Registered user login:

An electoral kicking

Tom Harris

Published 25 July 2008

The discontent felt by voters throughout the UK is as real in Glasgow as anywhere else, writes Tom Harris MP. Plus don't miss our look at 10 key by-election routs, and analysis from Martin Bright and John Curtice

My older brother called from his Surrey home the day after Glasgow East to ask if he should start saving up to buy a separate Scottish passport. I reassured him that, however dramatic the result in my neighbouring constituency, it had virtually no relevance to the ongoing debate on Scottish independence.

As with all by-elections held while the incumbent party is unpopular, voters make a judgment as to which of the alternatives is best placed to provide the government with an electoral kicking. In Dunfermline in February 2006, voters decided the LibDems were the obvious vehicle, in Crewe the Tories and in Glasgow East, the SNP.

Nevertheless, at a UK level, the loss of one of our safest seats, albeit in a by-election, cannot be easily dismissed. The discontent felt by voters throughout the UK is as real in Glasgow as anywhere else. And from conversations I had on countless doorsteps in the past three weeks, voters’ concerns there are identical to those felt anywhere else: petrol and food prices, street crime (or the fear of it) and economic insecurity. And there’s no doubt that the SNP played a clever card by publicising the government’s apparent willingness to grant Baroness Thatcher a state funeral; memories are long in Glasgow and she remains a hate figure without rival for almost everyone over the age of 35.

This should have been the first election ever when Labour ran an anti-establishment campaign against the SNP. They are, after all, in government at Holyrood, and so are responsible for many of the policy areas about which voters are worried. Yet that tactic just didn’t seem to have any resonance in the run-up to polling day. When one retired couple complained to me of their and their neighbours’ fear of local gangs, they directed their anger at the UK government, not the Scottish Executive, which has responsibility for police and criminal justice.

What does this say about people’s attitudes to national and devolved government since the devolution experiment started in 1999? Scottish MPs may take some comfort in the fact that most voters still see Westminster as the most significant player in government, but that means we also must accept that SNP government or no, Labour remains the establishment in Scotland, and therefore the number one target for voter anger.

I’ve already received some criticism on my blog for comparing the swing achieved by the SNP in Glasgow East (22.5 per cent) unfavourably with other, more significant swings. But is it arrogant or complacent to point out that Glasgow East, impressive though the result undoubtedly was for the nationalists, represents only the SNP’s fourth best result over Labour, after Hamilton in 1967 (38 per cent), Govan in 1988 (33 per cent) and Hamilton in 1999 (27 per cent)? Even in Monklands East, caused by the death of John Smith in 1994, there was a comparable 19 per cent swing away from the party Smith had so recently led.

But today is not 1999, let alone 1988 or 1967. The political landscape has changed significantly, and so the Glasgow East result cannot simply be swept aside, even though its implications are more profound on a UK than a Scottish basis. We have to do more than promise to listen (as soon as politicians promise to listen, voters tend to do just the opposite). If a change of direction in some policy areas is called for, we should not refuse to acknowledge that for fear of being accused of inconsistency. Similarly, where we’re convinced that we’re on the right track, we have to do more to explain what we’re up to, and what the consequences of the alternatives would be.

More than anything, we have to do more – far, far more – to illustrate just how much our nation and our people have achieved with Labour.

Monty Python has a lot to answer for. Without the famous scene from “The Life of Brian”, Labour MPs and activists would be unable to use the highly appropriate phrase “What have the Romans ever done for us?” to illustrate their frustration at what they perceive as voter reluctance to recognise our achievements. It would be a tragedy, for Labour and for the country, if that question is answered only after a Conservative government has removed many of those hard-won advances.

