Thursday was another almost relentlessly depressing day in this dreadful election campaign.
Labour presented  an election manifesto that delighted in saying nothing new whilst confirming that its goal is to maintain the failed status quo established by the Tories over the last 14 years.
Worse than that, every recognisable trait that once identified the Labour Party has been eliminated from it. It seeks to promote wealth, and has nothing to say on the distribution of that wealth. Any claim that it might have once made to represent working people has been abandoned in Starmer's relentless drive towards the right wing of politics.
Meanwhile, YouGov suggests that support for Reform is now stronger than that for the Tories, albeit by an insignificant one per cent.
That support for Reform does, however, lend credibility to the Tory claim that a vote for Reform is a vote for Labour. The combined Conservative and Reform vote in that poll is 37 per cent. Labour is on 38 per cent. if Labour does get a significant majority, it will have much to think Nigel Farage for.
Meanwhile, in last night's election debate, which was ITV's rerun of the BBC event broadcast last Friday in which few leaders took part, Angela Rayner and Penny Mordaunt once more proved themselves to be dull, petty, boring, rude and outright deniers of the truth.
Farage was mocked by the audience, again.
And the smaller parties proved themselves far more competent, clear, nimble and in touch, again.
Stephen Flynn for the SNP was the winner, once more, simply by proving that he could, better than anyone else, call out both Labour and the Tories for their obvious shared failings when it comes to economic policy. He was also well in the lead when it came to migration and was unambiguous on Brexit, and opposing it.
That said, Carla Denyer has another good night for the Greens, and is obviously growing in confidence.
Rhun ap Iorwerth was also good for Plaid Cymru, turning his fire more effectively on Labour, and Daisy Cooper had a better night for the LibDems.
When the leading parties are so obviously dismal in almost every imaginable way the only thing that keeps me hopeful with regard to politics is the fact that these parties do, so obviously, include some people with the ability to make their case for something better.
The worst moment of the evening did, undoubtedly, arise when a very straightforward question was put to each of the seven people present. They were asked whether their parties would ever consider returning to the European Union, overturning the  outcome of the 2016 referendum on this issue, which was almost certainly dubiously won by the leave campaign.
We knew that the Tories would say they would not.
It was inevitable that Farage would say that Brexit had not been done properly.
But Angela Rayner took Labour to a new low when she said that there would never be an occasion when Labour would ever consider this. The decision had been made, she said. It is as if she is unaware of the fact that democracy is always about permitting people to change their minds. But then, that is not the case in Labour, anymore.
Thankfully, the other four parties did, again, show much greater wisdom on the issue, from the LibDems ‘one day' to the SNP's unambiguous ‘yes, they would'.
I will not say that yesterday was the occasion when the death of political ambition was announced. It is clear that this is not true in the case of the smaller parties in this election, in which the LibDems do now stand a serious chance of becoming the official opposition. But, it could have been the day when the leading parties in this countries announced their own demise due to their own lack of interest in governing the country. We will be well rid of them, so rotten to the core are they.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Much to agree with. Who controls the parties?
If we were in Germany, it is German industry that calls the shots & the politicos do as they are told (& when they don’t – well Scholtz is getting his marching orders).
In the UK it is finance that calls the shots – as commentators on this blog have shown – repeatedly. Given finance thinks being out of the EU is a good thing – then it is impossible for LINO to disagree – they take their orders from finance – they have been annointed by the same to hold the reigns of gov (provided they behave). As Col Smithers noted – assorted LINO apparatchiks have been hired by same to make sure orders & instructions flow correctly.
Thus LINOs “logo” “Change” means excatly that in terms of faces but little else. If the other parties ever showed the possibility of gaining power – things would be arranged to make sure they would fail.
You might be right Mike
But I am going to continue to believe otherwise
But it does establish that human beings are not rational; especially when the chips are down.
Labour plans to marginally improve the position it inherits from the Tory party over an extended period of time, it does not appear to have a risk analysis attached to it’s plan and, consequently,the extent of any contingency planning cannot be assessed.
In this respect I am always amazed that political manifestos can separate economic policy from foreign policy. We all know that the foreign policy decisions of the USA are effectively the foreign policy decisions of the UK; and we can see that the inflationary surge caused by the freezing of Russian assets, the destruction of gas pipelines and the military support of Western Ukraine was seismic. We are still paying several hundred of pounds more for our energy supplies and supermarket prices reflect the disruption of global supply chains. Add the US obsession with China / Taiwan and the Israel/Palestine issues to this mix and the period covered by the Labour Manifesto looks very uncertain.
The assumption must be that any borrowing or money printing will be kept in reserve to cover foreign policy issues, these can be explained as outside the powers of any government and are sure to be supported by a right wing press.
How else to explain the domestic timidity?
