Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy speaks in Glasgow after his election on 13 December, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Jim Murphy unveils plan to rewrite Scottish Labour's Clause IV

New leader emulates Tony Blair by announcing five new principles for the party's constitution, including commitment to patriotism. 

Twenty years ago, Tony Blair stunned the political world by declaring his intention to rewrite Labour's hallowed Clause IV and end the party's formal commitment to mass nationalisation. The move, endorsed at a special conference in 1995, was a defining point in the birth of New Labour. Ever since, leaders of all parties have been challenged to display similar daring and achieve their own "Clause IV moment".

Today, following his election as Scottish Labour leader last Saturday, Jim Murphy will seek to do quite literally that by vowing to rewrite Clause IV of his party's constitution. Mindful of Scottish Labour's tarnished reputation, which allowed the SNP to win majority control at Holyrood (and to surge in the polls), the former cabinet minister is attempting to redefine his party's purpose for the post-referendum era. He will say in a speech in Glasgow:

Once Labour’s challenge was that too many people felt they could not be Labour and make an aspirational choice.  Today Scottish Labour’s challenge is that some people feel they can’t be Labour and make a patriotic choice. The change we need goes deeper than the leadership style of a new team. If this is to be a genuinely fresh start for our party we need to make more fundamental change.
 
That is why I can announce that I will ask Scottish Labour’s Conference in March to agree a new 'Clause IV' for our Scottish constitution. A new statement of purpose for a new generation in the Scottish Labour Party. It's the biggest change in Scottish Labour's history. This is a 'Clause IV' moment for a different time and a different purpose. Tony Blair rewrote Clause Four of UK Labour to bring us closer to the centre of politics. I want to rewrite 'Clause IV' of Scottish Labour to bring us closer to the centre of Scottish life.
Murphy will go on to outline five principles for the new Clause IV. They are:
 
1. Making it clear that Scottish Labour is a "patriotic party"
 
Murphy will say: "One: we will make it clear that we are both a democratic socialist party and a patriotic party. We are a socialist party yes, but we recognise that our political faith grew out of something deeper which is ingrained in our Scottish character. It was there before our party in the ethics of Burns' poetry, the economic vision of New Lanark, the actions of the Highlanders who took on brutal landlords. A belief that we stand together, look after those who need our help, and make sure that everyone gets a fair shout." 
 
2. Declaring Scottish Labour a party that "represents Scotland first"
 
"Two: while we do not give up on our belief in active solidarity with people across the United Kingdom and around the world, we will make it clear that this is complementary to, and not in conflict with, the national interest of Scotland. 
 
"We will declare ourselves a party that represents Scotland first, and where, as Scots, we work with others to achieve the potential of all."
 
3. Committing to "total devolution" of policy making in devolved areas
 
"Three: we will set in stone the total devolution of policy making in devolved areas. Policy will be made in Scotland, for Scotland, by our Scottish Party, putting the needs of Scotland first."
 
4. Committing to a "permanent and powerful" Scottish Parliament
 
"Four: we will make the same commitment in our own party constitution, as the Smith Agreement did in the UK Constitution, to a permanent and powerful Scottish Parliament."
 
5. Renewing Labour's mission for "a more equal and fairer society"
 
"And Five: we will renew our historic mission for a more equal and fairer society where power, wealth and opportunity are more fairly shared by our fellow Scots and our fellow human beings around the world.
 
"This will represent the refounding and rebirth of our Scottish Labour Party.  
 
"A clear statement of our party’s beliefs. A changing Scottish Labour Party for a changing Scotland."
 
These principles are designed to draw a distinction between patriotism and nationalism (number one), to answer former leader Johann Lamont's charge that Scottish Labour was merely a "branch office" of Westminster (number two and number three), to enshrine the party's commitment to further devolution, including the full transfer of income tax (number four), and to reaffirm its egalitarian values. 
 
With the SNP 20 points ahead of Labour in Westminster voting intention, a lead that would cost Labour 34 of its 40 seats, the scale of the task facing Murphy is daunting. But with the promise of a new Clause IV, he has shown the kind of imagination and creativity that will be required in the months ahead. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

ELLIE FOREMAN-PECK FOR NEW STATESMAN
Show Hide image

Notes from a crime scene: what Seymour Hersh knows

Xan Rice meets the tireless Seymour Hersh to talk My Lai, pricey coffee and Bin Laden.

