Cannon Fodder

Martin Kettle is always worth a read and in this Guardian article he starts off with a bold claim that Britain is still a Labour country.

Now I'm not sure I agree with that because Scotland is certainly no longer a Labour country, even more so after the independence referendum and the 2015 general election will provide another test of how far the SNP has managed to knock Labour off its perch.

Wales is still a Labour stronghold for sure, but is small beer compared to Scotland in terms of numbers and rarely manages to punch above its weight.

Which leaves England and although it is a difficult call between north and south, cities and shires, I would say England is a more Conservative country than a Labour one, all the more so if you factor in the Ukip vote, even if the Ukippers appeal to some disillusioned Labour voters as well.

All of which makes the May 2015 general election particularly interesting and I noticed the pointed barb at the end of Martin Kettle's piece in which he says that Labour winning is one thing - whether it would provide a good or strong government is another matter altogether.

I take his point which is why I'll be using my vote to try and ensure that Scotland sends fewer 'deadwood' Labour MPs down to Westminster where they are treated a cannon fodder by the party leadership.  

Look at the polls: Britain is a Labour country, not a Tory one

George Osborne struggles because the post-Thatcherite mood that swept Tony Blair to power has still not receded


By Martin Kettle - The Guardian

'One of the keys to understanding the current phase of British politics is that the chancellor has been taken aback by the government's failure to gain a polling dividend from Britain's economic recovery.' Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

Gordon Brown and George Osborne have much more in common than either of them is happy to admit. Both have famously served as intensely political chancellors. Both are bywords among colleagues for big-picture thinking shot through with meanly partisan calculation. Osborne’s big setpiece speeches can often feel like a Brown tribute act with their rapid-fire delivery, deceptively partial information and love of rabbits pulled out of hats to wrongfoot the opposition.

There is, however, no direct connection between Brown’s retirement and Osborne’s autumn statement except that the two events both took place this week. Yet the coincidence is a dramatic reminder of what happens when the public turns against a government. It happened to Brown in 2010; and now he is gone. The same thing may well happen to Osborne in 2015; and he knows this better than anyone.

One of the keys to understanding the current phase of British politics is that the chancellor has been taken aback by the government’s failure to gain a polling dividend from Britain’s economic recovery. Grasp this and a lot else about the political situation becomes clear.

The confidence that such a dividend would arrive in 2015 was central to Osborne’s calculations when he embarked on what he calls the rescue of the British economy in 2010. But the return to growth in the last two years has not caused the voters to say thank you. Now time is running out before the general election. Hence this week’s shift from Dr Osborne administering the medicine, to Santa George bearing gaudy electoral gifts.

Do not be misled by the admittedly impressive political streetcraft of Wednesday’s announcements. They may have been delivered with the usual icy confidence; but they are nevertheless a large calculated gamble in an intensely difficult set of circumstances. Osborne, like all intelligent Tories, is aware that the economic and the political project on which they embarked in 2010 has been carried to a place it was never intended to go, in which economic expectations are declining, not expanding, and in which re-election, even within another hung parliament, is far from certain.

There are two ways of summing up the Conservatives’ position – an economic way and a political way. Though neither is hopeless, neither is good either. Osborne presides over a failed fiscal strategy – fewer than half of his spending cuts have been completed, and borrowing is set to rise for the next two years – and an economy that is recovering while delivering low wages, diminished government revenues, large spending cuts and where growth will slow after this year. Now, in the autumn statement, by firing up the housing market again, Osborne risks fuelling another rise in debt-driven demand of the sort that caused the collapse in 2008.

Needless to say, this has not been a popular strategy except among the unreconstructed Thatcherites – who do not include Osborne – who see an ever smaller state as desirable in itself and as a royal route to electoral success. Osborne may believe the former, as many of us might in some circumstances, but he is not so foolish as to imagine the latter. No one can draw that conclusion, especially at present, when Tory support hovers around 32%, when the polling in the Tory marginals remains unfavourable and when, as YouGov reported this week, confidence in the government’s handling of the economy has declined this autumn.

It is clear therefore that both the political argument and the economic argument remain wide open to win or to lose. That is not a situation that gives thoughtful Tories much comfort. And in spite of all the noise about Nigel Farage, it is not Ukip that worries them in this context. It is Labour.

