Double-headed Rose

A visual metaphor for the Labour Party?

As the debate rages over the selection process in Falkirk for the new candidate to replace the disgraced (but still in a job) MP Eric Joyce. He has resigned from the Labour Party (before they sacked him) but remains an MP, and has indicated he will only stand down at the next General Election. I think there is some speculation he is hanging on until then because the rules give MPs who lose OR stand-down at a General Election get a 'parachute payment' aka 'resettlement allowance' worth between 50% and 100% of their annual MP's salary.

Joyce is a complicated character - brought up on a council estate, he left school at 16 and joined the army as a private. Then he studied for a BA, MA and MBA while in the Army, received a officer's commission and was promoted to Captain before leaving the Army. He was elected as MP for Falkirk West in 2000 following the resignation of another member of Labour's 'awkward squad', Dennis Canavan.

Canavan had been rejected as the Labour candidate for the Scottish Parliament seat in 1999 despite considerable local support. (Another attempt at centralised control.) So he stood as an Independent and won the seat with over half the votes, and improved on that proportion in 2003. Since 2000 Joyce has had his personal problems and clearly has a difficult relationship with alcohol. So I have a degree of sympathy for his plight as an individual but on the other hand the circumstances once again call into question the nature of political representation. Do people vote for person or party or a mixture of both? I would contend that most people consider party is a significant factor even if it's not the only one. So if a sitting politician changes their party I think the electorate should be asked again if they want to re-elect the same person with a different rosette. And as Dennis Canavan proved, sometimes they will. But I think the electorate should always be asked again and despite the PR value of being able to parade a new party member joining your ranks in parliament or in the council chamber, I think it is an example of the political class in general showing their lack of respect for the people that put them into power. Which all means, in my mind, that if Eric Joyce is no longer the Labour MP for Falkirk, he should be forced by the rules to stand down (and seek re-election as an Independent if he wants to).

But the rules are still not like that, and Joyce remains the MP and the local Labour party has to select a new candidate for the next General Election. Which is where the current row surfaces. The internal selection process is a matter for members of the local Labour Party constituency. (Although this is complicated these days as the Labour Party in Scotland is now organised in accordance with Holyrood constituencies, not Westminster ones, so the members entitled to vote in the selection of a candidate for Westminster are likely to belong to more than one actual constituency party. But I digress.) Anyway the people entitled to vote in the selection are members of the different branches that make up the constituency and those members may have joined as individuals or through their Trade Union. And their eligibility to vote in the selection is usually determined by a cut-off point - paid-up members on a certain date.

So there is often an increase in membership in that period as people who may have let their membership lapse pay up, or supporters become members in order to have their say. And people who aren't members are encouraged to join by those who are. Which is where it gets murky. One of the possible candidates in the selection was backed by a Trade Union - Unite - and their have been allegations that the union was signing up members in significant numbers in order to improve the chance of 'their' candidate winning the selection.

Which led those on the right of the Labour Party, nationally and locally, to call foul as they would rather their preferred candidate got the selection. It appears that the union has sailed close enough to the edges of the rules to merit an investigation. And the union has reacted by saying this is a symptom of a Labour Party that is too dominated by intellectuals and the middle classes, and not reflecting the Trade Union roots of the original party. Which might well be true, but when this statement is made by someone who earns a six-figure salary for running a trade union, it loses some of its power in my opinion.

And while there is a general problem for Labour in the UK, there is a more specific Scottish dimension to this in the way that Scotland is generally more left wing than England. Take the recent announcements on council houses. In Scotland the right to buy is being phased out but in England more money is being made available for it. So Scotland is more collectivist, and if the Scottish Labour Party is forced to follow a less socialist Labour Party in England it risks losing more support in Scotland to the SNP who are repeatedly outflanking them on the Left.

Hence the double-headed rose.

Apologies all - too often I use my blips to think aloud :-)