In seeking to put as much distance between it and the SNP as possible, Labour is alienating potential voters in Scotland
Writing for the Scotsman over the weekend, Jon Curtice of Strathclyde University had a dire warning for Labour: “Rather than beginning to puncture the nationalist balloon, Scottish Labour is if anything falling even further behind the nationalists in the polls.”
Labour’s problem is that they are playing to the Tory tune. In seeking to put as much distance between it and the SNP as possible, the party is effectively alienating pro-independence supporters who previously voted Labour. In the process they are choking off the only viable option to a stable Labour-led government that can go on for a full Parliament.
Politics has changed – and potentially for good. The UK is fractured; but rather than embracing Scottish voters and seeking to tie the SNP to the difficult decisions to come, Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems are slowly prising the Scottish-England border apart.
All of that aside, what of the content of the SNP’s manifesto, which Nicola Sturgeon today declared to be ‘bursting with ideas and ambition’?
At its heart is a commitment to bring an end to austerity. What it dubs a ‘modest’ spending increase of 0.5 per cent a year would, the manifesto argues, enable at least £140 billion extra investment in the economy and in public services. On the basis of an analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Labour could potential sign up to such a plan and still meet its fiscal targets.
On housing, the SNP commit to the construction of 100,000 new affordable homes a year each year and to increasing the minimum wage to £8.70 an hour by 2020 (Labour has committed to increasing it to ‘more than £8 an hour by October 2019’).
Restoration of the 50p top income tax rate mirrors the commitment made by Labour. It would also be difficult to find a Labour politician willing to argue against an increase in the Employment Allowance, or to support the £3 billion cut in disability support which, the SNP argues, ‘threatens to cut the income of a million disabled people by more than £1,000 a year’.
For the rest of the day, politicians of the major parties will be doing their utmost to undermine the SNP. In reality, however, the differences between the SNP’s plans and Labour’s are not as stark as some in Miliband’s circle might have you believe.
Ed Jacobs is a contributing editor to Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
55 Responses to “The differences between Labour and the SNP are smaller than you think”
Leon Wolfeson
So you mean they had principles. Right.
STV is one of the few PR systems which leads to majorities.
Leon Wolfeson
Labour could have lied, yes. Have abandoned their principles. Been like the SNP, as you call having morals a betrayal.
You want even more “gimmie” politics, based entirely on personal advantage. In other words, for the SNP to move right!
Leon Wolfeson
What nonsense. Labour are right wing and as Miliband’s “2 years before you can claim a penny” speech, moving right at a good clip.
Leon Wolfeson
…One of the worst forms of PR, and one which is in the UK *highly* favourable to the harder right.
Uh-huh.
Leon Wolfeson
No, majorities in STV are quite possible. Systems like AMS or MMP? *Actually* highly unlikely.
(And let’s be honest here, in any reasonable post-independence scenario there wouldn’t be a SNP majority under AMS, as opposed to STV)
Scotland of course uses AMS, not STV – there are significant differences. In fact, AMS is far closer to MMP, but has a few non-proportional elements like not allowing overhang seats. And as I said, AMS is less favourable to the SNP in post-independence scenarios.