Jim Murphy is the new leader of Scottish Labour. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Jim Murphy MP is elected Scottish Labour leader

The Labour MP for East Renfrewshire, former Scottish Secretary and former shadow cabinet member has won the Scottish Labour leadership contest.

Jim Murphy, Labour MP for East Renfrewshire, has won the Scottish Labour leadership contest. Here are the full results:

Jim Murphy: 55.59 per cent

Neil Findlay: 34.99 per cent

Sarah Boyack: 9.42 per cent

Kezia Dugdale, MSP for the Lothian Region, was voted the new deputy leader, beating Katy Clark MP by 62.9 per cent to 37.1 per cent.

Murphy described it as a "remarkable honour" and the achievement of a "dream". He said:

Today is a fulfilment of a dream for me. I’ve always dreamt of being appointed the captain of a team in the east end of Glasgow . . . Scotland is changing and so too must Scottish Labour. I’m ambitious for our party because I’m ambitious for our country . . . There can be no excuses now: we have the power, the question is do we have the purpose? . . . I understand the cries for change . . . I was born here, I live here, I will lead here. I will always put Scotland first. Nothing is beyond us if we work together. First we have to tear down those barriers that hold back so many of our fellow citizens.

He concluded his speech by saying he sees this as an opportunity to build, "the fairest nation on earth".

The candidates had been jostling to become leader of the Labour party in Scotland since Johann Lamont resigned from the post following the Scottish independence referendum, accusing Westminster colleagues of treating the party in Scotland like a "branch office".

The frontrunner Murphy, who has served as Secretary of State for Scotland, beat the left-winger, and predicted favourite among the union voters, Neil Findlay MSP and less high-profile backbencher Sarah Boyack MSP to the post. He is the only one of the three candidates not to currently hold a seat in Holyrood, and has a huge challenge ahead on a personal level, as well as politically.

As a former member of Ed Miliband's frontbench and often (rather crassly) described as a "Blairite", he will have to persuade an electorate, and a party, sick of Westminster insiders issuing instructions from on high and failing to engage with the Scottish people, that he understands their concerns. He could use his supposed "insider" status to Scottish Labour's advantage; negotiating effectively with his contacts in Westminster should avoid the "branch office" situation Lamont so lamented when she resigned.

He was popular among No voters during the Scottish referendum campaign chiefly due to the energy and commitment displayed by his "100 towns, 100 days" tour around Scotland, standing on his trusty Irn-Bru crates to convince Scots to remain in the Union. Also, his path from Westminster to Holyrood suggests that he doesn't see Scotland as a holding pen for someone wanting to advance their political career in London. He has confirmed that he will leave Westminster for Holyrood if he wins, and would do well to avoid "London elite" attacks from the SNP by ruling out standing again as an MP in 2015.

Politically, his great task is to heal the Scottish Labour party's wounds, inflicted by the rise of the SNP, and a continuing loss of support from Labour's traditional base in Scotland. Particularly worrying for Labour is the prospect of the SNP winning so many seats in the general election that it could completely scupper Labour's chances of being in power, let alone winning a majority. As our leader this week points out, in 2010 the SNP won six seats at Westminster, and now even conservative estimates predict that the figure could treble next May. A YouGov poll out this morning shows the SNP on 47 per cent, with Labour 20 points behind. 

Murphy's well-known support for Trident (a deal-breaker for the SNP if it enters into a form of alliance with Labour in Westminster), and late enthusiasm for devolving full income tax raising powers to the Scottish Parliament, could cause him some problems when he attempts to win support back from the SNP for Labour. But this is the least of his worries: the huge structural problem for Labour's support in Scotland, born of a complacency going back beyond the referendum, and SNP landslide in 2011, will be tough for just one man to fix – particularly with the general election just five months away.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan are both slippery self-mythologisers – so why do we rate one more than the other?

Their obsessions with their childhoods have both become punchlines; but one of these jokes, it feels to me, is told with a lot more affection than the other.

Andy Burnham is a man whose policies and opinions seem to owe more to political expediency than they do to belief. He bangs on to the point of tedium about his own class, background and interests. As a result he’s widely seen as an unprincipled flip-flopper.

