Time's up Tony

The post-Thatcher reconstruction that never
happened under Labour is the real challenge facing Sco

Not only will Blue Labour be swept out of office by the SNP and allied forces (the new coalition of the willing) it will be cleansed from 1000s of local council seats where it has festered for far too long.

Like the MMR that breeds in its privatised hospitals, Labour's grip on local authorities has acted as an incubus for backhanding and the sort of corrupting comfortability of eternal rule.

'Why oh why' cries a perplexed Unionist media as editors gradually wake up to the potential of constitutional change.

Constantly being daubed 'subsidy-junkies' while funding the London Olympics is a minor irritant and Blair's Wars a real motivation but most people are looking forward.

Why should Scotland host Trident 2 - a moral absurdity and a strategic nonsense? The sums don't add up and everywhere Labour's credibility is in tatters.

Relentless privatisation rubs against the grain of the wider mainstream of Scottish political culture.

The emblematic deluge of shite cascading from the PFI water treatment plant into the Firth of
Forth by Edinburgh was perhaps the perfect symbol for the fag-end days of the Blair Project in Scotland. The owner of this consortium? Thames Water.

So what happened after this major public health disaster affecting communities and wildlife for miles up the river estuary? Who was called to account? The head of SEPA perhaps, one of Labours countless useless
quangos? The manager of Thames Water maybe?

Nothing. Nobody was held to account let alone fired. Whatever happened to "rights and responsibilities".

Where's your ASBO culture - your blanket solution to a lost generation - when it comes to chums and croneys running what should be public utilities?

The incident was a shocking indictment of the failed Lib-Lab administration.

So who will govern Scotland in their place? Not Labour. But will the Lib Dems retain their ministerial Mondeos under the leadership of the awesomely uncharismatic Nicol Stephen?

Lets hope not for the grey men of the Lib Dems combine apparently green credentials (they want more
renewables - but who doesn't?) with an audacious road-building programme and plans for airport extensions.

Stephen was the man who gave the go-ahead for the hated M74 after a multi-million pound public inquiry deemed it a terrible idea. Not very liberal and not very democratic you might think.

More promising could be a renewed Green presence - any advance on their current eight MSPs would be a boon and could have the affect of offering a little noticed alternative partner for the SNP if they can offer enough concession to bring in the Greens Swedish-modelled idea of 'confidence and supply' through which they don't enter a formal coalition but support the main planks of a minority govt in return for
some 'red line issues' In this case, no new nuclear, no Trident and a massive increase in renewables.

All of which would be a real victory and a shock to the British State pre actual independence.

Other room for manoeuvre beyond a dispiriting and dissipating coalition with the Lib-Dems could be based on the oddballs, rebels and misfits that could be elected via the STV system, including Tommy Sheridan,
Margo MacDonald and a host of independents. Could this unlikely band of troubadors help the SNP move beyond the slick slogan 'It's Time' and answer the question, yeah but time for what?

There's a desperate need to lift the nationalist vision beyond sycophancy to business leaders and start sorting out the massive social problems Scotland faces. The post-Thatcher reconstruction that never
happened under Labour is the real challenge facing Scotland.

It's almost certain that a large part of the support for the SNP is strategic but that is not the same as saying its an anti-Labour vote.

For decades the polls showed that support for independence outstripped support for the SNP and at some level that is still true. Whatever the result Labour have nobody to blame but themselves.

Only yesterday Blair was asked about his party's poll flop and his answer was revealing. Smiling his inane smile and gripping his faithful coffee mug he "When you're mid-term its always tough". Somebody should
have briefed him ('You're in Scotland Tony, its not mid-term its end of term, the parliament's been dissolved').

It's not Jack McConnell's fault, it's not Gordon 'Two Flags' Brown's fault either. But ten years is a long time in politics. Blair destroyed everything that Labour was based on, so he can hardly be surprised when
its natural supporters reject him. Time's up Tony.

Gus Abraham is the editor of 1820
 
 
Getty
Show Hide image

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.