On rejoining the EU, in my view there is no prospect of that happening – of the process of accession negotiations even starting – in the next parliament. Perhaps it might be an election issue in five years time. But it would require a groundswell of popular opinion – of the sort over several years that eventually led to Brexit – plus a referendum, I would expect – to even get there.
It is not off the agenda forever but it is not happening any time soon.
What can happen in a reasonable timescale is substantially improving our relationship with the EU, on all sorts of cross-border issues short of rejoining.
It would be nice to claw back some of the 4% of GDP per annum that Brexit is estimated to have cost.
Discussions on the Customs Union could begin though….
Not in Scotland. We don’t need forever. We could start the process now. Our problem is the chain and anchor the British electorate have wrapped round our neck. Scottish Labour are not going to change the Brexit catastrophe; I confidently we will not even be in the Customs Union in this new Parliament; and Reform or the Conservatives will be back, taking us to hell in a handcart, in the next one. We are drowning in a water filled and sealed Unionist coffin. Why anyone would vote for the inarticulate Scottish Labour rabble in this election, whose idea of leadership is sound-bites of Delphic ambiguity, is beyond me.
Great. First secure an independence referendum and persuade the Scottish voters to vote for independence. Then start accession negotiations. Good luck.
I expect we will still be talking about the possibility of Scottish independence when the UK rejoins the EU. But Northern Ireland will have reunited with the south before then.
You realise your suggestion that Scotland must have English consent to a referendum is not legal in international law, although our Supreme Court denies it?
Andrew, what makes you think I believe it will happen as you think. Scotland will remain in the Union as long as the Scots do not decide otherwise? Why do they not decide otherwise, after Brexit confirmed the insoluble problem with the Union?
Something even more important to Scots than Brexit. Sterling. Scotland is more committed to Sterling than to the Union. The SNP do not know how to fix that problem. The Scots will move when that problem is solved. Sterling was the key to the Union in 1707 (a point history has badly overlooked); and its is the key to Scotland’s departure. Until that fix, what Scotland will have to do is push the Union further down the inevitable devolution road, giving more power to Holyrood. When the Sterling problem is solved, Scotland is gone.
One qualification. If Farage does well in the election, and Reform and the Conservatives merge; the thought of a Reform-Conservative government could change tolerant attitudes to the Union in Scotland (as the price we pay for Sterling) – fast.
Where did I say the organisation of a Scottish independence referendum requires English consent?
There is a procedure to follow, just as with Catalonia.
But of course the procedure can change if there is political will. And that will derives from the people.
I made the comment, picking on your first sentence
I think that is what you suggested
If niot, apologies
John S Warren is absolutely right, Scotland is in a unionist bind (or ball and chain).
English opinion doesn’t really care about Scottish issues or Scottish or Welsh independence (see Henderson and Wyn Jones’ work). A large section of English opinion would be ‘sad to see Scotland (and/or) Wales leave’ but – crucially – wouldn’t want a big fight over keeping it (by constititional shenanegans or even force – Catalonia October 2017 style or worse).
Therefore thate is a big difference and disconnect: the ‘British establishment’ – especially the main ‘British’ political parties, and the military – desperately wants to keep and ‘strengthen’ the Union, whereas public opinion across the four countries are much more relaxed about the break-up of Britain.
Another disconnect between the people and their ‘rulers’.
“First secure an independence referendum”.
“Where did I say the organisation of a Scottish independence referendum requires English consent? There is a procedure to follow, just as with Catalonia”.
Please reconcile these two propositions. So far I can only manage it by inserting a secondary, suppressed premiss that is essentially sophistry. Scotland is not going to hold a referendum in Scotland without permission (Westminster would invoke a Section 35, and kill it). Permission requires Westminster, and that is effectively (de facto) English consent. As for Catalonia, there is no prospect of Madrid giving permission for a referendum to Catalonia – ever. In the case of Westminster, it has had its fingers burned in 2014, when it assumed the referendum was a stroll in the park (or Cameron would never have granted it); it now knows it is hanging on to Scotland by its fingertips; it will not return to take that risk again. The technical term is realpolitik. The “procedure” has no substantive content.
I think you need to tease out your argument.
Please don’t quote selectively. You need to include the important last part of what I said:
“But of course the procedure can change if there is political will. And that will derives from the people.”
As far as I can see in the last two or three years the polls remain fairly evenly split 50:50. That is no basis for another independence referendum.
The political will – at the level of the population of Scotland or their government – is just not there. If it were 66:33 for a sustained period then I think the pressure for a referendum would become irresistible.
52:48 is no basis for making a decision like this, and it is a matter of great regret that the Brexit referendum was allowed to pass on that basis.
52:48 was ok for England to impose its will on Brexit, but not for Scotland.
Why?
And why should 41% get their way but 59% should not?