It’s late on a lazy Wednesday afternoon when Seymour Hersh comes bounding down the stairs. “Let’s find somewhere to sit,” the American investigative journalist says, striding over to the café area of the hotel in Bloomsbury where we meet.

Not quiet enough, Hersh decides, and he marches into an adjoining branch of Steak & Lobster, past a startled waiter who tries to explain that the restaurant isn’t open yet. “He’ll have a coffee,” Hersh tells the man laying the tables, gesturing in my direction. When the drink arrives, he remarks that, at £4.39, it’s the most expensive coffee he has bought in some time.

“I’m older and crankier than [Bernie] Sanders,” the 79-year-old says with a smile, leaning back in his seat, his tie loose and his top button undone. Hersh’s many notable stories include the My Lai Massacre and cover-up in Vietnam, which he exposed in 1969, and the Abu Ghraib prison scandal during the Iraq War. He’s in good health, relishing his speaking tour of London to promote his new book, The Killing of Osama Bin Laden, and hearing “how wonderful I am”.

“I come home from a trip like this,” he says, “and my wife can’t stand me. She says, ‘Get away, I don’t want to talk to you because you want everybody to bow and scrape.’”

Hersh never planned to be a journalist. After he was thrown out of law school for poor grades in 1959, he heard about an opening for a police reporter at a small news agency in Chicago. “I was reasonably coherent and could walk in a straight line, so they hired me,” he explains. Hersh learned on the job, covering his beat with a zeal that did not always impress his editors, one of whom liked to address him, without fondness, as “my good, dear, energetic Mr Hersh”.

“He saw me as a bleeding heart,” Hersh says, “who cared about people ‘of the Negro persuasion’ dying.”

Half a century later, he cannot say exactly what drove him to become an investigative reporter. “What defect did I have in my life that made me want to make everyone else look bad?” he wonders. “I almost viewed myself like a public defender: my job was to be there on the scene of a crime and to write about it in such a way that the police could not have the only call.”

Later, as his range widened, Hersh came to see his role as keeping in check “the nincompoops and criminals and fools running the world”.

He had been a journalist for ten years when he received a tip-off about an army officer being court-martialled for killing civilians in Vietnam. After investigating, he broke the story of the massacre at My Lai, in which a group of US soldiers murdered at least 347 people. The work earned him a Pulitzer Prize and soon afterwards he wrote his first piece for the prestigious New Yorker magazine. After sending in a draft, he was told that it would be read by the editor, William Shawn, and that he would receive a proof copy in the mail.

“Seven days later, the envelope comes and I’m terrified,” he recalls. “It was a writer’s magazine and any change they wanted, they asked you about. On the third page, I had some cliché or figure of speech. It was circled and in
the margin Mr Shawn had written: ‘Mr Hersh. Pls use words.’ I had a one-year course, a Master’s degree in journalism, in one sentence!”

Hersh has written regularly for the New Yorker over the years, though the relationship has recently come under strain. After researching the death of Osama Bin Laden, he became convinced that the Obama administration’s account of what happened before, during and after the raid in which Bin Laden was killed was a lie. He argued that the al-Qaeda leader had been captured by Pakistani intelligence in 2006 and held in Abbottabad until the US navy Seals operation five years later, which, Hersh claimed, was conducted with Pakistan’s assistance – rather than being a daring mission into hostile territory.

The New Yorker declined to run the story, so Hersh wrote it for the London Review of Books, which published it last year. The piece was read widely but attracted criticism from some American journalists who argued that it relied too heavily on a single, unnamed source and veered dangerously in the direction of conspiracy theories. Hersh is convinced that his version is correct and makes no apologies.

“I remember saying to my wife, ‘Don’t [these journalists] have mothers that tell them what to do better?’ . . . They insisted what they knew, what they wrote, had to be the story.”

Hersh’s mistrust of the official line is undiminished. His new book also questions whether it really was the Assad regime that carried out the chemical attacks in Ghouta, Syria, in 2013. Even the culprits of the recent Paris and Brussels massacres are not beyond doubt. “I don’t think Isis had a goddam thing to do with these kids,” he says. “The truth is, I don’t have any idea. I’m just telling you, heuristically, it’s an idea I would pursue if I was still a reporter.”

There is more to tell but Hersh has another interview. “Talk to me tomorrow,” he says, running back upstairs to collect his coat. “I’ll be around. I still have a lot of energy.” 

Xan Rice is Features Editor at the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 28 April 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The new fascism