Burnhamism and Manchesterism

 As it looks inevitable that Andy Burnham will be the next Prime Minister, we should consider what this might mean in policy terms.

But first, Sir Keir Starmer. He could not continue after the Mandelson saga, electoral wipeout, and the worst personal approval ratings in history. I voted for him in the leadership contest after Jeremy Corbyn resigned. I recognised he might not be a charismatic leader, but after Johnson and Truss, boring looked good. However, I didn’t reckon on him being such a poor politician as his early decisions in government highlighted. He also got sucked into internal factional infighting, which contributed to the loss of members and activists. Labour has to be a broad church.

The usual suspects claim we don’t know what Andy Burnham stands for. He may not have published a manifesto, but he hasn’t been shy at setting out his political philosophy – Burnhamism if you must label it. You might summarise it as devolution, preventative action and tackling social inequality. Matthew Flinders has a good go at articulating this today. And from a Scottish perspective, Marissa MacWhirter makes similar points based on her interview with him last year.

As someone who has argued that Scotland is too centralised, his support for local government is very welcome. As Matthew puts it “Burnhamism represents a complete rejection of the traditionally centralised, elitist, two-party, Whitehall-knows-best Westminster model. It seeks to shift towards a power-sharing model that can accommodate long-term strategic policy-making.” This must be more than devolution to regions and nations. It has to filter down to real communities of place.

The emphasis on preventative action reflects what we said in the Christie Commission many years ago. The government doesn’t need to keep spending more if it invests in tackling the root causes of inequality. There is a broad consensus that this is the right approach, although delivery has been patchy. It will be interesting to see if a true believer in this approach can achieve what governments in Scotland and the UK have failed to deliver.

He is also a supporter of proportional representation, although I regret that it may not be an immediate priority.

If you want a manifesto, then the Burnham supporting Mainstream has published ‘The Productive State: A Framework for Manchester’ – or in short ‘Manchesterism’. Matthew Lawrence and Alex Williams make the case against privatisation, another Burnham theme, arguing that “The retrenchment of public control has created an economy that extracts where it should invest, fragments where it should coordinate, and prices for profit where it should provide for use.” While the UK Government has made some modest changes in the right direction, the authors rightly argue that they have failed to make the necessary structural changes. 

In contrast, the Productive State does this with a toolkit that reasserts national economic sovereignty by directly engaging in public investment, provision, ownership, and coordination of and between essential sectors. This doesn’t ignore the strengths of markets in rewarding innovation and competition, but targets the specific domains where markets have demonstrably failed: where productivity is exhausted and profit is rent extraction; where prices are systemically significant and threaten macroeconomic stability; and where private capital chronically underinvests. Structurally, they argue we should use the public corporation model, operationally independent, commercially mandated, borrowing in its own name, and prioritising resilience over financial return. 

Andy Burnham has done some of this in Manchester with the Bee Network, expanded council housing, and the Good Growth Fund. This helps highlight what public control produces in practice. The challenge will be in scaling this up across the UK. While some of this can be achieved without a massive increase in public spending, more investment will be needed. 

This leads to potential issues with the bond markets. When the interest charged on UK bonds rises, for example, British banks face higher funding costs themselves. This in turn feeds into higher mortgage rates, more expensive business loans and tighter financial conditions. In the UK, total government debt now stands at about £2.9 trillion, with interest rates (yields) currently higher than those paid by the US, Italy, France, Canada, Germany and Japan. Burnham has indicated that he feels we are too much in hock to the bond markets and there are those, like Yanis Varoufakis, who go much further. Others argue for Modern Monetary Theory, but this is certainly a step too far for a new PM. Burnham is likely to bring in some economists with new ideas, such Andy Haldane, with his ideas on war bonds to finance defence investment.

Overall, even an old cynic like me is excited about what an Andy Burnham premiership could bring to our politics. Public sector delivery, preventative spending, tackling social inequality, and above all, localism, are all aligned with my policy perspective. Of course, he will have to face the carping from the usual suspects, the billionaire owned media and the difficult economic position. However, he understands that managerial tinkering around the edges just won't solve the UK's huge structural problems. A decisive change is needed, and we should give him the time and space to go for it.

Plus ça change

Another Scottish Parliament election, and it's plus ça change. The phrase coined by the French critic, Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr in 1849, suggests that despite superficial alterations or reforms, underlying fundamental issues often remain unresolved. As none of the parties in this election even attempted to address the fundamental issues facing Scotland, this seems apposite. Turnout was dismal, but no lower than pre-2021 levels, so the voters have been 'scunnered' for a long time.

It is often claimed that the Scottish Parliament's voting system was designed to stop any party from having a majority. Sadly, this is a myth. The Labour establishment at the time offered a nod of recognition of the need for some proportionality, but thought their dominance of the FPTP seats would deliver a Labour majority, or at least something close to one. They didn't envision the current circumstances, where it delivers an SNP majority. 

