December 13, 2015

Scottish Labour’s list selections: a democratic travesty

Dr. Stuart MacLennan Scottish Politics, Uncategorized 0 Comments

The Scottish Labour Party is currently in the process of selecting its regional list candidates for the forthcoming Scottish Parliament election. In previous elections the process has received little attention, owing to the expectation that Labour would win almost all of its seats in individual constituencies. However, with yet another rout predicted for Scottish Labour next year, the regional lists have become hugely competitive – with all bar-one of Labour’s incumbents seeking re-election aiming for a place on a regional list.

It has been apparent for some time that the regional list selections would be hugely competitive. Nevertheless, the process for selecting candidates appears to have been given little thought. For example, while a system of gender-based ‘zipping’ has been applied in order to ensure that candidates alternate by gender as they descend the list, no provision has been made for ensuring that women appear at the top of half of the lists. So if Labour wins five seats in Glasgow and West of Scotland (I am aware that this is ambitious), and three each in the others – and men top every list bar Lothians (which will be topped by Kez) – then the ratio of men to women would be 17/11.

However, even more worrying is the system used to rank candidates on the list – or the ostensible lack thereof.

The Party will use a simple single transferrable vote (STV) system to select candidates, the operation of which readers of this blog will doubtless be familiar. While this system is used around the world to elect representatives, including in local government elections here in Scotland, it is quite unsuitable for ranking candidates for party lists. The difference is that while in elections for councils the order in which members are elected doesn’t actually matter very much – when determining a ranking it is the order that is the whole point of the exercise.

The system that is to be used for selecting regional list candidates will require members to rank candidates, and any candidates meeting the quota will be added to the list. If more than one candidate is added to the list at that count then the candidate with the higher vote share will be placed higher on the list. However, with 12 candidates to be selected in most regions this could see candidates securing top spaces on some lists with as little as 8% of the vote. This means that candidates who have a small but solid support, and a large number of divided opponents could secure places near the top of the list even if the overwhelming majority of members find that candidate utterly objectionable. Preferences will be practically meaningless when it comes to selecting the top spots.

Consider the below example, where we’re selecting 8 candidates. Female B is has a small but solid support base of 12.5%. Most of the rest of the party absolutely despises her. Nonetheless, under Scottish Labour’s system Female B will secure the top spot on this regional list.

Single transferrable vote is supposed to be a preferential system – but allocating the top list spots in this way utterly fails to reflect those preferences.

A better system might have been to use a Borda count method. Somewhat embarrassingly, readers will probably recognise this system as the one used to pick the winner of the Eurovision Song Contest. Under this method, members’ preferences correspond to points, with candidates ranked according to their points total. Expanding upon the above example, assume that first preferences are worth eight points, second preferences worth seven, and so on. In this example, the candidate winning the plurality of second and third preferences comes top of the list. In general, the candidates that rank highly are those with much broader appeal. Female B, by comparison, being detested by the overwhelming majority of the selectorate, doesn’t make it onto the list at all. Female B is Jedward – all-but guaranteed to get 12 points from the UK, but poorly regarded by the voters more broadly.

We’re all familiar with the drawbacks of the Eurovision method. Some decent tactics from groupings of candidates could well see them dominate the tops of the lists without resounding support, however the support necessary to do that under Borda is still far broader than that which would be required to do the same under the present rules.

So who does Scottish Labour’s current selection rules benefit? Because preferences won’t count for much near the top of the list, having a broad support base won’t matter. In general, people with a decent core of support without much local competition will do well. This probably benefits constituency incumbents over list incumbents – as they’re more likely to have a solid core of first preference votes from the seat they’ve represented for many years. It will also benefit constituency incumbents who have had few boundary changes over the years (like Elaine Smith) compared to those who’s seats have suffered substantial revisions (like Paul Martin). It benefits areas with a large contiguous political community over those that are more fractious – therefore favouring Fifers over those from the rest of the Mid-Scotland and Fife region. It benefits Rhoda Grant, and David Stewart – who faces strong but divided opposition from Sean Morton and John Erskine. And it favours men in the North East, with Jenny Marra and Lesley Brennan slugging it out in Dundee, helping ensure that the first and therefore third slots go to men. If the left was organised I would say that it certainly benefits them, but from what can be seen from the shortlisted candidates that organisation is lacking.

And who are likely to be the biggest losers? The vast majority of members whose votes will go utterly wasted, and whose lead candidates will have been selected by a system that better resembles a lottery than democracy.