Prof McCorquodale in his report for ALBA examined the ways Scotland might gain Independence by means of international law. In his penultimate paragraph, 135b he said Scotland could “ Make a unilateral declaration of independence. This requires a clear majority of people representing Scotland to indicate their approval but it should not be done by the Scottish Parliament, as the latter is within UK domestic law. This could be done, for example, through a convention of elected and diverse representatives from across Scotland with a clear majority in favour. This approach relies for its effectiveness on the recognition by States of the Statehood of Scotland.”
He pointed out it won’t be easy but not impossible.
Thanks
To be clear, first you are relying on “procedure”; and procedure is dictated by a Section 35.
As I made clear, Scotland remains committed to the Union, principally because of Sterling (comment at 9.35am, but I have referred to that many times before); and the Scottish people know the SNP has not produced a fix for that. I have always said (and repeated it above) that if the Scottish people want to go (not marginally, Scotland is very ‘small-c’ conservative in so many ways – I will leave the margins fiddling over constitutional matters to the UK); the Scots will go. But you invoked “procedure”, and the procedure is designed to ensure a referendum does not happen.
It is impossible to determine whether “the people” to whom you refer, are the Scots or the British people as a whole. But if you are relying on the change of will of the Scots, the effect of that does not merely mean the “procedure” changes ; the procedure will simply collapse, because keeping Scotland in the UK will not then be tenable, and the procedure only existed to prevent it.
No 52:48 was not ok for most regions of England (and Wales) to impose their will on Brexit Northern Ireland and Scotland (and indeed London). But after three years of agony we had a general election in 2019 and for good or for ill (mostly for ill, frankly) Brexit got “done” the best part of five year la ago. The egg cannot be unscrambled very easily.
I don’t think any major constitutional change of this nature should be decided on a 50%+1 bare majority. We need more consensus, not “I win, you lose” division.
The government that delivered Brexit is now totally discredited
So is the leader who did so
He lied
So why can’t we revisit the issue, if the EU will let us?
That is what democracy is all about, isn’t it?
And in the system you propose minorities are given the power. Why?
I am genuinely baffled and think this worth discussing
In 1979 a Referendum was held in Scotland for devolution. 52% voted in favour, but it failed. George Cunningham, a Labour MP (a Scot representing a London constituency), inserted a clause (on Burns night, 1978!) in the Devolution Bill to ensure a 40% threshold rule for the total voting electorate. The threshold was not met, and the majority view therefore fell. Cunningham later described his tactic as ” delayed-action bomb that later blew up devolution”. The majority lived with it; but it was a cynical manipulation of wise politics by a decaying Union. As always, the Scots Unionists lack wisdom; and so does Westminster. They do themselves no favours. They make their position worse not better. They corrode the body politic.
The point I would make is that it would have been much better for Scotland certainly, and almost certainly Britain if devolution succeeded. The 48% Unionists in Scotland succeeded, but their manipulative politics have created and increased, not reduced division. Britain is not the better for the legacy that left in politics.
If the parties are serious about growth, being part of the single market is an important factor.
What is serious is that British political parties have no idea how to create growth. How long do you believe we need, to see that the track record of the UK in economic growth has been one of slow, steady comparative economic decline – since at least WWII?
What counter evidence can be offered; oh, yes Rishi Sunak’s claim of recovery last week; based on one month’s limp facts. Gone within days when the following month’s data showed 0.0%; the same as three of the last four months; before that? Recession. Before that? Flatlining. And on it goes. What are we doing differently? Nothing.
Scotland, in Heaven’s name, pack your bags. Enough.
“If the parties are serious about growth, being part of the single market is an important factor.”
Yes, absolutely. Which is why the Liberal Democrat’s committment to future single market membership (and the customs union which would come before it) is so important.
In all honesty, as the EU is such a taboo now in the political debate, I was delighted that the Lib Dems have stuck their neck out and committeed to joining it. This starts a conversation, especially if the Lib Dems have a similar number of seats to the Tories, and can push Labour from the left on so many things (including this).
A recent article in the Guardian told of the Tory campaign being in disarray with a lack of volunteers. Very few wish to leaflet or campaign on their behalf. Yesterday the 82 year old ex Tory Councillor who was recently ousted by the Green Party candidate posted a leaflet which I handed back while explaining why I would not be voting Conservative. There was a response that the candidate is campaigning as an effective MP focussed on local issues. I countered asking why they believe people should ignore the appalling Tory record over the last 14 years and rebutted the assertion that the sitting MP is effective on local issues using my direct experience as evidence. No response at all.
The seat will go to Labour. Like you Richard I want a completely different approach to that being offered by the major parties.
In relation to Scottish Independence Andrew at 9:40am said: “There is a procedure to follow, just as with Catalonia.”
Just where can we find this “procedure”? It would be useful and interesting to know, but there is no provision in the Treaties of Union 1707 for a Scottish secession and in the intervening 3 centuries it has never been even vaguely defined. There is simply no procedure and, in the classic UK tradition of just bumbling along without any attempt to define one, never mind enshrine it in Statute so everyone can understand it, there never will be. This enables the UK to indulge its age-old practice of Extractionism honed and perfected by Empire. UK Gov policies allowed the oil and gas industry to strip out all the wealth created in Scottish waters and allowed the UK Gov to benefit from the resulting tax bonanza. Scotland’s share was a tiny proportion of that wealth. The same tactics are being applied to the burgeoning renewable energy industries.
Catalonia’s attempts at secession from Spain are not comparable in that Spain’s Constitution explicitly forbids the secession of any of its constituent regions. UK famously has no clearly defined Constitution: it relies on custom, precedents and the opinions of Victorian politicians and can be overturned and altered by any Westminster Government with a large enough majority. In other words, more UK “bumbling along”. The UK Gov can also overturn any legislation passed by Holyrood and can rely on the UK Supreme Court to rule in its favour if required – it has specifically ruled that the Scottish Gov has no power to legislate for Scottish Independence, so de jure and de facto there is no procedure. This stalemate will be continued until the people of Scotland get out in sufficient numbers and make their feelings known through civic disobedience.
Yes, Article 2 of the 1980 Spanish constitution refers to the “indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, yet protects “the right to autonomy of the nationalities and regions”.
and Article 92 is a provision for referenda..
So there are still constitutional convolutions possible in Spain, and obvious constitutional contradictions while we have nothing in the UK at all that allows comparable due process.
The Supreme Court is a relatively new invention covering all the UK countries, and designed for English hegemony. I suppose there ought to have been a referendum on that as a constitutional amendment under Scottish law, as the people are supposed (haha) to hold ultimate power.
Totally agree that unless we have a strong campaign of civil disobedience rather than mess about with party poltiics campaign we are scunnered.
Tony says: “Totally agree that unless we have a strong campaign of civil disobedience rather than mess about with party poltiics campaign we are scunnered”. I’ve been scunnered with this for decades, Tony; I suspect you mean ‘scuppered’. As a postscript to my post above, I reckon the quickest way to get the people of Scotland onto the streets, angry and determined to have change would be for Farage to be the next UK Prime Minister.
No, I mean scunnered – in the sense of irritated annoyance, depression and/or disgust.
As Indy support is clearly independent of party loyalties, and pretty stable – with c. 50% as its base – and there is no political route available, then the only route available is via civil resistance.
In fact, extra parliamentary routes are often more successful in promoting and achieving their outcomes as direct action, provided people can be mobilised effectvely.
AUOB have been sort of trying to follow a civil protest route, though with limited success.
We know that YES Scotland had always wanted to detach from alignment with a single party even during the 2014 Indyref campaign anyway.
We also know that about 1/3 SLab voters supported Indy in 2014.
I recommend Erica Chenoweth’s book as a primer.
The “procedure” Andrew may be thinking of is a Section 30 Order in which the FM asks the PM to grant one so that a referendum may be held. This was Nicola Sturgeon’s preferred option. She thought she was dealing with democrats who would see the force of her argument that if the SNP and other Independence supporting parties won a Holyrood election with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on Scottish Independence then a democrat would concede that right.
After all, Westminster parties once in government believe they are absolutely entitled to enact anything in their manifesto. They see that as democracy. But not so for the “pretendy wee parliament” in Edinburgh. Westminster democracy means they can decide what’s best for the other nations of the UK, which they think aren’t really nations anyway, irrespective of what’s in their pretendy wee manifestos.
Conversely, does any imagine that if a PM decided that England should secede from the UK, whether it’s in the party manifesto or not, there would be any question that it should not be allowed to do so, regardless of the views of the other nations? That’s the WM version of “democracy”: the sovereign English parliament can do what it likes, such as declaring that a country is “safe”, but the other parliaments will do as they are told when the PM takes exception.
Ken is right, there is no “procedure” in the face of muscular Unionism.
Much to agree with here.
Labour’s manifesto vaguely proposes a ‘assembly of the nations and regions’ so the (UK) PM will meet in this assembly with the Scottish, Welsh and NI FMs alongside the ‘combined mayors’ such as the mayor of Cambridgeshire & Peterborough. This seems very silly to me.
This shows how ill thought out Labour’s position on devolution is (and perhaps even how ‘muscular unionist’ it is). With respect to the combined authorities of counties (not English regions which would make much more sense – such as the South West, East of England, North West, Yorks & Humber etc.), Scotland , Wales and NI are nations, as is England, and so each country of the UK needs a voice in this proposed assembly.