What should Labour do to win back Scotland?

[Torie]

I think Labour is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The vagaries of FPTP have turned against them. Instead of having 40+ safe lefty seats in Scotland that they could take for granted, allowing them to cling to the middle in England, they now have 40 lost seats that want strong leftist MP's. If Labour tacks left, they risk losing even more English seats to the Tories & Lib Dems. If they ignore Scotland altogether and try to make up the seats in England, they basically become the Canadian Liberals

It seems to me that Labour needs to write Scotland off, and tack enough to in effect merge with the LD's, in other words, to just make that party go away. The policy differences between the LD's and Labour don't strike me as that great, if Labour just tacks a bit to the right.

[Sol]

I think Labour is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The vagaries of FPTP have turned against them. Instead of having 40+ safe lefty seats in Scotland that they could take for granted, allowing them to cling to the middle in England, they now have 40 lost seats that want strong leftist MP's. If Labour tacks left, they risk losing even more English seats to the Tories & Lib Dems. If they ignore Scotland altogether and try to make up the seats in England, they basically become the Canadian Liberals

It seems to me that Labour needs to write Scotland off, and tack enough to in effect merge with the LD's, in other words, to just make that party go away. The policy differences between the LD's and Labour don't strike me as that great, if Labour just tacks a bit to the right.

There's Social Class. Labour is not and never will be a bourgeois party like the LDs.

[Torie]

I think Labour is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The vagaries of FPTP have turned against them. Instead of having 40+ safe lefty seats in Scotland that they could take for granted, allowing them to cling to the middle in England, they now have 40 lost seats that want strong leftist MP's. If Labour tacks left, they risk losing even more English seats to the Tories & Lib Dems. If they ignore Scotland altogether and try to make up the seats in England, they basically become the Canadian Liberals

It seems to me that Labour needs to write Scotland off, and tack enough to in effect merge with the LD's, in other words, to just make that party go away. The policy differences between the LD's and Labour don't strike me as that great, if Labour just tacks a bit to the right.

There's Social Class. Labour is not and never will be a bourgeois party like the LDs.

But how does all of this translate into actual policy position differences between the Labour and the LD's at this point in time? I mean, maybe parties in the UK are more like social clubs than in the US, but still.

[DC Al Fine]

I think Labour is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The vagaries of FPTP have turned against them. Instead of having 40+ safe lefty seats in Scotland that they could take for granted, allowing them to cling to the middle in England, they now have 40 lost seats that want strong leftist MP's. If Labour tacks left, they risk losing even more English seats to the Tories & Lib Dems. If they ignore Scotland altogether and try to make up the seats in England, they basically become the Canadian Liberals

It seems to me that Labour needs to write Scotland off, and tack enough to in effect merge with the LD's, in other words, to just make that party go away. The policy differences between the LD's and Labour don't strike me as that great, if Labour just tacks a bit to the right.

There's Social Class. Labour is not and never will be a bourgeois party like the LDs.

But how does all of this translate into actual policy position differences between the Labour and the LD's at this point in time? I mean, maybe parties in the UK are more like social clubs than in the US, but still.

Formal policies and the base's views are two different things. Labour has a significant minority (or perhaps majority) that want to take it back to the left and would fight any merger with a "right wing party" tooth and nail.

[MaxQue]

I honestly think they should let Scottish Labour be managed in Scotland, not London. It's too easy to attack Scottish Labour as an London-Party.

[Torie]

I think Labour is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The vagaries of FPTP have turned against them. Instead of having 40+ safe lefty seats in Scotland that they could take for granted, allowing them to cling to the middle in England, they now have 40 lost seats that want strong leftist MP's. If Labour tacks left, they risk losing even more English seats to the Tories & Lib Dems. If they ignore Scotland altogether and try to make up the seats in England, they basically become the Canadian Liberals

It seems to me that Labour needs to write Scotland off, and tack enough to in effect merge with the LD's, in other words, to just make that party go away. The policy differences between the LD's and Labour don't strike me as that great, if Labour just tacks a bit to the right.

There's Social Class. Labour is not and never will be a bourgeois party like the LDs.

But how does all of this translate into actual policy position differences between the Labour and the LD's at this point in time? I mean, maybe parties in the UK are more like social clubs than in the US, but still.

