New Statesman – Leader: Labour must once more become the party of liberalism

There are dissident, decentralising strands in Labour thinking, and it is time these were rediscovered.

The first Queen’s Speech of this new government promises to light the bonfire of New Labour’s authoritarian vanities. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition’s pledge to “restore freedoms and civil liberties through the abolition of identity cards and repeal of unnecessary laws” is not only to be welcomed, but sets a challenge to the half- dozen candidates who would be Labour’s next leader.

The centrepiece of this attempt to repair some of the damage wreaked by the legislative mania of Labour in power is the Freedom (or “Great Repeal”) Bill. This will begin to dismantle the “database state” that historians will judge the most disastrous legacy, other than the Iraq war, of the New Labour years. It is right to abandon the ID card scheme, the National Identity Register and the ContactPoint database. There is not, and never was (not even when the anti-terrorist emergency was at its most pressing), any plausible, principled argument for placing such constraints on individual liberty.

There are dissident, decentralising strands in Labour thinking, and it is time these were rediscovered.The first Queen’s Speech of this new government promises to light the bonfire of New Labour’s authoritarian vanities. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition’s pledge to “restore freedoms and civil liberties through the abolition of identity cards and repeal of unnecessary laws” is not only to be welcomed, but sets a challenge to the half- dozen candidates who would be Labour’s next leader.
The centrepiece of this attempt to repair some of the damage wreaked by the legislative mania of Labour in power is the Freedom (or “Great Repeal”) Bill. This will begin to dismantle the “database state” that historians will judge the most disastrous legacy, other than the Iraq war, of the New Labour years. It is right to abandon the ID card scheme, the National Identity Register and the ContactPoint database. There is not, and never was (not even when the anti-terrorist emergency was at its most pressing), any plausible, principled argument for placing such constraints on individual liberty.

Overall, I view devolution as a success, and I think that the political process has both encouraged and reflected the diverging political environment between Scotland and the UK as a whole. For me, it has meant a more open, honest political process, some big public health wins (such as the public smoking ban), and most importantly, a greater sense of confidence in Scotland. It has also had its faltering, embarrassing moments, and periods of total farce.

I am curious about further powers, something that almost everyone agrees the Parliament needs.

A referendum on independence for Scotland is planned for next autumn. The Scottish National Party presented the referendum bill against unfavourable parliamentary arithmetic in March (and failed), but it’s likely to re-introduce it at some point. One would hope that the effect of the opposition to the bill would be to add additional options (a three-way poll, including a ‘devolution max’ option as well as independence and the status quo) rather than to prevent the whole enterprise altogether.

Consider this an open thread. What does devolution mean to you? Would independence give Scotland the clout it needs? Is ‘devolution max’ or some kind of more entrenched federalism the way to go?

Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that Scottish politics is changing, and that it is having important implications for the assumptions that UK politics is based on.

The incumbent UK Prime Minister is Scottish and in a spot of bother* over the 10p rate of income tax, a poor showing in the local elections and a general impression of being out of touch (and other trivial matters**). As a traditionally strong source of support for the Labour party, the current troubles of the Scottish Labour Party are causing severe worries for the UK party.

In the past few weeks, the issue of a referendum on Scottish independence has come to the fore oncemore. The Scottish National Party, the largest party in the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood and a minority administration, is committed to introducing a referendum in 2010. The Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander attempted to outmanoeuvre the SNP by declaring support for an immediate referendum (her mind, it is said, was changed during an interview on a BBC show). The threat was empty: Scottish Parliament legislative rules prevent private members’ Bills being introduced if the government of the day is planning to legislate on the same issue, so the SNP referendum bill would take trumps. Alexander’s move spectacularly backfired, leaving UK PM Gordon Brown having misled the UK Parliament about her views and the two sections of the party dramatically out of step, with the UK party opposed and the Scottish party committed.

And Alex Salmond (SNP First Minister of Scotland) looking even more smug than usual.

What can we say for sure? There will be a referendum on independence in 2010, after Salmond’s National Conversation finishes up. It is unimaginable that Labour could go back on that now. But the devil will be in the detail – wording matters greatly to the result, as does the selection of options present.

And the result? Anyone’s guess. Polls show anywhere between 25% and 75% support, depending on the questions asked. But an option is likely to be included offering greater powers for Holyrood – an option which would have overwhelming support. The presence of a Tory government in the UK Parliament might be enough to tip the scales toward independence.

Gerry Hassan from Demos provides an excellent summary of the issues leading up to the events of the past two weeks:

 

Gerry Hassan on The Unravelling of Labour Britain   (via Scottish Futures)

The advent of devolution created two different political systems in Scotland: the Scottish Parliament and Westminster. In the later Labour dominance still continues – the only part of Scotland still elected now by First Past The Post and the only part where Labour have a majority of the seats on their customary minority of the vote.

The Scottish Parliament is elected by a broadly proportionally system which means that all political parties are parliamentary minorities. From the first elections in 1999 which Labour finished as the leading party, the SNP established themselves as the clear challengers and opposition to Labour.

Thus, from the onset of the Parliament the dynamics of the two institutions and the parties within them have beat to a different pulse. The party sits in Holyrood in a Parliament where its main opponents sit to the left of them and unashamedly stress their Scottish credentials. At Westminster Labour have most often had to worry about losing votes and winning them from the right and a party emphasising its British qualities. Scottish Labour and British Labour have also had very different internal cultures and external strategies.

 Scottish Labour has had to emphasise its ‘bridge building’ qualities – stressing its Scottish qualities at Holyrood and its British at Westminster. It has had to do this with nuance and a deft touch: while being Scottish at Holyrood also emphasising the merits of the British union and at Westminster using its British agenda to sometimes stress the need for greater sensitivity to Scottish concerns. Pre-devolution the Scottish party under such titans as Thomas Johnston and Willie Ross managed this ‘bridge building’ strategy with great aplomb; it is the dynamics of the Scottish Parliament and devolution which have created the circumstances which have made this more difficult.

* Diplomatic license utilised

** And again