It may seem perverse to be worried about a party that was heaved out of office under Brown four years ago. Quick general election bouncebacks of the sort Labour currently needs are rare in UK politics. Add to that the fact that Labour is still blamed more than the coalition for the state of the economy, that its economic prescriptions remain unclear to most voters, that its share of the vote – already low in the polls – tends to decline as elections near and that its leader has appalling ratings, and you can make a powerful case for saying Labour has little chance of victory in May.

And yet the party is manifestly in with a chance. The first-past-the-post voting system in UK general elections gives the bigger parties so many advantages; the failure to redraw the boundaries works in Labour’s favour; though Labour is doing badly by historic measures, the Tories are often doing just as badly or even worse; and, simply, Labour is the party of the NHS.

But it is also because, for all Labour’s many faults, this era in this country still remains more fertile for the party than it is for the Tories. History never stands still, but the post-Thatcher mood that brought Tony Blair into office 17 years ago has not drained entirely into the sand. It was a mood that embraced regulated market capitalism alongside a fair deal and a fair chance for all.

Much of what the Labour governments achieved gave those voters what they wanted; some of what those governments did fell short. Time has moved on, as it always does. But this remains in many ways the mood of Britain today, a generation on, and crucially the coalition has done little to alter it.

Britain remains, in other words, more a Labour country than a Tory one. Other things being equal, Labour ought to be closer to winning the election than the Conservatives. Or, as a former minister put it to me this week: “The country would prefer to live under a Labour government. People want permission to support Labour. But Labour is not doing enough to give them that permission. In some ways it is denying it to them.”

No single issue embodies that problem more powerfully than Labour’s failure to admit its past mistakes while also taking ownership of its past achievements. If it had done so, Labour would be in a stronger position. Yet the enduring mistrust of the Tories and the material self-interest of those worst hit by austerity means Labour can and may still win anyway. Whether it would be either a strong or a good Labour government are other questions altogether.

Clear the Deadwood (19 November 2014)

I was pleased to read this report from the BBC that the SNP are prepared to changed the party's rules to allow non-members to stand in the May 2015 general election.

Because if you ask me, the best way to secure lasting political change in Scotland is a 'Popular Front' committed to cutting the Westminster Parliament down to size.

In turn that means taking the Labour Party down a peg or two, something that has already happened in the Scottish Parliament and in Scottish council elections where Labour is no longer the largest party.

So Westminster remains the last redoubt where the old Conservative v Labour politics holds sway and I think that Scotland's interests after the next general election would be better served by a Popular Front of 'independent minded' MPs.

As opposed to the present Labour contingent who have shown over equal pay, for example, to have all the backbone of a jellyfish when it comes to standing up for the interests of their local constituents.

Consider for a moment the behaviour of Labour MPs in North Lanarkshire where a fierce fight over equal pay has been raging for the past 10 years. What have any of them had to say to support the position of low paid workers such as Home Carers?   

In neighbouring South Lanarkshire Council the same thing happened even while the Labour-run Council was dragged all the way to the UK Supreme Court before being forced to publish details of the huge pay gap between traditional male and female jobs.

And what did all the Labour MPs in South Lanarkshire Council have to say about the scandal?

Nothing.  

One of their number, Michael McCann MP, happens to be the former deputy leader of South Lanarkshire Council and he must have known what was going on, yet decided not to stand up and be counted.

So I think it would be great if these Labour MPs were driven out of Westminster and replaced by people who are committed to doing the right thing without fear or favour - and without pulling their punches. 

SNP to allow non-members to stand

The "Yes" campaign attracted activists from a wide range of organisations

SNP leaders plan to change party rules to allow non-members to stand as candidates in the general election.

The move is designed to appeal to activists who campaigned for a "Yes" vote in the independence referendum.

The plan will be unveiled at the party's conference, which will open in Perth later.

Under the plan, prominent "Yes" campaigners who are not in the SNP would be able to stand for election under the party's overall banner.

In order to do so, they would need to be on an approved list and be adopted by a local constituency.

Party sources have told BBC Scotland that this would harness "the strength and diversity" of the wider "Yes" campaign.

The plan is expected to be adopted by delegates in Perth as Alex Salmond hands over the leadership of the party to his deputy Nicola Sturgeon.

In his keynote speech, Mr Salmond will forecast that Scotland remains on course for independence, despite defeat in the referendum on 18 September,

And he will say of his opponents: "They thought it was all over... well, it isn't now".