Formal policies and the base's views are two different things. Labour has a significant minority (or perhaps majority) that want to take it back to the left and would fight any merger with a "right wing party" tooth and nail.

Even if it has no influence on actual party policy?  I guess if a majority of the Labour adherents want to take it back way left, they have their chance now. I just don't believe that however, beyond the electoral suicide aspect. There is just no room for grand socialist experiments in a global economy. Things fall apart fast, and it all needs to be abandoned in a hurry. Just ask the French socialists. Heck, ask the Chinese, which is now ruled by a quasi fascist state capitalist regime.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The LibDems are well to the right of us. Have people here not been paying attention lately?

[Torie]

Perhaps you could provide the ignorant with a list of the policy differences Al. But enlightening the presumptive ignorant is not your forte, I know.

[Famous Mortimer]

Why would officially merging with the most hated party in the country make Labour more popular?

[Torie]

Why would officially merging with the most hated party in the country make Labour more popular?

Oh, no, not a formal merger, just tacking to finish the LD's off. I am not sure really what their future role in Britain really can be, from a policy standpoint. Given the limited policy choices that are really out there from a practical standpoint, there is just not much room for serious centrist parties, as opposed to temporary protest parties. But I say all of this for discussion purposes, looking at all of it from across the pond.

[Hydera]

Labour will have to wait a very long time to retake scotland that its probably going to take two generations.

To give an similar case. The Liberal party got 74 out of 75 seats in Quebec in 1980. Then it shifted to the conservatives on a brief fling, then towards the BQ from 1993 and then towards the NDP since 2010. 35 years and waiting.  Labour will be lucky if they find out how to do so under 35 years...

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The 2017 locals in Scotland are going to be a bloodbath.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Perhaps (and if nothing changes certainly), but 2017 is a long time away.

[Simfan34]

Merge with LD and Conservatives into the Scottish Unionist Party. Or, at least, agree with the other two to run only one Unionist candidate in each constituency.

I was thinking about this, and even with my ignorance I admit this may prove a daft idea, but I was thinking that something like this might be a plausible idea. The SNP strikes me as a party that uses progressive rhetoric but is in practice essentially catch-all nationalist, while making all sorts of populist pledges that appeal to people regardless of their views on independence.

A Scottish-based rival to the SNP (let's call it the "Federalist Party") might then attack the SNP on two fronts- they would espouse a "unionist nationalism" along the lines of the former Unionists (there are all sorts of sectarian issues I am glossing over completely here, I know), mixing that with assertions of being the true representative of the "Scottish liberal (maybe that word is tainted nowadays) tradition". As the name suggests, they'd advocate federal constitutional reform. The other approach would be to accuse the SNP of making empty promises and leading Scotland down the path to fiscal ruin, etc; that while they rail against austerity, their bid for full fiscal autonomy would necessitate far more severe austerity or complete insolvency. This they could do with the credibility of a "Scottish voice" that the SNP's critics have not enjoyed.

It would be a centrist catch-all party, yes, and while would initially draw the bulk of its base from the Lib Dems and the Tories, yes. They would probably need entirely new faces, but they would need to take (back) 1/3 of the SNP's support- this would the "traditionalists" who might have once voted for the Unionists and former Lib Dem voters. A "non-aggression pact" with Labour in their old safe seats in the central Lowlands might be a good idea.

Again, I don't know if this is even a good idea, much less its plausibility. But if they were able to simply get a share equal to what the Lib Dems and Tories did in 2010 they'd have 35%. This could be a terrible idea, yes, but I'd like to know why. Also, I'd like to know why the Lib Dems did so well in the northwest Highlands.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Perhaps (and if nothing changes certainly), but 2017 is a long time away.

Indeed - the SNP has a lot of time to stuff up.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Well ?

[EastAnglianLefty]

Andy Burnham had an interview in the New Statesman recently. It was mostly about raising his profile with a view to a future return to Westminster, but he did have the interesting idea that elected mayors should be extended to Scotland.

He suggested Westminster should impose this, which is a really stupid idea, but in principle it's the sort of thing that would provide an opportunity for other parties to break the SNP hegemony because it's higher-profile than normal local elections and because it's harder to make a local contest a de facto constitutional referendum.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well ?

ScotLab do at least have a leader with the potential to make some progress now.