Vote share

But what about tactical voting? Yes, that can work in a by-election when the electorate can roughly work out their options. It can also work in a two-party circumstance, such as the last general election. It doesn't work in a Scottish election when the anti-SNP vote, on constitutional or other issues, is split three or four different ways. I was delivering a tactical voting leaflet to a Tory voter this week. He was genuinely confused about the FPTP system and the outcome I accurately predicted in my constituency. He wasn't a stupid person, as the long drive and three BMWs probably meant he had earned a decent living before retirement. In fairness, if he had just said, I'm a Tory, and I am voting that way anyway, I would have understood. I have voted Labour, even when they stood no chance. As I have no strong view on the constitution, if there wasn't a Labour candidate, I would vote SNP before I voted for the Tories or their reincarnation as Reform Ltd.

The constitution may be less of an issue than it was after 2014, but it remains the default position for many voters. It is going nowhere after this election, much to John Swinney's private relief. There will be some performative noise, and then it will be back to business as usual. It is a lot easier to win elections when you can blame someone else. I was the Chair of Scottish Labour when Wendy Alexander did her 'bring it on' stunt. I thought she was right then, as it certainly shook Alex Salmond as much as it would John Swinney today. However, he can rest easy, as UK Labour will take the same position it always has. There will be no break from the constitutional logjam unless there is a viable route to a referendum. That is tactically and democratically the right approach, but it won't happen.

As one commentator put it this morning, "The SNP victory was made in Downing Street by a hapless Prime Minister." That is possibly true, although I think the UK Government gets insufficient credit for the positive aspects of its record, particularly reforms to the railways and employment rights. I voted for Keir Starmer, and although I recognised he may be a bit dull, but after Johnson and Truss, dull looked good.  What I didn't appreciate was how bad a politician he would be. I expected to disagree with the new government on aspects of economic policy. I knew it wouldn't be as radical as I wanted, but I didn't think it would be politically incompetent. They are also learning that the billionaire media, which has now reached parts of the BBC, will go after a right-wing Labour leadership, nearly as much as a left-wing one. All you can do is try not to present open goals, as this government has done, just as Jeremy Corbyn did.

The same commentator also said, "Sarwar could have promised voters twenty grand each and they still would have shouted at him about the Prime Minister and voted SNP or Reform." Quite possibly, but there were major homegrown errors as well. If you are going to use the slogan 'change' when the voters have several options for change, you had better have a plan for what that change looks like. The Scottish Labour manifesto was yet another piece of managerial tinkering. This left Anas trekking the country, spouting slogans without anything to back them up. Instead of a radical plan that would distinguish Scottish Labour from the pack, it dissolved into platitudes that convinced no one. The outcome was Scottish Labour's lowest vote in the party's history as a national party, with 19.2% in the constituency vote and 16% in the list vote. The Scottish Greens won more list votes than Scottish Labour in Glasgow. 

This has nothing to do with the myth that Scottish Labour policies are set by 'London'. I have been closely involved in most of the manifestos since devolution, and Westminster influence has declined in every one. The rules give Scottish Labour absolute autonomy over devolved issues, and attempts to influence that, even when there was a UK Labour government, were largely rebuffed. The best example is the rejection of a marketised NHS in Scotland, when Blair was taking England in another direction. The problem is the mindset in the Scottish Labour establishment since 2007. I was at the parliamentary group meeting after the 2007 election, and with some honourable exceptions, most of the MSPs were not prepared to shift into opposition mode. Ever since then, it has been the same. Leaders have acted as if the ministerial Mondeos will turn up the next day (Kias and Volvos today), and have gone to the electorate with bland, no-risk policy platforms.

If Scottish Labour want's to climb out of the hole it has dug for itself, it needs to become a radical insurgent party. UK Labour also needs to change as well. I am less focused on personalities than on the need for policy and strategy changes, but there is little in this morning's missives from both Labour leaders to give me much confidence that real change is likely.

Political change has to be more than a slogan

The elections in England ought to be a wake-up call to political parties, particularly about the disillusionment many voters feel about our politics. The warning signs were present in the opinion polls and surveys from ERS; others have highlighted the need to rebuild trust in politics. The More In Common think tank reported that their focus groups were brimming with a level of “anger, despondency or misery about the state of Britain that doesn’t feel sustainable”. It is not an accident that in the local elections, 61% of the most deprived wards were previously held by Labour. Now, roughly 85% are held by Reform.

Some take a more relaxed position, arguing that many voters treat politics like buying a new soap powder. Reform is just the latest shiny brand; after all, we have been here before with UKIP. The ‘red wall’ seats are often viewed as a barometer of opinion, but as academic interviews have shown, the dissatisfaction in these areas goes much deeper. People interviewed generally loathed politics, “They don’t [do] what they say, they don’t keep to what they say they’re going to do. They tell lies.” Roughly one-third of the residents interviewed understood politics largely or predominantly through the frame of corruption. From the expenses scandal, Boris Johnson partying during the pandemic, to the current government ministers accepting donations and Taylor Swift concert tickets. This is one of the reasons that action on political donations is so necessary.

I don’t believe the soap powder analysis works because broader attitudes are in play, and Reform is doing much better than UKIP ever managed. I was in Romania two weeks ago, meeting researchers I had worked with for a European think tank. They were understandably focused on their elections and the growing strength of the far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians, which subsequently took 40% of the vote in the presidential elections. They pointed to surrounding states, with leaders like Orban and Vučić, taking similar populist positions. These leaders are also starting to make territorial claims. You don’t need to be a historian of the Balkans like me to know where this leads. The hope that Germany would be a stabilising influence is gone, while Chancellor Merz attempts to ape the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party.

