IT was a storm in a tea cup – or rather a mug. And it was right on the money.
Before Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday Stephen Flynn’s staff handed mugs to political journalists in the Commons lobby with the logo: “Controls on family sizes. What’s the point of Labour?” – and a cheeky compliments slip: “Labour Party has a new range of mugs in production. They’re made in China – just like Sir Keir Starmer’s latest policy.”
That prompted some outrage from Labour MPs about the “orientalism” of Flynn’s remarks until it transpired that deputy Scottish Labour leader (Dame) Jackie Baillie first made the comparison with the Tories’ two-child benefits cap in a 2018 Holyrood debate declaring; “The cap reminds me of Communist China’s morally abhorrent one-child policy. Now, even the Chinese have abolished that; perhaps the Tories can bring themselves to follow China’s example…”
But not UK Labour
Starmer’s determination to keep the cap – announced ahead of Labour’s policy-making forum this weekend – was not designed to placate Scots but to flush out remaining Corbynites, convince English Tory voters Labour has no radical intent and stamping Starmer’s authority over his party by forcing shadow cabinet members into teeth-gritted backing for a policy U-turn that will leave a quarter of a million kids languishing in poverty.
READ MORE: Monica Lennon warns 'wheesht for Labour government culture' is emerging
This mindless policy stance will cause serious discomfort for Labour politicians at Westminster – especially deputy leader and mum of three sons Angela Rayner, who previously called the two-child cap “obscene and inhumane”.
But it will tear Scottish Labour apart.
Maybe not immediately, since Labour will likely win two of today’s three by-elections, prompted by Boris Johnson and allies quitting the Commons. But soon.
READ MORE: Kelly Given: If Labour had an ounce of sense they would oust Kid Starver immediately
After all, consider. Just a few days ago, Baillie said Anas Sarwar would call his London boss to urge a rethink, insisting the Scottish party leader had clout within the party and a direct line of communication with the UK leader.
Since then, Starmer’s office has confirmed he will not change his mind. Not only does that throw into question the entire policy-making process of the People’s party, it also throws sand into the Scottish leader’s face.
How much credibility does Sarwar have now that he’s tried and failed to reverse a UK policy stance that’s abhorred by his MSPs and Westminster candidates?
It seems a completely unforced error by Sir Kid Starver – as he’s trending on social media – especially in Scotland, where the £25 Scottish Child Payment already compensates “large” families with more than two kids for this horrible legacy of George Osborne’s time at the top.
READ MORE: Rishi Sunak welcomes Labour's 'newfound support' for Tory benefit cap
If Starmer must go to such lengths to win English votes, progressives in Scottish Labour must ask themselves some tough questions.
How much longer can forthright MSPs like Monica Lennon, Paul Sweeney, Ricard Leonard and Mercedes Villalba stand by and watch as party policy moves to the right of the LibDems and “inconvenient” lefties like Labour North of Tyne mayor Jamie Driscoll are barred from standing.
In his resignation letter to Starmer this week, Driscoll said: ‘You’ve U-turned on so many promises: £28bn to tackle the climate emergency, free school meals, ending university tuition fees, reversing NHS privatisation; in fact, a list of broken promises too long to repeat in this letter.”
Now, “the last Corbynista in power” is set to stand as an independent, raising two-thirds of his £150,000 target and winning support from fellow northern mayor Andy Burnham and the union Unite which suggests Driscoll was blocked because he supported renationalising public utilities.
Such fault lines clearly exist in Scotland, but haven’t quite surfaced – yet
How long before someone within Scottish Labour finds the spine Stephen Flynn was looking for yesterday on the Labour front bench and “does a Driscoll” instead of “wheeshting for Starmer”? Not long I’d guess.
Look at Twitter.
After the Labour leader confirmed his intention to keep the two-child benefits cap on the BBC’s Kuenssberg show, Leonard retweeted Rayner’s fiery 2020 condemnation saying simply: “I agree with Angela.”
Sweeney – who worked with drugs campaigner Peter Krykant while he was on Universal Credit – might yet have something to say about his party’s opposition to Scottish Government plans to decriminalise drugs.
READ MORE: Labour MSPs slate Keir Starmer over keeping two-child benefit cap
He definitely has had something to say about the two-child cap: “A third of Glasgow’s children live in poverty. Life expectancy has stalled for the first time. £1.3bn to abolish the two-child limit would lift 250,000 children out of poverty, and 850,000 more would be in less deep poverty. It is obviously cost-effective.”
Meanwhile, Villalba – the MSP behind a bill to curb ultra-large land ownership – tweeted that “Keir Starmer was elected leader of the Labour Party on a pledge to scrap the two-child limit”.
While Lennon, who steered through Holyrood’s pioneering period poverty legislation, tweeted: “How can people who know the Tory two-child benefit cap is the biggest driver of UK child poverty sit in silence, or worse, defend it? This is the wrong position and it’s down to us as Labour members to change it.”
Well said. And well done for making this important fight over child poverty a public one.
But clearly, you’re talking to the hand, cos Starmer hasn’t shifted his position one iota. And he won’t.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, there’ve been fierce rows over candidate selection in Scotland too – in May, a Scottish Labour councillor in Rutherglen said the “top three most popular candidates locally were blocked” in the selection for who would run to replace Margaret Ferrier, suspended for breaking Covid laws. He said the contest was a leadership stitch-up.
Three months earlier, left-wing Glasgow councillor Matt Kerr – Scottish Labour’s existing candidate in Glasgow South West – failed vetting, leaving the way clear for a privately educated surgeon who happens to be a schoolmate and neighbour of Sarwar.
Why was Kerr blocked?
Well, he did defy the Labour whip on Glasgow City Council by refusing to vote for cuts. Strangely though, that didn’t stop him winning re-election as an official Labour candidate.
He then challenged Baillie for the deputy leadership of Scottish Labour and got a very respectable 42% of the vote. A socialist way too close to winning power within Scottish Labour. No wonder the knives were out.
Things are not going to get better for the Labour left in Scotland, most of whom also support Scotland’s right to self-determination but know Starmer does not. They are currently politically homeless.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer mocks Labour critics in two-child benefits cap row
Is there a point in waiting until this democratic disappointment actually comes to pass?
Do they have the energy to stay schtum, cross fingers and bide their time – for what?
Another leader, another wasted decade and another generation of Scots forced to live in poverty or leave a flatlining, isolated Brexited Britain? Really – is that it?
Staying within the UK Labour Party may seem right. Staying in the Union may feel “safe”.
But a large tranche of Scottish Labour activists know the British game is up.
Will they act on their convictions – they doubtless will.
But meantime, Stephen Flynn was absolutely right to highlight the issue that will be the last straw.
Placing hope and trust in Keir Starmer really is a mug’s game.
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