 | 'Labour seemed genuinely relieved that three months of torment was at an end, and the Liberal Democrats left town as quickly and quietly as they could - a party of government that secured a dismal 2.5%.' Sunday Herald, Editorial, 19 th March 2000. |  |
| 'Labour seemed genuinely relieved that three months of torment was at an end, and the Liberal Democrats left town as quickly and quietly as they could - a party of government that secured a dismal 2.5%.' Sunday Herald, Editorial, 19 th March 2000. | |
The Conservatives celebrated with a conservatism appro priate to their modest achievement. The SNP computers spewed out data to back up their claim to have momentum coming out of the royal burgh. Labour seemed genuinely relieved that three months of torment was at an end, and the Liberal Democrats left town as quickly and quietly as they could - a party of government that secured a dismal 2.5%.
With the results and the statistical spin, however, should come more considered analysis, primarily by Labour. The timing is fortuitous as now is the ideal time for the party to accept it has a problem and dedicate more thought to the general election likely to take place next year. It seems that so much energy has gone into government in Whitehall and Edinburgh that the party organisation has been left somewhat bereft. And for all that we disagree profoundly with the scaremongering Keep The Clause campaign, its slogan that "The listening government isn't listening" may have hit a nerve with some voters. Not to listen to lies about Clause 28 is one thing, but telling voters their problem is that they don't understand a list of government achievements sounds pretty patronising.
As in Ayr, voters look at health, education and council ser vices and cannot see Labour improvements coming through. The First Minister's assertion that "the GAE is up 3.7%" doesn't save pensioners' lunch clubs from closure.
The Prime Minister seemed to realise last week at his Scottish party conference that the activists have to be enthused if they are to go out and campaign. And the core vote, long conditioned to keep turning out to oppose the Tories, has to be given a reason to keep coming back.
Tony Blair has some grasp of the fact that modern politics needs a narrative thread. He has embarked on a journey of modernisation and invites us to come with him. Margaret Thatcher had a story to tell, even though most Scots disliked it intensely. Donald Dewar shows little sign of having grasped that requirement of leadership.
The setting up of the Scottish parliament is a remarkable story in itself, yet where is the thread running through his administration? Is it enough to reel off lists of achievements and initiatives? Is his sole purpose to identify and deliver "Scottish solutions for Scottish problems"? Or is it not necessary also to set out a clear vision of where his wants to take the country, where he hopes for it to be, and how it might have changed under his leadership by the 2003 election and the two or three elections beyond that?
Dewar is a one-off, his politics refreshingly old-fashioned and unglossed. He commands considerable affection, if not always as much respect as we might hope of a First Minister. But increasingly, he and his leadership are the issue. He needs to redefine what Labour and his executive stand for if he is to reconnect with the huge numbers of Scots who voted Labour but wonder if they should now follow the voters of Ayr. Unless he does so, Dewar will allow to perpetuate the vacuum which is increasingly filled with nonsense about Clause 28. In place of Thatcherism and Blair's claim to have a Third Way, Scotland's administration has an ingredient missing: Dewarism.
March 19 th 2000
Return to home page