You might argue that Mark Carney’s Canada win and Anthony Albanese's victory in Australia prove that there is an alternative narrative. However, these were wins based on a nationalistic response to Donald Trump, which won’t be available to all centralist politicians. Having said that, a new poll found that voters regard Donald Trump as a bigger threat to the UK than terrorists, so linking Farage’s blind obedience to Trump might be part of a strategy. Nothing beats the Trump administration when it comes to corruption. 62% of all Brits, including 60% of Labour-Leave voters and 53% of Labour-Reform Switchers, back joining forces with the EU over the US.

For UK Labour, the usual post-election honeymoon was very short. Keir Starmer is now the most unpopular PM in recent history after a series of policy decisions that, if not avoided, could have been mitigated. The many good things the new government has done, including employment rights, minimum wage, trade deals and funding for public services, are being drowned out by some poor and politically inept decisions. Many of us suggested thresholds for the Winter Fuel Payment at the time, along with different approaches to WASPI compensation. However, listening is not something this government does well, and No.10 has rejected changes, and internal debate has been closed down. The benefit cuts may not be as electorally unpopular, but the consequences will play out over years.

Aping Reform won’t work, as one of the ‘Red Wall’ voter interviews said, “Sometimes I just think, these people, they say what they think we want to hear. And I find that quite annoying. That, I find, that as if they think we’re thick.” In any case, Labour is probably more at risk from the left, with the Greens and Liberal Democrats doing well in the elections. If Labour seeks to ape Reform, voters will largely opt for the real deal and vote for Reform, while alienating supporters who despair at the party adopting Reform-like positioning. A study by Persuasion UK found that of potential Labour switchers, only 11% said they would consider voting for Reform. By contrast, 29% would consider the Greens, and 41% the Liberal Democrats. If all of the ‘Reform-curious’ abandoned Labour for Reform (many won't because they don’t support Reform polices), Labour would lose 123 seats, but they would keep a parliamentary majority. On the other hand, if the Liberal Democrats and Green Curious switched, Labour would lose 250 and the election.

So, what about Scotland? Some argue that we are different and Scottish voters won’t buy Farage and his snake oil. However, polling and actual votes tell a different story. Some ultra-nationalists are salivating at the thought of Prime Minister Farage, hoping that this will get independence over the line. In fairness, while rightly calculating that Reform will likely do more damage to the Tories and Labour, John Swinney still understands the broader risks to our politics.

Welsh Labour has long adopted a more detached strategy from UK Labour than the Scottish Labour Party and has achieved better results, although that may be waning. Eluned Morgan has said she will pursue a left-wing “red Welsh way” and draw a clear dividing line between Welsh Labour and the national party.

Scottish Labour is struggling to differentiate its message from the unpopularity of the UK government. With independence further down the voters' priorities, focusing on the SNP’s poor record on public service delivery is a fair attack line. Again, I think the Scottish Government has done many good things, but consistently prioritised process over delivery. However, good attack lines are not enough. If anyone in Scottish Labour thinks trading pledge cards on waiting lists and GP appointments is enough, they are seriously deluded. Scottish Labour also needs a positive message to differentiate itself from the SNP. My suggestion is to devolve real power to communities. This combines how to respond to the far-right while contrasting Scottish Labour’s support for localism with SNP centralism. Even UK Labour is likely to have second thoughts about their centralisation of local government in England, with huge Tory/Reform-leaning populations blocking government policy. Suddenly, directly elected mayors have all the downsides that many of us have highlighted for years.

Scotland has some of the largest councils in the world, with an average population of 170,000, against a European average of just 10,000. It’s time to give real powers to actual communities of place. Giving them the resources to fix their high streets, fill the potholes, reopen the libraries and sports centres, and clean up our public spaces. These are the issues that mattered to voters last week.

For Scottish Labour to shift the dial, three things have to happen. First, the UK government has to change its approach to some key voters' concerns. Second, there has to be outright confrontation against the far right, with no more appeasement. Third, Scottish Labour’s positive vision should be about empowering communities. When politics has become detached and alienated from people’s lives, we must return our politics to them. 

And a few more ideas in this new book.

It's Manifesto Time!

 It’s manifesto time. As someone who has drafted and haggled over a few in my time, I enjoy this part of an election campaign while recognising that this makes me a less-than-typical voter.  

You might think in a snap election that manifestos are hastily put together. However, in practice, the core policies will have been written months ago and tested on focus groups and polling, leaving just some updating before putting them into whatever governance arrangement the political party has. In broad terms, the manifesto is the opportunity to set out the details of party policy, rare in an era of sound-bite campaigning. It also provides a script for candidates and supporters. Some are more detailed than others, but there is pressure to say something about every policy area to avoid the accusation that the party is ignoring an interest group. Issues that are controversial, at least internally, have to be fudged to get agreement. 

 

It is legitimate to question the purpose of a manifesto in a rapidly changing world. This has been even more noticeable since devolution when most UK policy areas don't apply other than the knock-on spending commitments. There is also a strong case for more independent scrutiny of manifestos to at least reduce the dafter claims and counter-claims for the benefit of voters.

 I am only going to look briefly at the Conservative and Labour manifestos. I'm sure there are lots of interesting ideas in the Lib-Dem, SNP, and Green manifestos, but they are not going to be the next UK government. They also know that, so don't worry too much about their policies adding up. They make daft claims like the SNP on NHS privatisation and oil jobs. Only if we get a hung parliament, do they get interesting.

 

This really is a topsy-turvy election when the Tory manifesto is attacked for rash, uncosted spending commitments. The Tory tax cuts will cost £17.2bn a year by 2029-30, paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance and slashing the welfare bill by as-yet uncertain means. IFS and other think tanks warned there was a big risk the sums would not add up. 

I suspect the Tories decided they won't have to implement it, so let's chuck in many policies that appeal to their core vote to minimise the defeat. Examples are the triple lock plus, which provides a tax cut for pensioners - even if they only need one because the Tories have frozen the tax threshold. An analysis of the tax changes by the Resolution Foundation said that while the 20% of the wealthiest households would gain £1,300 a year on average, someone who paid £30,000 would see their tax bill fall by just £170. It’s not hard to see the target demographic here.

 In contrast, Labour constantly repeats the mantra that all policies are costed and funded. However, they have yet to go as far as 1997, when the party committed to Tory spending plans, even if, as the IFS points out, they are not far off that. Even Ken Clarke admitted that he had no intention of keeping to them. Gordon Brown later opened the taps, but he had a more robust economy and fiscal position to play with. I suspect Rachel Reeves is going to find it more challenging. 

 

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Keir Starmer's comparison of the Tory and Corbyn 2019 manifestos. I worked on that manifesto, and it was fully costed, with John McDonnell's Grey Book going into more detail than I have ever seen in a manifesto supplement. Peston and others make this point well. 

 

The Labour manifesto reflects a cautious fiscal approach to the election. Given the state of the public finances, this is understandable, but it is storing up problems for an incoming government. Reform can do some of the work, but the heavy lifting of putting the country back on its feet requires investment. Plugging a few loopholes is fine, but the anomalies around Capital Gains Tax need to be addressed, as does a tax on wealth.

 

I like the focus on long-term solutions – the mission-driven government. Short-termism has plagued our country in politics and business, and a new emphasis on industrial and infrastructure strategies, working with employers and trade unions, is the right approach. The early focus on national security is good, even if I want to see more urgency in getting to 2.5% of GDP. Particularly as we are wasting too much of the equipment budget on Trident. However, there is a welcome commitment to reform defence procurement, if little detail. Bringing the railways into public ownership is the right transport policy, and there are ways of doing the same with other vital infrastructure without breaking the bank.

 

The New Deal for working people is an important way forward as is bringing the cost of living into the minimum wage calculation and ending age discrimination. Consulting on implementing the plans is normal government, and practical issues over zero-hours contracts, in particular, need to be addressed. There is plenty in the energy section to like, even if it could be bolder. I doubt the 'broken energy market' will be fixed through more robust regulation. The English public service proposals will bring Scotland £470m of additional resources to tackle some of our problems. There is at least an understanding of the need to reduce health inequalities and that requires cross-cutting action.

 

The offer on the constitution is limited, an opportunity missed given that they can be radical at minimal cost. The failure to grasp the opportunities of further devolution, particularly going back on employment law, risks rebounding on Scottish Labour in 2016. After 18 months of financially constrained government, those soft SNP voters may decide they have only lent their vote. The polling for the Scottish Parliament elections is much tighter than Westminster, and the dial hasn’t shifted on support for independence.

 

Re-setting our international relationships is absolutely vital. While I would like to see stronger commitments to rebuilding relationships with the EU, that section gives a few hints that a new approach is possible without reopening Brexit. Getting Britain back on the world stage on issues like climate change is crucial.

Under devolution, UK manifestos have a limited impact on the issues that matter most to voters in Scotland. However, there is plenty to like on reserved issues like employment rights, defence, and international relations. The weakness is fiscal caution and the constitution, both areas where Labour needs to be bolder. As the IFS says, ‘delivering genuine change will almost certainly also require putting actual resources on the table’. Stability is vital after the chaos of recent years, but we will need more than managerial competence to tackle the deep-seated problems facing the UK.

Delivering a fairer society - policy and people.

I am in London this week, mostly doing some research in the National Archives and British Library. However, I spent a day at the Labour Party conference in Brighton, and it was good to meet in person a couple of organisations I have been doing some policy development work with.

Sadly, policy has not been the focus of this conference. Few people like a rule book more than me, and I have written more than a few Labour Party ones. However, last-minute rule changes without any consultation are not a good idea. More importantly, it makes Labour look like it's more interested in internal squabbles than addressing the mess the country is in. This is a decent explanation of what it was all about if anyone cares!

