‘GOOD riddance to the Tories” the British people said last week, impatient to be rid of them after 14 years. That was the over-riding sentiment of the 2024 General Election.
And while the polls predicted the rout consistently over the past two years, it was still a relief to have it confirmed so comprehensively. Yet amid the sense of satisfaction, it is important to recognise what has not changed.
While capitalising on the widespread contempt felt toward the Tory brand, Labour’s strategy under Keir Starmer was to timidly imitate their policies on all major issues – on the economy, on climate change, on Ukraine, on the war in Gaza and on the deployment of nuclear weapons against millions of innocent human beings.
A bittersweet taste has therefore undoubtedly been left in the mouth of millions of Labour voters. When Tony Blair won a similar success in 1997 – after two decades of Thatcherism – many feared he would merely follow the same path as his infamous predecessor.
And he did.
READ MORE: Jackie Baillie gets behind Wes Streeting's NHS private sector plans
Starmer is on the same course. His plan for dealing with the profound challenges posed by the end of globalisation, climate chaos, warmongering and huge fiscal indebtedness differ little from those pursued by Sunak.
His strategy for addressing the enormous problems facing our NHS, social care provision, educational attainment, transport infrastructure and the housing shortage are all dependent on achieving mythical levels of “economic growth” Britain has not managed in decades.
Starmer’s manifesto was ridiculed by most leading economists, not least the Institute for Fiscal Studies which declared it politely (as there was an election on) to be “just not credible”.
Similarly, no-one expects the crisis facing our NHS to be improved by Labour’s turbo-charged privatisation plans, the new Health Secretary Wes Streeting (below) having promised “a much bigger role for the private sector”.
The state of social care in Britain today also belongs in a Dickens novel, yet Labour aim to do nothing to intercept its slide towards greater malfunction.
This, then, is a Labour government then facing multiple crises. “Not being the Tories” simply won’t cut it. Yet Starmer intends to adhere slavishly to the demands of “market forces”.
And as the convulsions facing the world become clearer and clearer – look across the Channel at France or across the Atlantic at the US presidential race – Labour will be buffeted to and fro by such events and its electoral fortunes will take a nosedive.
‘Instability is baked into the market” as they say in investment circles as far as “UK plc” is concerned. The election of 2019, for example, produced Labour’s worst result in a century. Five years later, the Tories endured their worst defeat.
Labour’s coalition of support is, despite appearances, extremely fragile (including for example the 20% of Yes voters who supported it in Scotland). Moreover, there is no great love for Starmer.
He is not a leader who inspires enthusiasm, confidence or optimism. And for all its 421 seats, Labour won just 33.8% of the vote. It is clearly a “coalition” which could easily fracture as the fundamental contradictions within it erupt.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer refuses to be drawn on granting independence referendum
I for one believe the process of disintegration will consume Labour sooner than most people think. And make no mistake, notwithstanding the collapse in support for the SNP, the “national question” has not been resolved here either.
The Yes movement must use this time to prepare for this new period in UK politics and the inevitable consequences for the Union.
There will be profound opportunities presented by Labour’s failures. Scots will increasingly see they have an escape hatch from which to exit a sinking and unpopular Labour government.
The independence movement also needs to examine what has gone wrong since the heady days of 2014 and be prepared to learn important lessons. One fact is eminently clear – the SNP leadership failed us. Its case for independence was simply not persuasive.
The party still cannot answer the central question posed to our movement namely: “Is independence about change for working people or not?” If it is not, we will never secure majority support for it.
If it is, then why the constant promises to the Scottish economic and political establishment that we will keep sterling, keep the queen/king, stay in Nato, return to the anti-democratic EU, and continue to allow corporate power to exploit the people of Scotland and retain their iron grip on our nation’s decision-making and future direction?
Our struggle for self-determination was allowed to become the plaything of a single political party. That mistake has cost us dearly.
We must all recognise that our movement is much bigger and more powerful than a single party, particularly one which puts its own electoral interests ahead of the cause again and again.
As for “change”? I suspect the most profound one Labour’s new leadership will likely encounter is in its own popularity. Its beloved United Kingdom is no more stable today than it was before July 4.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel