One in Four Labour MPs to Quit

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the fact that 10 Scottish Labour MPs will not be standing at the next election (approximately 1 in 4).  At a UK level that figure is 88 of the 346 current Labour MPs (which is also, 1 in 4).

Which, in fairness, makes sense.  Labour have held power for 13 years.  Before that, they were in opposition for 18 years.  Some of the Labour MPs have experience of politics stretching back to the early 80s, some even longer.  Labour lost successive elections in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, with many MPs spending several long years on the opposition benches.  So it makes sense then, particularly among those who remember that experience well, to step down at an election that Labour are not expected to win rather than sit on the opposition benches again.  It makes sense in the respect that - for most of them - their careers are behind them, their time in Parliament has seen them hold ministerial office and the chance of doing so again is slim.

Which is why Jeff's post yesterday makes quite a lot of sense.  Jim Murphy is a young(ish) guy.  He's had ministerial experience in Europe before re-invigorating the post that Labour didn't really want (Scottish Secretary) before the SNP went and spoiled their plans by winning power at Holyrood.  He's facing a big challenge in East Renfrewshire from the Tories (which I think he'll hold on to, though I do see Jeff's point).  I guess my point really is, what does the guy stand to gain from winning? 4-5 (9-10?) years of being an opposition MP, no ministerial pay off, no high profile, no minions in Holyrood to boss around...  It'd make far more sense for him to get into the Scottish Parliament - where Labour need better leadership, more heavyweight politicians and experience, and where they have an opportunity of returning to power much sooner.

But something I cannot fathom at all is the attitude of Margaret Curran, Cathy Jamieson and (potentially) Jackie Baillie.  Why shift from a seat that you've held since the parliament was instituted - where in one year you could potentially be promoted to a Cabinet-level post - to one in which you are likely to be the opposition party for a number of years?  Talk about lacking in political judgement!  Sure, its an opportunity for Labour to maintain gender balance, to get women in to replace retiring male MPs.  But in terms of their careers, I fail to see the logic in it.  Okay, they get a pay bump (from the 56 grand MSPs make to what, 64 grand as a MP?) but its not like the job is any better - and the commute is certainly worse.

88 Labour MPs have already seen the writing on the wall.  Why haven't this trio of Labour MSPs?  Mind you, I guess when you resort to using blog posts from an SNP supporter as "evidence" that the SNP want to defend even the worst offenders from prison time then your political judgement has already gone.

Read more...

Leading Labour

Like him or loathe him (and I know plenty on the latter side of that) Jim Murphy has done a fairly good decent job as Secretary of State for Scotland - from a political perspective at least.

No really. A number of commentators and academics had concerns about the informal nature of intergovernmental affairs between Westminster and Holyrood under the Lab-LD coalition. Decisions were taken on an "I know so and so from conference" basis, and toes were not stepped on when an issue was contentious (civil partnerships is probably the best example). With Labour in government at both levels, it was easy to see why they wished to avoid conflict - and the easiest way to do so was to avoid formal negotiations.

However, with the election of the SNP in 2007, the potential was there for more explosive relations. Indeed, most media outlets had the SNP pointedly fighting with Westminster over everything before they'd even set foot in Bute House. This proved unfounded. The SNP were keen to get intergovernmental relations back into the formal sphere, and tried to rebuild the Joint-Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council... albeit with some resistance from Westminster (and limited success).

Nevertheless, appointing Jim Murphy as Secretary of State for Scotland - and making the position full-time again - has been a successful move for the UK Government for several reasons. At a perception-only level, it has made it appear that Scotland is on the agenda and represented at Cabinet. More than that though, the position has acted as a buffer between the two governments - and more particularly, between the First Minister and the Prime Minister. Any time Alex Salmond has called for a meeting between governments, Gordon Brown has said "speak to Jim, he's responsible for Scotland". And that has worked - it has kept the First Minister as an unequal to the PM, on the same level as Jim Murphy. Crucially, it has allowed Gordon Brown to avoid entangling himself in every Scottish issue of the day.

But perhaps the best outcome for Labour in Scotland is that it has allowed a Scottish MP to regain some control over Labour's message in Scotland. Rather than leaving the leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament (LOLISP) to appear as a leader, Jim Murphy has, to all intents and purposes, assumed a leadership role - challenging the FM to debates, speaking at conferences alongside Iain Gray and generally getting quoted as the Labour spokesperson in Scotland. And, to a great degree, he has done so relatively successfully - keeping Alex Salmond at arms length from Westminster and acting as Salmond's equal.

Question is though, what happens after May? I mean, even though I expect Jim Murphy to survive a tough election (both the Tories and the SNP will be after him hard after finishing ahead of Labour there in the European election) Labour may not. In fact, I'd go as far to say I think the game is up - and we'll have a Tory Government with a majority of around 60 after the election. Which means a Tory Secretary of State for Scotland... and Jim Murphy out of his high profile role.

Granted, if that happens then Labour have bigger problems to deal with than losing Murphy as a spokesperson. But the real point is this - how will Iain Gray cope? If Labour are out of government at Westminster AND Holyrood, Iain Gray - being the higher elected official in Scottish Labour - will be the de facto Leader of Labour in Scotland.

What would that mean for Labour? And Labour MPs? What would their role be under a Tory Government and a leader who wouldn't sit in the same parliament? Would Jim Murphy continue to do the job as Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland? Or would Iain Gray have to up his game?

I guess we wait...

Read more...

Double-act have no x-factor

Iain Gray and Jim Murphy spoke at the Labour Party Conference yesterday. What's that? No one noticed?

I think the Scottish press did.

The Herald headline reads:

"Scottish Labour leaders (sic) attack political enemies whose 'sole creed is self interest'"

Now, I'm not one for being pedantic (okay Yousuf, I am!) but one must point out the glaring error in their title.

As James will tell you, Iain Gray is the "Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament (LOLITSP). He is not the leader of Scottish Labour. Especially if you ask some Scottish Labour MPs.

Jim Murphy is Secretary of State for Scotland (SoSoS). Which means, at government level, he is Gordon Brown's "holding midfielder" - the link between his defence at Westminster and his attack at Holyrood (see what I did there?). He too, is not the leader of Scottish Labour. Gordon Brown himself is.

But that's just a minor point.

The Scotsman has an interesting take on Iain Gray's speech to Labour conference yesterday. He is obviously their Scottish Labour leader of fancy:

"Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray has signalled he could hold a referendum on Scottish independence if he becomes First Minister, in a dramatic shift from official party policy."

reads their first paragraph. And that's kind of what he said. Except not really. And certainly not in so many words. I checked the speech - not once did he use the phrase "if I was First Minister." Which is a shame, because I always find it funny when he does. Kind of like Fiddler on the Roof's "If I were a rich man," it makes Iain Gray look like a dreamer.

No, his speech was designed to attack. The problem was, he was trying to attack two distinct "enemies" - nationalism and conservatism. Ironic then, that Labour have fallen to third, behind the the Liberal Democrats, in the latest Ipsos-Mori poll. Looks like he was turning his fire in the wrong direction.

Ach well, with the 2010 election looking like a write-off, there's always the 2011 Scottish Parliament election. Just think Gordon Jim Iain, if only you were First Minister...

Read more...

What's in a name? (2)

When I wrote this piece last week, I noticed that Ed Miliband, the UK Energy Secretary, had referred to the Scottish Government as the "Scottish Executive" and it interested me slightly.

Now there is nothing technically wrong in Mr Miliband's comment - for legal purposes (as enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998) the Scottish Executive will always be the Scottish Executive. But I wondered if his comments were politically motivated - a pointed refusal to call the SNP-run administration the Scottish Government - or if he was so far out of touch with devolved politics that he still thought it called itself "Scottish Executive." Or had he simply mis-spoken.

Ruling out a mistake (which might itself be a mistake) leaves Miliband's news being out of date (unlikely I grant you) or a political motivated decision. Which led me to Hansard.

It appears that in Scottish questions on 18 March this year, Labour backbencher Michael Connarty as well as Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy referred to the Scottish Executive rather than the Scottish Government.

Funny then, that in Welsh questions, they don't seem to be too troubled in using the word "government" for the Welsh Assembly Government.

Then again, he who must be obeyed has spoken...

Read more...

Strictly daft Question Time

One of these men is Secretary of State for Scotland. The other is "Lurch", the Butler from the Addams family films. For some reason, Jim Murphy's appearance on Question Time last night reminded me of the character... but I can't put my finger on why.

Speaking of Question Time, last night was the first time since it was held in Musselburgh (in July, I think) that I've actually had an opportunity to watch it. And to be honest, I know now understand why I don't bother. Ten minutes on John Sergeant's decision to quit Strictly Come Dancing was beyond a joke. First the UK Culture Secretary talks about the judging on the X Factor - in the House of Commons no less. Then 10 minutes on Question Time on the burning John Sergeant-Strictly Come Dancing issue in which our esteemed Scottish Secretary said (and I quote):

"The judges I think have totally misjudged what this programme is about. I watch this programme with my family, for family entertainment and good fun. John was emblematic of that. And rather than taking themselves so seriously, I think we should get rid of the judges rather than John."

Um... okay. I'd suggest that what the judges say is part of that entertainment Mr Secretary (not that I watch the show - I'm with Nicola Sturgeon, the X Factor is miles better). But my main concern is that the Secretary of State for Scotland is taking this too seriously. It's a reality TV show for goodness sake. There are bigger issues at stake in the UK at the moment.

On a lighter note, did everyone else watching cringe at Tavish Scott's attempt at humour? Something like "seeing as we're in Scotland, we should forget about the controversy and get going with a 'Dashing White Sergeant'". Oh dear...

Read more...

Full-time Scottish Secretary

I mentioned in the Glenrothes liveblog that I'd say something more about Jim Murphy as Secretary of State for Scotland. So here it is.

In my view, Murphy has done a decent job so far. He's been less conflictual than some of his predecessors in the role - as well as the majority of Labour MSPs who cannot resist any opportunity to have a kick at the SNP Government. He also has 2 blogs - which you can access here (as Sec State) and here (as MP - note "Jims blog" should be "Jim's Blog - but education education education was never Labour's strong point...).

Anyway, this post is not so much about Jim Murphy as it is about Gordon Brown's decision to restore the position of Secretary of State for Scotland to a full-time role. Under its previous guise it was a part-time role and the position was occupied by Des Browne MP, also the Secretary of State for Defence.

So what is my point? Well, two things.

1) Gordon Brown clearly felt that he needed someone full-time in the Scotland Office to keep an eye on things in Scotland for him. Clearly Des Browne either wasn't doing a good enough job of it or didn't have enough time to do that and fight two wars.

2) Does this make Iain Gray look weak? If Iain Gray is, as he was made out, Gordon Brown's "man at Holyrood", why isn't he playing this role for the PM? He is the leader of the Labour group at the Scottish Parliament - surely he'd be best placed to report to the PM on what is going on in Scotland.

Analysing that, there's perhaps two points that come out of it. First, perhaps, as I pointed out, the PM wanted a more conciliatory tone when dealing with the First Minister - while still being able to kick him at Holyrood. This could be why he's appointed Jim Murphy - someone from outside Holyrood and not under Iain Gray's stewardship - full-time.

Second, maybe this is also a smart move from Iain Gray. He's an inexperienced leader up against the uber-confident First Minister. Maybe he recognised his own weakness, that both he and the party up here were overly negative and needed another, more experienced(!) hand to help.

Either way, I think it is a good move from the PM. It helps him to keep an eye on the SNP Government from outside and makes it look like he's taking Scotland seriously enough that he's willing to make their Cabinet Secretary full-time again (though someone should point out that if Labour were still in power at Holyrood, the Scottish Secretary would probably still be part time!).

However, what message does this send to Iain Gray? I'd suggest it is not the biggest boost to his confidence...

Read more...