Last week, the Scottish Greens made a mistake. It was a perfectly understandable mistake, and in accordance with their values, prioritising democracy over political influence, but it was a mistake nonetheless – throwing open to the party membership what needed to be an executive decision. Since then, we have seen every other Scottish political party (with the exception of the Lib Dems – it’s easier to maintain a tactical silence if no-one really listens to you anyway) rush to make its own mistake in a domino effect that would be hilarious if there were not so much at stake.
Still more bizarre, however, has been watching people down south try to make sense of it. Drawing on poorly-weighted polls, longstanding prejudices and a political compass which is decidedly out of whack in today’s world, they have made prediction ranging from a massive growth in Labour support to the death of the SNP, and even the collapse of the independence movement. In due course they’ll look as daft as Ash Regan did when it gradually dawned on her that, far from being a kingmaker who could demand the curtailment of other people’s human rights in exchange for her vote, she risked permanently alienating her party, Alba, from its base by making it look responsible for taking down a pro-independence government.
What most voters care about: competent politicians
Blackmail is, of course, the only real tool at Regan’s disposal because the truth is that very few voters actually care about ‘the trans debate’, despite all the hype in the press. Neither do they care about the personality politics on which so much recent coverage has focused. There’s no evidence that the arrest of former SNP chair Peter Murrell is a big deal when it comes to deciding what they’ll do at the ballot box – after all, if he’s guilty, it’s his own party he’s ripped off. What they do care about is, in fact, what most voters in Western democracies care about, and that’s having competent people in charge of the economy, plus healthcare, education and the other public services on which their day to day lives depend.
This is where we need to look beyond the drama of the left versus right debate at a more practical model of politics. We only need to look across at the US to see where that sensationalist model gets people – into a situation where the majority of voters feel that neither viable candidate is really satisfactory. English politics has been plagued by this kind of binary division for a long time, but Scotland – thanks in part to the use of PR at Holyrood elections – is different. As a result, it’s an easier place in which to identify the real political dynamics of the 21st Century.
Managerialism serves the status quo
The shine may have come off Nicola Sturgeon recently, but the fact is that most Scots were fairly contented with her government’s performance in the past. It was often ‘accused’ of being managerial, but managerial politics is what a great many voters actually want, just as they wanted it under Tony Blair at Westminster or under Angela Merkel in Germany. In light of the mismanagement we have recently seen down south, one could make a good argument for it being the most important thing in a government – but it does have its shortcomings.
Managerialism is fantastic when it comes to maintaining the status quo. It’s a lot less useful when it comes to facilitating radical change. It could keep the SNP in power, for instance, but it wasn’t going to deliver independence. Critically, it’s not adequate to enable the world to deal with climate change and the numerous related issues around migration, international tension or the restructuring of agricultural and fisheries. So, what is?
Faced with these challenges, many voters find themselves drawn toward true believers. These may be people who think that independence is the solution to everything; or people who hold to the popular misunderstanding of the Laffer Curve, imaging that trickledown economics is a real thing; or people who cling to the hope that, given the chance, people will all work together for the betterment of humankind. As long as there’s enough public interest in a belief on this scale, they can be a real political force, but they have a big problem: they cannot reach out beyond those who already have sympathy for the belief. Putting independence first and foremost, as its most ardent supporters demanded, was never going to help Humza Yousaf achieve independence, and that’s why he’s in trouble.
Factions within the SNP: managerialists and gradualists
Alongside the managerialists and the true believers, there are the gradualists – those who recognise that it is possible to bring about real change step by step, by investing in institutions and building up voter confidence where it’s lacking. This is the most likely strategy to achieve independence and, though a more radical strategy is certainly desirable and could save millions of lives, it’s the most politically realistic approach to tackling climate change. Critically, gradualists can work productively alongside managerialists and true believers if given room to do so.
All of these factions can be found within the SNP, and looking at the tensions between them also gives us a better model for understanding the internal struggles in the Labour Party and the reasons why both the Greens and the Lib Dems struggle to achieve broader appeal. It helps us to delineate some of the conflicts within the Conservative Party, but it’s important to note that there’s a third force at work there, a sort of anti-politics or parasite upon it. This is made up of people whose primary interest is in asset-stripping and profiteering. Although they often disguise themselves as true believers, they are anything but, and they have a corrupting influence upon every other strand of political thought, as the Conservatives are learning at considerable cost.
What’s happening in Scotland at the moment represents a realignment of these various interests. Because it has ripple effects across different parties, it’s unlikely to cause a real political earthquake. With a solid majority of Scots supporting independence if the circumstances are right, that movement – which has a solid organisational base beyond party politics anyway – is going nowhere. The SNP may suffer short term damage but will bounce back accordingly, and one of the worst things that Labour could do for its long term prospects in Scotland is to get itself into government at Holyrood at this volatile time.
Mistakes are not the death of progressive politics
There will be no lurch to the right because, as Alba’s electoral performance has indicated, the voter base just isn’t there for it. The Conservatives are enjoying success only when fractures between the bigger parties allow it. Ultimately, there are elements within the SNP and Labour who have much more in common with each other than with their party compatriots, and their strategic interests will align around specific pieces of legislation regardless of who is nominally in charge.
Mistakes happen, and we will no doubt see more before all this settles down, but to see it in terms of the death of progressive politics is to disregard what’s actually going on with the electorate – and to miss the bigger picture of how politics is evolving to meet the demands of a very different age.
Listen to an interview with Jennie here.
More on politics
Remember photographic voting ID is now law!
You must show an approved form of photo ID to vote at general elections and some others.
To find out more, visit:
