The Labour Government...
alienfromzog
Shipmate
in Purgatory
...a thread for disappointments and other stories.
(Because we may have some positive stories too!)
(Because we may have some positive stories too!)
Tagged:
Comments
1. David Lammy (Foreign Secretary) has called for a ceasefire in Gaza and a two state solution
2. The Health Secretary spoke to the BMA within hours of taking the post and will have formal talks next week
3. The Rwanda plan has been officially cancelled
4. The Prisons Minister is an expert and advocate for reform with an amazing track record in supporting rehabilitation
5. The Science Minister is an eminent scientist
Not a bad start, really.
AFZ
https://x.com/krishgm/status/1809503192511602776?t=J8dWQHy01bSiYFcH0rKMvw&s=09
@Arethosemyfeet, I don't disagree. I will celebrate the positives and be honest about the negatives. But I will insist that the lazy mantra of "they're all the same" has no place here.
AFZ
The incoming AG is an interesting appointment in this context.
It's a tricky one - any improvements in public services that come from increased funding could either prove the SNP's point about Westminster underfunding or provoke gratitude towards Labour for coughing up. Everyone is going to have an eye on the next Scottish Parliament election, and it will be very interesting to see what Sarwar promises in terms of protecting Scottish distinctives like free prescriptions, the Scottish Child Payment and the like. I expect the tories to go all in on promising tax cuts to the wealthy, but which way Sarwar jumps will be intriguing to watch.
Yesterday I congratulated someone who has been politically active in the Labour party for years on the result. I expected her to be in high spirits, but she wasn't.
She responded that she hoped Westminster would do something positive for Scotland quickly, because she and other activists had heard a lot of comment from voters that they were voting tactically and "lending" their vote to Labour this time, to wipe out the Tories, but would revert to voting SNP in the Holyrood elections, where "getting rid of the Tories" wouldn't be a factor.
She felt that it was important for Labour in Scotland to convince voters that Labour can deliver more than just a bloody nose to the Tories in Westminster.
The work starts now was her comment.
And when that happens we'll be sure to discuss it.
Yes, I assumed the collapse in the SNP vote reflected dissatisfaction with the SNP. Given the SNP's recent troubles I would have thought that would have been both expected and understandable.
It's interesting that my friend, who is very politically active, thought the result owed more to anti-Tory tactical voting than anti-SNP vote switching.
That said, the FPTP effect meant that Labour practically swept the board with 35.7% of the vote, whilst the SNP had 29.9% of the vote but only 9 seats. Plus the turnout was low, so some of the SNP's drop in numbers of votes may mean that they were disproportionately affected by the drop in voter numbers.
What things do you have in mind @Telford ?
I think it's a combination of a loss of momentum post the independence referendum, leaving the SNP a bit rudderless, and a movement away of voters who were wanting a somewhat progressive administration for Scotland, and given the SNPs current woes switched to Labour.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next Holyrood election - 2026, I think?
The new regime is already very busy working on the issues surrounding the Grangemouth refinery. Here's a snip from the Guardian's live blog:
The prime minister told reporters in Edinburgh the Labour government had already started conversations on how to save thousands of jobs at Grangemouth, after its owner Ineos said it was phasing out operations in its refinery business at the site.
Starmer said Grangemouth was high up his agenda for Scotland, and would be proof of his government’s pledge to champion Scotland’s interests. “It is obviously a source of great concern to me, [in] terms of what steps we can now take to preserve jobs and ensure the future,” he said.
Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, said he had discussed a Grangemouth rescue plan with Ed Miliband, the energy security and net zero secretary, earlier on Sunday.
Scottish Labour was alerted to the significance of the Grangemouth crisis after it repeatedly came up on the doorstep during the election campaign.
Sorry it's a bit long, but the blog is sometimes hard to keep up with if things are moving apace!
Free university tuition ( if you are Scottish) Free prescriptions. The sort of things that would attract votes.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/07/labour-to-seek-joint-declaration-with-eu-on-wide-ranging-security-pact
Makes a change from posing on tanks, or flying to Rwanda...
Which underlines the point made earlier by @Dafyd about English *priorities*.
Incidentally, prescriptions are free in England, if you're an Old Person (like me) or perhaps a Younger (but chronically ill) Person.
The obvious answer is that if voting in 2026 follows the same pattern as Thursday (which is a big 'if', there being plenty of time before the election for all sorts of things to change) then both Scottish Labour and SNP will have less MSPs than now, with Labour having the slightly larger number, Scottish Conservatives will lose seats, LibDem and Greens gain and probably a few Reform MSPs too (though, there's plenty of time for a Reform meltdown and those votes to revert to Conservative) and Alba will have a few MSPs. But, my gut reaction is that the constitutional question will still be alive, and the SNP will be pushing a repeat of the 2021 campaign on that - a majority of pro-indy MSPs being a mandate for a referendum - and will have a resurgence on that (plus the current issues being cleared up). The question is will a UK Labour government accept that a majority of people of Scotland voting for pro-indy parties is a mandate for a referendum? The previous Tory government didn't think so, and denied the people of Scotland what they had voted for.
If Scottish Labour only became aware of the issue with Grangemouth over the last few weeks then they don't deserve to be anywhere near finding a solution. It's been an issue for years, if they didn't recognise that in 2021 that might explain their lack of electoral success locally. Grangemouth is fundamentally an oil refinery in a world where there won't be very much oil to refine or products for refined oil in a few years, there's a desperate need for the site to transition to related, green, processes to provide ongoing work for the skilled workforce there. For too many years both Tory UK and SNP Scottish governments have tried to prop up the oil based industry there rather than help find a just transition away from oil.
Maybe the question of jobs is more immediately urgent (IYSWIM) than the question - also urgent, given the climate crisis - of moving away from reliance on oil?
I won't comment further, preferring to hear what those of you *on the spot* make of it.
You've also already got Conservatives in Scotland who don't seem to have attracted the same hostility as they have here.
I know Reform did pick up some votes in Scotland, but unless there's something obvious if you're there, but hidden from the rest of us who are not, I can't see why anyone in Scotland would vote for them for the Scottish Parliament.
It's possible that the Conservatives move to the right and make Reform obsolete, or Reform show themselves to be incompetent and voters abandon them for the Tories. Both would result in a collapse of the Reform vote, both in Scotland and across the UK. But, I don't see a lot of difference between a result in 2026 in which 20% of MSPs are Conservative who have absorbed Reform ideas or 12% of MSPs are Conservative and 8% Reform (or any combination of similar numbers).
I don't see how Reform, can make themselves incompetent because they will not have to make decisions . I can see them gradually losing support to the Conservatives and I do not think that the Conservatives will need to move to the right.
After nearly 2 years in government I do not think that Labour will retain all their support in Scotland
I think many of us suspect that most of the Reform candidates won’t do this, either in terms of their constituency work or in parliament.
As Scottish Shipmates have indicated, very interestingly, Scottish Labourites are saying that their party has to deliver some tangible benefits otherwise things will swing back towards the SNP.
As for whether the Conservatives will swing even further to the right ...
Well, if they've any sense they won't. But I've not seen a great deal of that over the last 14 years.
My guess would be that the more sensible and moderate Conservatives will learn lessons from this but the more right-wing ones will think they need to out-'Reform' Reform in order to win back lost ground
Time will tell.
I assume because trust in the state in Scandinavia is generally very high, partly because it functions relatively well (*) and the idea that you would need to have a parliamentarian intervene to get you what the state should give you as of right sounds either dysfunctional or corrupt.
* Depending on the area - less so if you are recent immigrant without work, or - say - in need mental health services in some parts of Sweden.
Because you are using your political heft to sort something out for an individual which would not have happened otherwise. A bit like small-scale pork-barrelling.
In Sweden - for example - there are integrated government service offices that cover multiple agencies (Pensions, Employment, Social Insurance etc.) with case officers that can answer your queries and direct you to prod the right bits of the state to get to where you want to go. My impression from experience and talking to people is that the primary difference is in level of staffing and the far less adversarial approach towards people approaching the state.
In any case the idea that a newly minted MP is going to know the ins and outs of the entire system is a somewhat quaint one from one angle, and even it works it does so primarily because they have a bully pulpit that can enlist co-operation on your behalf that may not be available otherwise.
I’m not that surprised this view exists - the more militant view of MPs as ‘people who take the big decisions so the electorate don’t have to’ would argue both the above apparent Swedish individual’s view and also that there’s very little an MP can do for an individual constituent that isn’t more properly the role of a local councillor. I.e. mostly they shouldn’t be doing it because it’s not their job.
MPs have *always* helped constituents and lobbied for them, but the idea of ‘casework’ or this being a major part of what they’re there for (or more accurately that so many people will want to take them up on it that it becomes a major part) is a really new thing - post WW2 anyway.
Please feel free to correct me.
It was a Danish MEP actually - I found the quote, which is in "How Westminster Works... And Why It Doesn't" by Ian Dunt. SNP member Alyn Smith says...
"I remember explaining to a Danish MEP what consitituency cases were. And she looked with horror and said: ' That's corruption. You intercede with the government on someone's behalf? That's corruption'. And it's true. A letter from me going in on someone's behalf about her planning application should not trigger a response which isn't happening otherwise."
I don't think that's entirely true, even absent case work there'll be particular local concerns that you'd want the MP to advocate for in parliament.
Something else which attracted Scottish votes in 1997 was "tax varying powers for the Scottish Parliament" which was known to mean "tax varying in an upward direction"
My husband and I both voted for that, as did the majority of Scottish voters. My husband is an advanced-rate taxpayer (would be higher-rate in England) and we currently pay more tax than we would if we were living in England. We are happy to do so - it's the right thing to do.
Once again we see the danger of the English *explaining* political issues in another country about which they know very little.
Depending on how additional tax income is invested the net difference in disposable income of those paying more tax may be quite complicated, and could easily be less than the simple "I'm paying £x more in tax". Investment in social housing will reduce demand in the housing sector, allowing people to spend less on buying a home and hence reduced mortgage costs (it doesn't, of course, help people who already have large mortgages having bought at prices artificially inflated by the failure of governments to replace social housing sold off under Thatcher) and reduced demand for private rents should reduce market rates there too. Investment in the NHS should reduce the need to go private for dentists etc. as well as if that was to pay for free eye tests etc. that would reduce household expenses (and, costs to the NHS if those free tests result in more conditions being caught early). Investment in alleviating poverty would reduce the needs for food banks, and I'd save money by not donating as much to them.
Anyway, the following couple of weeks was really painful as I kept remembering or being reminded of something else stupid that they were going to do. Top of the list, of course, was the Brexit referendum but also more austerity, further cuts to disability benefits, etc. etc.
My main feeling on Thursday night was relief, rather than elation but I've been enjoying the last few days as each new encouraging announcement comes out.
For example, today the government has lifted the ban on building on-shore wind farms.
Another little dopamine hit for this alien...
AFZ
A dopamine hit for this episcopal digit, too.
My feeling on Friday morning was also one of relief - the grown-ups are back! I may not agree with everything they do, and I may wish that they would do certain things more quickly, but they appear to be making a good start...
One practical point of logistics that has been raised is the question of where they'll all sit in the H of C, if there's a busy debate. Some Labour MPs will, of necessity, surely have to occupy some of the *opposition* benches...
Maybe it's high time we had a proper new, modern, Parliament building, given that the Palace of Westminster is apparently a tumbledown potential death-trap...
Well, firstly the Scottish Parliament has the power to raise taxes in Scotland, and it is obviously right that all the extra taxes voted for by the people of Scotland should remain in Scotland. There is no "one correct answer" for what services should be provided through taxation vs what should be paid for privately; it's fine for Holyrood and Westminster to put the balance in a different place.
Second, there are potential questions about the funding that Scotland receives from the national purse. It is true that, per capita, Scots receive more funding from Westminster than the English or Welsh, but this is mostly to do with the fact that Scotland is sparsely populated, and so providing the same level of services is on average more expensive than it is in England. It is reasonable to ask questions about whether the funding formulae achieve fairness, but they're not too far off.
The whole split between UK funding (e.g., defence, the royals, diplomacy) and Nation funding, for want of a better term, is rather opaque, especially for England. It seems to me that England should have a specific budget for those things that are devolved in Wales and Scotland, for then we could make a clearer comparison. Either England is underfunded, or the 'English government' is spending its budget on other priorities that are specifically English.
This, really.