Sadiq Khan is a man whose policies and opinions seem to owe more to political expediency than they do to belief. He bangs on to the point of tedium about his own class, background and interests. As a result he’s the hugely popular mayor of London, the voice of those who’d be proud to think of themselves as the metropolitan liberal elite, and is even talked of as a possible future leader of the Labour party.

Oh, and also they were both born in 1970. So that’s a thing they have in common, too.

Why it is this approach to politics should have worked so much better for the mayor of London than the would-be mayor of Manchester is something I’ve been trying to work out for a while. There are definite parallels between Burnham’s attempts to present himself as a normal northern bloke who likes normal things like football, and Sadiq’s endless reminders that he’s a sarf London geezer whose dad drove a bus. They’ve both become punchlines; but one of these jokes, it feels to me, is told with a lot more affection than the other.

And yes, Burnham apparent tendency to switch sides, on everything from NHS privatisation to the 2015 welfare vote to the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, has given him a reputation for slipperiness. But Sadiq’s core campaign pledge was to freeze London transport fares; everyone said it was nonsense, and true to form it was, and you’d be hard pressed to find an observer who thought this an atypical lapse on the mayor’s part. (Khan, too, has switched sides on the matter of Jeremy Corbyn.)

 And yet, he seems to get away with this, in a way that Burnham doesn’t. His low-level duplicity is factored in, and it’s hard to judge him for it because, well, it’s just what he’s like, isn’t it? For a long time, the Tory leadership’s line on London’s last mayor was “Boris is Boris”, meaning, look, we don’t trust him either, but what you gonna do? Well: Sadiq is Sadiq.

Even the names we refer to them by suggest that one of these two guys is viewed very differently from the other. I’ve instinctively slipped into referring to the mayor of London by his first name: he’s always Sadiq, not Khan, just as his predecessors were Boris and Ken. But, despite Eoin Clarke’s brief attempt to promote his 2015 leadership campaign with a twitter feed called “Labour Andy”, Burnham is still Burnham: formal, not familiar. 

I’ve a few theories to explain all this, though I’ve no idea which is correct. For a while I’ve assumed it’s about sincerity. When Sadiq Khan mentions his dad’s bus for the 257th time in a day, he does it with a wink to the audience, making a crack about the fact he won’t stop going on about it. That way, the message gets through to the punters at home who are only half listening, but the bored lobby hacks who’ve heard this routine two dozen times before feel they’re in the joke.

Burnham, it seems to me, lacks this lightness of touch: when he won’t stop banging on about the fact he grew up in the north, it feels uncomfortably like he means it. And to take yourself seriously in politics is sometimes to invite others to make jokes at your expense.

Then again, perhaps the problem is that Burnham isn’t quite sincere enough. Sadiq Khan genuinely is the son of a bus-driving immigrant: he may keep going on about it, but it is at least true. Burnham’s “just a northern lad” narrative is true, too, but excludes some crucial facts: that he went to Cambridge, and was working in Parliament aged 24. Perhaps that shouldn’t change how we interpret his story; but I fear, nonetheless, it does.

Maybe that’s not it, though: maybe I’m just another London media snob. Because Burnham did grow up at the disadvantaged end of the country, a region where, for too many people, chasing opportunities means leaving. The idea London is a city where the son of a bus driver can become mayor flatters our metropolitan self-image; the idea that a northerner who wants to build a career in politics has to head south at the earliest opportunity does the opposite. 

So if we roll our eyes when Burnham talks about the north, perhaps that reflects badly on us, not him: the opposite of northern chippiness is southern snobbery.

There’s one last possibility for why we may rate Sadiq Khan more highly than Andy Burnham: Sadiq Khan won. We can titter a little at the jokes and the fibs but he is, nonetheless, mayor of London. Andy Burnham is just the bloke who lost two Labour leadership campaigns.

At least – for now. In six weeks time, he’s highly likely to the first mayor of Greater Manchester. Slipperiness is not the worst quality in a mayor; and so much of the job will be about banging the drum for the city, and the region, that Burnham’s tendency to wear his northernness on his sleeve will be a positive boon.

Sadiq Khan’s stature has grown because the fact he became London’s mayor seems to say something, about the kind of city London is and the kind we want it to be. Perhaps, after May, Andy Burnham can do the same for the north – and the north can do the same for Andy Burnham.

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.