On policy, Angela Rayner made a good start with her plans to introduce sectoral collective bargaining, as Francis O’Grady said, ‘a game changer’. Sadly, not only was it drowned out by the rule change fiasco but later by Andy MacDonald’s resignation. £15 an hour and SSP at the Living Wage looks to me like a practical lesson from the pandemic. I am sure there will be more from Angela on employment issues. She is an excellent example of why we need fewer professional politicians and more with lived experience in harsh workplaces.

Keir Starmer’s Fabian booklet didn’t exactly get rave reviews. However, I have now had a chance to read it, and I don’t have a problem with much of the content. I can see how it reflects what he heard during the summer with his concept of a ‘contribution society’. I voted for him in the Leadership ballot while recognising that he could be viewed as worthy and competent if a bit boring. After the mess Johnson and the Tories have created, a bit of technocratic competence is fine with me. However, Labour needs a bit more of the vision thing, particularly if the strategy is to be statesmanlike in response to the pandemic.

I’m not convinced that this sets out a distinctive alternative vision, certainly not a radical one. It is stronger than the New Labour years, putting obligations on companies to serve society, tackle climate change and be good employers. But banal declarations about the merit of good things is not enough; there needs to be more about how a fairer society can be achieved. The Road Ahead confirms how much thinking still remains to be done.

Hopefully, other policy initiatives launched or passed at the conference signal a move away from the ‘policy light’ strategy that was looking more than past its sell-by date. Moving from the dated business rates system towards a digital tax is something Scottish Labour promoted during the last election and would be helped by action on a UK level. The Green New Deal motion was an important reminder of where the party is when some Shadow Cabinet members give the impression that they favour slower action. Ed Miliband at least still promotes energy nationalisation, something of an open goal given the current crisis you would have thought.

While I am on the policy theme, I will shamelessly plug the latest booklet from the Red Paper Collective, launched during the conference. Shameless because I wrote the chapter on devolving immigration policy. The booklet makes a case for devolving power, not only from Westminster but on to local government. In a series of chapters it details what could make up a third option in any future referendum.

If all this policy is too much for you, I recommend Neil Findlay’s new book, ‘If you don’t run, they can’t chase you.' It’s an inspiring read, which tells the stories of ordinary people who stepped up to become genuine heroes. But, as Neil says, it's about 'people who can’t be chased - because they didn’t run in the first place.' This is why politics is important and why we need a Labour Party that is relentlessly on the side of working people.

Where next for Labour?

That's another Scottish Parliament election completed with few indications that any real change will happen as a result. Scottish politics remains in a rut that not even a pandemic could shift. The ‘Thank You’ election worked for all the incumbents across the UK, but that leaves the long term issues to be resolved. 

It is a state of affairs that suits the SNP and the Tories. For the SNP, as the primary representative of the pro-independence vote, it almost guarantees a majority, however poor their record is in government. For the Tories, they can rely on a core of hard-line unionists, and they don't have to worry about having any solutions to Scotland's problems. This is despite the almost daily exposures of cronyism by their UK Party and the dismal campaign performance of their Scottish Leader.

The core unionist block is not the only explanation for the Tory vote. We like to think of Scotland as a beacon of EU Remainerism, but this ignores the one-third of voters who voted Leave. They only have a home in the Tory party, even allowing for the cross over between the two issues. As this slide from John Curtice shows.

Another analysis groups Scottish voters into four constitutional tribes; YesLeave, NoLeave, YesRemain, and NoRemain. While this is a neat academic exercise, anyone who spends time talking to actual voters knows that few people neatly fit into such groups, and, as the authors concede, there is a degree of intensity within each group.

The campaign itself was low key, and as a consequence, few voters shifted their position. It wasn't for lack of trying, but an election held during a pandemic was never going to generate much interest. While the constitution polled very low on voters priorities in this election, it still defines voters more than any other issue. These two slides from John Curtice show that constitutional preference and voting intention has hardened since 2016.

 

The constitution, therefore, remains Scottish Labour’s biggest challenge. The Party has tried uber unionism, a softer middle-ground position, and ignoring the issue altogether. Voters in the first two categories have better homes with the Tories and SNP, and if the latter didn’t shift votes in a pandemic, it is hard to see it ever working. That only leaves getting it off the table, which means a referendum. That is also the democratic case made by the STUC and others. Not immediately, as that would contradict Scottish Labour's election position and most people's priorities - although there are Tories who are encouraging Johnson’s gambling tendency. In any case, the SNP will delay as long as possible because the numbers don’t stack up, and their fundamentalist fringe has moved to Alba. However, a note of caution. A failed second referendum doesn't mean the issue goes away forever. Plus, as Brexit and the 2014 referendum have demonstrated, a referendum's voting impact lasts a long time.

If there is another referendum, it doesn’t have to be on the SNP’s terms. The referendum question should be up for grabs, as well as a third Home Rule option. Gordon Brown's new initiative to make the progressive case for the union is a better bet than Johnson's flag-waving muscular unionism. He also argues that the big issue is not a referendum; it's independence. I would have to concede that the political case for independence has got stronger. However, the economic case is much weaker. SNP ministers look lost when pressed on the currency, borders and the deficit.

Strengthening the political case for the union depends on a credible challenge to the Tories on a UK basis. This took a battering in last week's elections, not helped by the shambles over Angela Rayner's position. Much as I love Labour activists, you have to despair when reading the forums over the weekend. They were full of members who spent much of the past few years attacking the Party because they didn't get the Leader they wanted, attacking members for doing the very same thing to the current Leader. Everyone would do well to listen to Angela Rayner’s call; “United we stand, divided we fall. The past we inherit the future we build. Solidarity.”

For those who argue for leadership change, I would draw an analogy with football clubs and managers. A new leader generates initial energy but doesn't necessarily impact the underlying issues. Anas Sarwar had an excellent campaign with good personal ratings, but even that didn't move the electoral dial. Keir Starmer's 'under new management' might have been an initial branding, but it’s not a strategy. There has been too much effort placed on internal fights and not enough on setting out what Labour is for. People aren’t going to vote for you just because you are a good critic, even when there is plenty to criticise. You've got to have something to say, and you need a positive alternative.

Listening to Keir Starmer today on policy gives me some cause for optimism. Like Anas, he was focusing on what a post-pandemic recovery should look like. How we generate an investment economy with better skills, wages and productivity. A focus on preventative public services and changing the culture that divides our country into young and old, cities and towns, and so much more. I would add the future of work to that list, and I am pleased that is in Angela Rayner's new brief.

Most importantly, he talked about the need to devolve power. Where Labour did well last week in Wales, Greater Manchester, Liverpool city region, and Preston, it was because Labour led with conviction, promoting a positive vision for their local area - showing a Labour alternative to a new brand of northern conservatism. In Scotland, we have local elections next year, an opportunity to demonstrate red water between SNP centralism and Scottish Labour localism. The best Labour-led councils do more than administer local services. In areas like Preston, Salford and North Ayrshire, they have a vision and act to regenerate their communities.

There are no easy solutions to the political environment Labour faces in Scotland and the UK. However, we know internal squabbling doesn't work, and we should learn from the positive examples of what does.

Manifesto 2021 - National Recovery Plan

After more than two years of consultation and engagement, it was good to see the Scottish Labour election manifesto launched today. I have been working part-time managing the process leading up to the publication, so it is personal closure for me.

Drafting a manifesto is not the same as writing a book. That can be a solitary experience, even allowing for the research. A Labour manifesto, unlike some other parties, is not the product of a policy team disappearing into a darkened room to think beautiful thoughts. It is supported by a democratic structure and a series of consultation papers and engagement with members, affiliates and external stakeholders. There were literally hundreds of submissions, meetings and engagement events. The final document is also the product of teamwork with colleagues and elected representatives from all sections of the Scottish Labour Party.

I have been involved in many manifestos over the years, but this has been a very different experience. The pandemic not only meant the process shifted online, but it also impacted the structure and content. Most manifestos are largely done and dusted long before the short campaign starts. However, this year the lessons from the pandemic were an important influence on the final document. It also changed the focus from a parliamentary term to the immediate actions necessary to address the recovery from the pandemic. As one journalist pointed out, ‘recovery’ gets 193 mentions in the manifesto!

That is why the manifesto has two parts. Scottish Labour's National Recovery Plan sets out the immediate actions, and a second part outlines the policies that will address the underlying issues facing Scotland. I am personally agnostic on the constitutional arguments that bedevil Scottish politics. As I am not a nationalist or a unionist, it is just another policy option. What I am not agnostic about is the need to focus on the recovery from the pandemic. When 10,000 people have died, thousands more have lost their job, and 25,000 are ringing the mental health helpline; we need to forget about flags and focus on what really matters.

It is a lengthy document, which I am not going to attempt to summarise. However, it includes many radical policies that I have written extensively about in recent years, including:

• Creating good quality sustainable jobs to avoid a lost generation of young people.
• The concept of Good Work that goes much further than the current Fair Work initiative and will be properly enforced through procurement.
• A real focus on health inequalities, Scotland’s most enduring and deadly problem.
• Investing in a National Care Service with a new deal for the workforce and local democratic accountability.
• Preventative spending in areas like housing, fuel poverty, early years and the environment.
• Tackling climate change, moving from rhetoric to action with a Just Transition.
• Ending the centralism of recent years through the principle of subsidiarity and investing in the social infrastructure that helps build stronger communities.

A few personal interest favourites include supporting working-class history and protecting our battlefields and other historical sites. Sadly, I couldn’t sneak the reintroduction of steam engines past ASLEF!

I recognise that few people read manifestos from cover to cover. The contents and word search mean you can dip into the sections that interest you. However, in my less than objective view, it’s worth a read.

Manifesto reflections

I have worked on a fair few manifestos in my time. For Labour, UNISON and a range of campaigns. I can honestly say that the Scottish Labour manifesto for this General Election is, without doubt, the best. 

Manifestos are almost always a team effort and have some form of lay democratic governance to approve them – unless you are the Brexit company of Nigel Farage! The value of this approach is that a range of people, with different knowledge and lived experiences bring more to the table. Yes, it takes longer and is a challenge to bring together, but the final result is always better. Even for political manifestos, which often have to be pulled together in just a few days.

Most manifestos will be high-level documents, and it can be a challenge not to get bogged down in detail, blunting the key messages. This is easier for short campaign manifestos focused on a particular issue. Political parties (unless you are Farage and Co) have to cover the full range of topics and that inevitably involve some compromises on detail.