Tom Harris is transport minister and MP for Glasgow South

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

6 comments from readers

gnuneo
25 July 2008 at 18:51

what exactly ARE those "hard won advances"? The majority have seen living standards fall whilst the ultra-wealthy enormously enriched, the US style 'tough-on-crime' has had the inevitable effect of creating a hardened under-class similar to Victorian times - with the concomitant rise in serious violent crimes, the dropping of the tax burden onto the lower earners (because apparently the wealthy can move elsewhere, so they get a free ride!), the destruction of secure jobs to be replaced by agency work with none of the employment rights our grand-parents and parents fought so hard to achieve, the blaming of the poor for being poor, instead of recognising like the more evolved nations such as Scandinavia that poverty is largely a result of a class culture, and now we have Purnell coming along and destroying the very last vestige of the Social Safety Net - the Right for the British Citizen to have something to eat. (And with benefit rates at well under £4000/year, to eat is pretty much all you can do on them).

so please, DO tell us what these "hard-won advances" are, because so help us all, i don't think many people can see them.

But perhaps you mean the joining of the US in an illegal Imperial holocaust on the People's of Afghanistan and Iraq, which has led to attacks upon British soil, and used as justification for an enormous reduction in civil liberties for the British?

if so, then just wow - i can't imagine why the residents of Glasgow cannot clearly see the benefits of the new-Labour Govt, after all they're so overwhelming!

had not John Smith been assassinated to allow B'liar into office, the Labour Party would now be utterly secure - because he actually cared about the People, and not just the enrichment and empowerment of the Feudal Few. If Labour wishes to retain itself in Parliament, they should take a lesson from his book (and BTW, it was under HIM, not B'liar, that Labour came back out of the electoral wilderness), and ditch the "new" part of their current philosophy, elect a leader from the Left (the REAL, libertarian Left, not the fat corrupt toadies like Prescott, nor the old Statists), and rebuild public confidence that they actually CARE about the public, instead of being far-off technocrats only interested in feathering their own nests and those who are already too damned wealthy.

you only have a very short while to do this in now, so get cracking.

chris37uk
25 July 2008 at 19:17

Its not just the economy. Labour needs idealism rather than just being like middle managers. The Tories are getting away with murder, go for them.

ailean31
25 July 2008 at 19:30

So Tom, it was a disastrous night for the SNP, eh? Only their fourth best result over Labour? I'm sure they're very disappointed about that.

gnuneo
26 July 2008 at 03:05

chris - its the Caanomy, Stoopid!

if you're so damned smart, why don't YOU become prime minister, hey?? ;)

there's no real point "going after the Tories", its not that the public suddenly love the Tories, after all on every major policy the public dislike (foreign wars, civil rights, privatisation, crime, lack of social investment), the Tories are notably even worse. Its the way the technocrats in New-Labour regard the public as a bunch of morons who can't figure out what's really going on, the way they ignore all opinions except those that agree with them (or the ones from the Murdock media empire), and their frankly absolutely APPALLING range of policies - it would be hard to see how Labour could make things even worse for themselves - perhaps openly admit they intend to privatise all remaining public services such as education and health perhaps?

so people are not voting FOR the Tories, they are voting AGAINST Labour - so those of us who do not want a Tory Govt have try to get through to Labour where they are going wrong, there's no point talking to the Tories as they are already committed to the same policies as Labour anyway, after all new-Labour ARE Tories!

btw, if Labour are just middle managers (which i agree on), who are the *owners*? Food for thought.

sipeki
26 July 2008 at 09:46

Good to see that you have your constituency offices in a public building unlike most corrupt Labour MP's for Glasgow. Who do nothing for the people of their constituency. They do nothing but take the money, and then take even more. David Marshall charged the tax payer half a million pounds to run a broom cupboard of an office from his home. People at last are seeing that social in justice in Scotland is due to the incompetence and corruption of Labour.

john problem
26 July 2008 at 16:53

'We have to do more than promise to listen.'

'If a change of direction is called for, we should not refuse to acknowledge that.'

'We have to do more to explain what we're up to.'

Ciceronian, ain't it? Disreali could not have turned a phrase so adroitly. Nor Gladstone sounded more portentous. But perhaps one has misunderstood and this guff is code for a call to get rid of Gorrdie.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Also by Tom Harris

Read More

Vote!

Are your savings now safe?