Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Why is Scottish Labour celebrating? It missed a trick – and perhaps a ton of votes, too

The relentless focus on stopping the Nationalists has done the party no favours – Scottish voters aren’t as tribal as people seem to think.

In the run-up to the general election, exasperation on the Scottish left was clear. “I really want to vote for Corbyn”, read many tweets and comments, “but Scottish Labour are such a mess”.

A resident of Edinburgh North and Leith, where the SNP-Labour race was fairly close, shared a photograph of the Labour candidate’s campaign leaflet. The entire first page was about independence. Nicola Sturgeon was named twice in the opening paragraphs. Every tired phrase was there – “another divisive referendum”, “get on with the day job”, “a nation deeply divided”. 

Giant billboards in key locations featured a sinister-looking Sturgeon, and urged Tory voters to “beat the SNP’” by voting Labour. This campaign embodied precisely the “divisive”, tribal politics that Scottish Labour keep trying to condemn. It verged on the surreal – particularly given what was happening south of the border. 

Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale’s U-turn on Corbyn was late and fairly unconvincing. Yet that could have been overcome if the party had really put its weight behind the Corbyn manifesto, given voice to its more left-wing MSPs like Neil Findlay, and embraced the infectious excitement around Labour generally. Instead, the leadership in Scotland seems blinded by its centrist politics and a hatred of nationalism (Scottish nationalism, that is – British is fine). 

This kind of messaging treated Scottish voters like a bunch of tribal hardliners – but 30 per cent of Labour voters supported independence in 2014. Even with the relentless anti-independence rhetoric, 25 per cent of the party’s vote in this election came from Yes voters. Could it have been higher? 

Those involved in the left-wing, grassroots aspect of the 2014 referendum campaign – particularly the cross-party Radical Independence Campaign – see similarities between the groundswell of political engagement they experienced then, and what is happening with the Corbyn movement now. For many Yes voters, independence was a means to an end. If a return to “real” Labour at a UK level offers those same ends, many would vote for Labour. You can still be pro-independence while wanting UK politics and society to benefit from a progressive government. It shouldn’t be such a surprise that people are capable of nuanced positions. 

Of course, significant numbers of people in Scotland are anti-independence and perhaps are content to hear Labour bang on about the “Nats”. And another large chunk are resolutely pro-independence, and turn towards the SNP.

But ignoring the broad left vote by failing to fully back Corbyn, whilst simultaneously driving away left-wing Yes voters with angry rhetoric, does not seem to be a winning strategy. Ideological difference has returned to politics, and with voters tiring of the SNP’s boring managerialism, Dugdale’s party could have capitalised hugely. Rather than the “stunning victory” she announced, it looked like a massive missed opportunity – particularly given the number of seats that were tantalisingly close. 

For the first time in decades, the Scottish electorate may actually influence the outcome of Westminster elections again. If another vote is on the horizon, much could depend on whether Scottish Labour can up its game. 

Show Hide image

Want an independent-minded MP? Vote for a career politician

The brutally ambitious are not content to fall in with the crowd. 

“Never having had a ‘real’ job outside of politics”: this is what the majority of respondents told a YouGov poll in 2014 when asked the most undesirable characteristic of the British politician. The result is hardly surprising. Type the words “career politician” into your search engine or raise the topic at a dinner party, and quickly you will be presented with a familiar list of grievances.

One of the fundamental criticisms is that career politicians in parliament are elitists concerned only with furthering their own interests. Their pronounced and self-serving ambition for climbing the ministerial ladder is said to turn them into submissive party-machines, sycophants or yes men and women, leading them to vote loyally with their party in every parliamentary division. But do we actually have evidence for this?

A new in-depth analysis, to be published later this month in the academic journal, Legislative Studies Quarterly, presents a forceful challenge to this conventional wisdom. In fact, I find that career politician MPs in the UK are more likely to rebel against their party than their non-career politician peers. Why?

My study was motivated by the observation that the existing impression of the party loyalty of career politicians is based mostly on anecdotal evidence and speculation. Moreover, a look through the relevant journalistic work, as well as the sparse extant academic literature, reveals that the two main hypotheses on the topic make starkly contradictory claims. By far the most popular — but largely unverified — view is that their exclusively professional reliance on politics renders career politicians more brutally ambitious for frontbench office, which in turn makes them especially subservient to the party leadership.

The opposing, but lesser known expectation is that while career politicians may be particularly eager to reach the frontbenches, “many of them are also much too proud and wilful to be content to serve as mere lobby fodder”, as the late Anthony King, one of the shrewdest analysts of British politics, observed nearly thirty years ago on the basis of more qualitative evidence.

Faced with these opposing but equally plausible prognoses, I assembled biographical data for all the MPs of the three big parties between 2005-15 (more than 850) and analysed all parliamentary votes during this period. I followed the debate’s prevalent view that an exclusive focus on politics (e.g. as a special adviser or an MP’s assistant) or a closely-related field (e.g. full-time trade union official or interest group worker) marks an MP as a careerist. In line with previous estimations, just under 20 per cent of MPs were identified as career politicians. The extensive statistical analysis accounted for additional factors that may influence party loyalty, and largely ruled out systematic differences in ideology between career and non-career politicians, as well as party or term-specific differences as drivers of the effects.

As noted above, I find strong evidence that career politician backbenchers are more likely to rebel. The strength of this effect is considerable. For example, amongst government backbenchers who have never held a ministerial post, a non-career politician is estimated to rebel in only about 20 votes per parliament. By contrast, a career politician dissents more than twice as often — a substantial difference considering the high party unity in Westminster.

This finding reveals a striking paradox between the predominantly negative opinion of career politicians on the one hand, and the electorate's growing demand for more independent-minded MPs on the other. In fact career politicians are the ones who perform best in delivering on this demand. Similarly, the results imply that the oft-cited career-related dependency of career politicians on the party can be overridden (or, at the very least, complemented) by their self-image as active and independent-minded participants in the legislative process. This should attenuate the prevalent concern that a rise in career politicians leads to a weakening of parliament’s role as a scrutinizing body.

Finally, the findings challenge the pervasive argument that a lack of experience in the real world disqualifies an MP from contributing meaningfully to the legislative process. Instead, it appears that a pre-parliamentary focus on politics can, under certain circumstances, boost an MP's normatively desirable willingness to challenge the party and the executive.

Raphael Heuwieser is researching political party loyalty at the University of Oxford.