Sadly, few voters actually read all or even large sections of an election manifesto. Although I am always pleasantly surprised by the number of questions we are asked and the download numbers. Even in the electronic age, significant numbers of people still come to campaign offices and ask for one.

Of course, many more will see the highlights in the media and through membership organisations they belong to.  Sadly, this doesn't mean even basic facts are understood. For example, the guy on Question Time who vehemently asserted that as someone who earned over £80,000 he wasn't only not in the top 5%, but he was actually in the bottom 50%. Shockingly, Fiona Bruce didn't immediately realise this was nonsense, or that no one whispered into her earpiece.

Like many on social media, my immediate reaction was to wonder what employer paid such an idiot those wages. However, on reflection, it brings home how much work we still need to do to explain the facts about our economy and make a case for progressive taxation. And, as in other European countries, the benefits of a more equal society and the social wage. We should make The Spirit Level compulsory reading! 

So, why is the Scottish Labour manifesto the best I have worked on? Primarily because it not only recognises the key challenges facing Scotland and the UK – it provides the investment to act. 

It starts with the biggest global challenge, the climate emergency. The manifesto doesn’t just give us another round of targets and ambition, it invests in the solutions. From building and retrofitting warm homes, to jobs and a Just Transition to new industries, a new energy system and public transport including 4,200 new green buses. From the environment to our food production this a comprehensive response to the crisis.

The second and linked challenge is inequality. Here the manifesto sets out a range of actions that will go a long way towards eliminating poverty. Building 120,000 council and social houses, regulating private landlords, scrapping Universal Credit, free broadband, free school meals, social care reform, a £10 minimum wage and the biggest expansion of employment rights in history. These and many more are the measures we need to move from good intentions to practical action. 

For those who have said to me, ‘it’s pie in the sky’, it can’t be afforded. I say you haven’t met the Shadow Treasury Team! The Grey Book sets out the costings in more detail than any opposition party has ever done, and in my view, they have taken a pretty conservative approach to many key assumptions. I have worked on government projects that have been less well costed. 

I could go on, and probably will before this election is over, but I would urge everyone to read this manifesto. I have been around long enough to remember the hype, compromises and timidity we have seen in the past from all political parties. This manifesto really is transformative – it is real change!

  

Keir Hardie and the 21st Century Socialist Revival

The life, politics and ideas of James Keir Hardie, the Labour Party’s founder and first leader can be a tool for socialist political education and a spur to action in the current political era.

I paraphrase Richard Burgon MP’s words in the foreword to a new book, 'Keir Hardie and the 21^st Socialist Revival’ (Luath Press), to make the point that we look back because there is so much we can learn today. The ten chapters in this book explore many aspects of Hardie’s life and ideas. From the local to the international, from children to gender inequality, not forgetting the workplace in which his ideas were forged.  In doing so, the book touches on aspects of Keir Hardie that are not widely known and show how far his ideas were ahead of his time. 

Caroline Sumpter writes about Hardie’s stories aimed at children. It may well have been his own missed childhood, as he said, “I am one of the unfortunate class who have never known what it was to be a child.”, which gave him a particular affinity for children in a time when the voice of the child was rarely heard. They responded to his call with many letters to the Labour Leader, and Hardie took up their causes in parliament. He would have been very proud of the young people taking part in the Youth Strike 4 Climate campaign this year - a new generation of his 'Labour Crusaders'.

Another unusual cause for his time was women’s suffrage. Ann Henderson’s chapter highlights that for Hardie women’s suffrage was a means to an end ", and that end is freedom, and freedom means the right to live and the means to life in exchange for the performance of some duty to the community".

Hardie's politics were rooted in that sense of community. In my chapter on municipal socialism, I highlight the 19th-century roots and Hardie's advocacy for a broader role for councils in his draft 1910 'The Local Authorities (Enabling) Act'. He would have welcomed the expansion of local government before the Second World War when municipal ownership provided 30% of council income. His ideas have found a new resonance more than a hundred years after his death in the radical political decentralisation of the current Labour Party leadership. The concept of Community Wealth Building, championed in his adopted Ayrshire, is a modern adaptation of his ideas.

Before researching my chapter, I hadn’t appreciated how far the USA in the early years of the twentieth century had adopted municipal socialism, through the sewer socialists and others. Peter Cole, in his chapter on the transatlantic connection, documents Hardie's visits to the USA and his discussions with the trade union leader Eugene Debs and his role in converting Debs to socialism. The current socialist revival in the USA, with ideas like the Green New Deal, reflect the concerns that Hardie and Debs championed in his speaking tours across that continent.

The international theme continues in Jonathan Hyslop’s chapter on Hardie as a critic of the empire. He describes Hardie's tours of India and South Africa in which he championed the causes of self-government and equal pay for black workers. Causes that were not popular in his time, but subsequently progressed. Vince Mills picks up some similar themes in his chapter on Ireland, and how Hardie viewed the importance of working-class unity across the sectarian divide.

As Hardie was above all a trade unionist, it is unsurprising that industrial issues feature strongly in the book. Sharon Graham looks at the role of precarious employment and mechanisation, issues that would be very familiar to Keir Hardie. Gordon Munro looks at similar aspects of economic justice, matching Hardie's campaigns with the commitments of the current Labour Party to radically transform the economy.

Joe Cullinane describes how Hardie came to understand that trade unions without political power were not enough. How the Liberal Party always supported the mine owners over the miners, mainly when it came to the 1887 Coal Mines Bill. He famously coined the phrase 'dumb dogs who dare not bark' to describe Lib-Lab MPs. This led to his conversion to the cause of independent Labour MPs and the founding of the Labour Party.

Richard Leonard charts the early stages of this conversion through Hardie’s columns in the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald. Temperance was a regular theme, and while the level of alcohol-related illness today proves Hardie right, it is perhaps a cause that has not transferred to the modern movement. In 1886 he said "If you would be successful in your struggle, shun the public house as you would the mouth of hell. It is your greatest enemy.”

In his afterword, Jeremy Corbyn reflects on the modern-day relevance of Hardie’s ideas and the causes he championed. From international relations and economic justice to political organisation and education. When the gap between the richest and poorest has never been greater he concludes; “Never has socialism been more relevant; only by providing for need not greed can we eliminate poverty and ensure sustainability of our precious planet”.

James Keir Hardie taught us much, and this book helps us understand why he is as relevant today as he was over a hundred years ago. 

(you can learn more about Keir Hardie by joining the Keir Hardie Society here)   

Big challenges require radical action

It’s time to get radical if we are to address the vast challenges facing Scotland and the rest of the UK. 

Let’s start by understanding the scale of the problems facing us. In my New Year blog, I suggested four new ‘giants’:

• Inequality. One million people in Scotland live in poverty, including 230,000 children and 140,000 pensioners. Poverty is not just a condition, it is a matter of life and death. Healthy life expectancy can vary by as much as 20 years between the most and least deprived areas of our country. 

• Climate change. The latest UN report says we have twelve years to simply limit a climate change catastrophe, by keeping the increase in global warming below 1.5C. Our health, the economy, our diverse fauna and flora, as well as wildlife, are all at risk.

• Disempowerment. The UK is over-centralised and too many powers stop at Holyrood while others are taken from local government. Economic power continues to be grabbed by big corporations, mostly unchecked by regulation or industrial democracy.

• Broken society. Too much emphasis is placed on economic performance and too little on the impact on human beings and the communities of place and interest they live in. Automation at work is used to exploit the workforce rather than liberate them. Isolation, intolerance and our consumer culture are contributing to a broken society, where we patch and mend the mental health consequences, rather than tackle the root causes. 

I have been working on the Scottish Labour Party’s policy development process for the 2021 manifesto. The first stage consultation paper highlights a large number of challenges and invites members and stakeholders to suggest ideas that will develop Labour’s vision of real change.

I would argue that while Scotland has adopted some progressive policies, certainly compared with the UK government, they have all too often focused on process rather than radical action. This is the ‘safe' middle ground that the US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently challenged. She said:

“Moderate is not a stance. It’s just an attitude towards life of, like, ‘meh.’ We’ve become so cynical, that we view … cynicism as an intellectually superior attitude, and we view ambition as youthful naivety when ... the greatest things we have ever accomplished as a society have been ambitious acts of vision. The ‘meh’ is worshipped now. For what?”

There is nothing ‘moderate' about the vast inequalities in Scotland, homeless people on our streets, the growing mental health crisis, climate change or the uncontrolled power of global corporations. The establishment tells us to be pragmatic and stick to incrementalism - when what is needed is systemic change.

Let’s take just three very recent examples of proposals for radical change.

It has taken today’s children to demand that my generation takes climate change seriously. As Phil McDuff argues, climate change is the result of our economic and industrial system – we need to re-evaluate our relationship to ownership, work and capital fundamentally. 

I wouldn’t normally regard the Scottish Land Commission as a body ready to consider radical solutions. However, today’s report says that most of the disadvantages of Scotland's current pattern of land ownership are related to a concentration of decision-making power. It noted that in some parts, that hampered economic development and caused serious and long-term harm to communities and there was an "urgent need" for mechanisms to protect fragile communities from the "irresponsible exercise of power".

Progressive think tanks like the New Economics Foundation have long argued that we need a new approach to local economies that challenge the economic orthodoxy of inward investment. Last week they built on their long-term criticism of personal allowances with a proposal that replaces those allowances with a weekly national allowance.

Radical change isn't easy for political parties. The two biggest Scottish spending budgets that could be shifted by preventative spending are acute hospitals and prisons. However, a minority of voters understand the case for moving resources and are much more likely to be concerned about ward closures and reductions in the use of custodial sentences.

The typically dismal mainstream media reaction to Richard Leonard’s conference speech on free bus travel reflects the establishment’s need to stamp on radical change. The problem they face is that policies like this are actually growing in popularity. Radical progressives are having an impact far higher than their ‘incrementalist’ peers. Just look at the way Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal has started a meaningful discussion about climate change in the USA.

So, radical change isn’t easy, but the challenges that face us deserve radical solutions. And more and more people, of all ages, are recognising that reality.