IT is obviously bad but how bad? That was the question running round the Scottish Labour conference in Perth yesterday as delegates pondered the loss of the Copeland by election to the Tories, the worst result for an official opposition in 35 years. The defeat of Ukip leader Paul Nuttall in Stoke-on-Trent offered some relief, although his campaign self-destructed, and even then Labour only just scraped through.
Indeed, it was arguably the Tories what won it for Labour in Stoke. After Theresa May’s recent visit, Ukip and the Tories ended neck and neck, on 5,233 and 5,154 votes respectively. Had the Tories eased off, even the accident-prone Mr Nuttall might have triumphed. Mrs May can live with one Labour face replacing another at Westminster.
It would have been far harder to handle the Ukip leader getting a Commons platform and spooked Tory MPs badgering her to turn the Brexit talks into all-out war with Brussels. Labour’s win in Stoke is also Mrs May’s.
There was an obvious follow-up question in Perth, too: how much worse can it get? With UK-wide local elections in May, it won’t take long to find out, though the answer isn’t in doubt. Things can get much worse, and they surely will. In Scotland, Labour polled 31 per cent in 2012 and won power in 15 of 32 councils. This year it’s polling half that and is likely to come third behind the Tories on vote share and lose power in most of its authorities, including the capital of its lost empire, Glasgow.
Jeremy Corbyn can’t rescue it. I saw him speak when he stood for election as leader in 2015. The speech was terrible, a random list of things in life he thought were awful, including General Pinochet’s coup in Chile in 1973. How, I wondered, would any of it appeal to ordinary voters who are understandably more interested in their future than South American history? He didn’t seem interested in getting votes. What kind of party leader doesn’t prioritise votes and hence power and change? A doomed one, clearly.
But the conference faithful needn’t throw themselves into the Tay just yet. Mr Corbyn, who is due in Perth tomorrow, may not be a name to inspire hope but these might: William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith, and Michael Howard.
The landfill Tory leaders between John Major and David Cameron are a reminder that parties often churn chaotically through a series of duds before the tide turns. Mr Hague was the first modern Tory leader not to become prime minister. IDS lasted barely two years, Mr Howard the same. But then the Tories got a leader in Mr Cameron and an opponent in Gordon Brown whom they could work with.
Politics is a strange mutual support system, in which parties are first concussed and then revived by their opponents. Flatlining parties cannot regenerate in a vacuum. They need friction to prosper, something to bounce off and react to. Take the Scottish Tories. Wiped out in 1997, rescued by devolution, they stalled under the late David McLetchie then declined under Annabel Goldie. Ruth Davidson leads the second party at Holyrood and has approval ratings higher than Nicola Sturgeon’s; because along came an issue, independence, she could oppose and make her own. Alex Salmond and Ms Sturgeon revived the Scottish Tories as surely as they revived the SNP, driving Unionist voters into Ms Davidson’s arms.
So Scottish Labour’s task is to survive in the hope it can thrive in future. It will be a long wait but its opponents will eventually provide an issue, scandal or leader it can define itself against. As former Labour MP Tom Harris noted, a second referendum might even rescue the party. Whether it’s a Yes or No, the SNP will have to stop talking about the constitution and politics will revert to health, education and social justice. Scottish Labour, improbably, isn’t done for yet.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel