publicly owned energy company.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15686747.Leonard_accused_of_gaffes_galore_in_first_major_speech_as_leader/

The speech was attended by Corbyn, so he won't have learned much to help overcome his own ignorance of what's going on in Scotland.

Leonard's confusion about Scottish Water may have partly come about because one subsidiary sector of the organization's work - commercial and business contracts - must by law to be put out to public tender.

The law in question is the Water Services etc. (Scotland) Act 2005.

It was enacted by ... wait for it ... Labour.

[T_i_B]

43. What on earth is happening with Scottish Labour at present?

Looks like Labour's internal infighting has made it's way north of the Tweed.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/04/scottish-labour-leader-sacks-two-msps-in-purge-reshuffle

[Denzil_DC]

44. AFAIK, it's actually a separate strain of infighting, and endemic to Scottish labour.

It's most recently blown up around ex-Scottish leader Kezia Dugdale's ill-advised and very costly defence of a defamation case against Wings Over Scotland blogger Stuart Campbell, where she accused him of homophobia in a Daily Record article then again in the Scottish Parliament. The costs so far have been eye-watering, it seems she has little prospect of winning, and it came as a shock to many Labour supporters that their scarce funds had been spent on the case, apparently with little or no accountability or formal decision-making. Dugdale's been publicly very bitter about how she's been treated by Scottish Labour (she's more or less been in the wilderness since she stood down, and isn't expected to remain an MSP for much longer).

Where it does reflect Labour's problems Down South is in the split between pro- and anti-Corbynites, with abiding resentment of pro-Corbyn Leonard winning the leadership election over Sarwar, not helped by the fact Leonard's been thoroughly useless ever since. There are overlaps between those involved in that ongoing spat and the Dugdale affair. It has to be said that although this has crystallized around pro-and anti-Corbyn factions, even without Corbyn the same frictions would exist, and have done for many years.

Word is that Sarwar and his cronies have been briefing against Leonard for some time. Baillie (who you may remember I'm not at all fond of) has been a wannabe power behind the throne for many years, and may have been stirring things herself, as that's her style. Leonard doesn't seem much of a leader, and the way he carried out his "reshuffle" was pretty poor and cowardly. He's also brought back Alex Rowley after a time in the wilderness while a case of sexual harassment against a former parter ground on. The way this was resolved internally within Labour and the treatment of the complainant were very shoddy, which can't have helped.

So, all in all, you know, the same old same old dysfunction and boring petty bickering and vying for position that drove Labour supporters like me away many years ago ...