What should Labour do to win back Scotland?

[Torie]

Mechaman's "rant" has a kernel of truth in it perhaps about Labour maybe losing its enthusiasm for opposing Scottish independence to the extent they think their days of bountiful harvests of Labour held seats in Parliament are over, particularly if the whole issue is seen as costing them seats in England. Scotland was its worst nightmare in this last election.

[Torie]

Labour had a huge political incentive to try to keep Scotland in the UK because of all the seats they held there, particularly relative to their arch rivals, the Tories. But that incentive appears to be gone now, so thus the posited course correction, once Labour realizes the clock cannot be turned back, to the extent that is true. Cameron and the Tories meanwhile have a huge incentive to get them out, but can't be seen as pushing them out. So it is in his interest to try to be seen as trying to reach a compromise, so that when the SNP demands more, it would be perceived when it all falls apart, that the breakup is despite his best good faith efforts, and due to the unreasonable demands of the SNP. So the SNP and the Tories have a common agenda really, but cannot be seen as having such. It's all very interesting to see how this kabuki performance plays out.

The polls meanwhile are crystal clear the the English don't want to spend a dime trying to bribe Scotland to stay in, with some willing to pay a bribe to get them out.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.