June 21, 2015

10 Questions for Nationalists

Dr. Stuart MacLennan Scottish Politics 0 Comments

If the SNP can adequately answer these I’ll sign up tomorrow:

We know you’re anti-austerity, but you still prefer it to raising taxes, right? You may not have the power to curb austerity through borrowing, but you do through taxes – which you steadfastly refuse to do.
How do you propose to redistribute wealth from some of the world’s richest people in London to our poorest people in Glasgow by throwing up sovereign boundaries between them? Does independence really make the world a more equal place? Or are you only concerned about equality within our borders?
You don’t really want full fiscal autonomy, do you? I mean, even those of us who are opposed to independence accept that it’s not entirely without any merit. But FFA is all of the drawbacks of independence without any of the advantages.
What have you actually done with the powers the Scottish Parliament already has to redistribute wealth from richer people to poorer people? I can think of plenty of examples to the contrary – the Council Tax freeze springs to mind.
You know perfectly well that there’s no actual way in the British Constitution to make anything, permanent, right? You also surely know that if the UK ever did try to scrap Holyrood, Scotland would be independent inside a month? Isn’t this the sort of “scaremongering” that you accused unionists of?
You accuse others of “breaking promises” to the people of Scotland. Whatever happened to scrapping Council Tax and paying off my student debt?
You do know that a LOT of your supporters are fundamentally horrible, nasty people, right? I know, I know – there are unpleasant people like that on both sides, but there’s WAY more on yours and you do relatively little to stamp it out.
You really did want the Tories to win, right? Not because you like them, but because you know perfectly well that a Tory PM is a far more frightening bogey man than a Labour one.
You do accept that Alex Salmond is a proven liar and at least a bit of a sexist? Contrary to Alex Salmond’s attempted excuse, it is NOT a “Scottish saying”.
Independence in Europe – bit of a logical inconsistency, no?

May 18, 2015

The Problem of Perception for Scottish Labour

Dr. Stuart MacLennan Scottish Politics Jim Murphy, Lord Ashcroft, Scottish Labour 1 Comment

The Scottish Labour Party has an image problem. That is not to say that the root of the problem is our image. At this moment in time I cannot begin to count the various problems that the Scottish Labour Party has, but one of them is undoubtedly our image – how we are perceived by the people we want to vote for us.

Perceptions are difficult to manage in politics, because they can often have little grounding in reality. This, you might think, makes it easy to change people’s perceptions, by simply directing their attention towards reality. However, in politics, perceptions are far more difficult to change than reality.

The perception that we are fiscally profligate hurt Labour badly in England. No matter what the two Eds said or did to demonstrate their prudence, their long association with Gordon Brown’s Treasury meant that they were perceived by the electorate as untrustworthy with the public finances.

In Scotland, we are perceived rather differently. Lord Ashcroft held a focus group in Paisley, and he discerned three problems perceived by voters. The first, is that we are conservative – and virtually indistinguishable from the Tories. The second, is that we are a “branch office” of the Labour Party in London. The third, is that we “betrayed” our supporters by joining with the Conservatives to promote a homogenous establishment defence of the Union.

These perceptions are all, in part, rooted in reality. However, changing the reality does not necessarily change the perception. Once a perception has been formed in people’s minds about a party it is extremely difficult to exculpate it. We have witnessed the difficulties the Conservatives have had dispelling the ghost of Thatcherism. Labour may find it difficult to shake the perceptions that have formed in the public’s minds. Those trained in philosophy or jurisprudence will be familiar with the difficulties in proving a negative. In this instance, that we are not what they perceive us to be.

A new approach to communications

We are bad communicators. This is not to criticise the staff who work in communications. The fault is a systematic one.

Fundamentally, communications staff ought not be necessary. Communication is a core-skill of the politician. However, communication must not be one-way. While, of course, it is a tremendous advantage to have the oratorical skills of Michael Foot or a caustic wit like William Hague – but one of the key failings of these great communicators was that they were transmitters, rather than receivers. Over the years I have known many Labour politicians who are brilliantly attuned to the public mood, but they have been sidelined either through our recent electoral misfortunes, or a succession of leaders who have failed to appreciate the value of such a skill.

As a tarnished brand, and an unpopular product, the party should look to business practices for solutions to our present woes. In recent years, the Scottish Labour Party’s approach to political communication has been more akin to 1950s methods of selling products than modern methods of marketing. Prior to the development of more consumer-oriented marketing techniques, the predominant approach to driving profits was selling and promoting goods and services – the “hard sell” – rather than determining new customer desires. In effect, selling people something they don’t really want to buy. By contrast, consumer-oriented marketing methods feedback from consumers and attempt to create a product that customers actually want to buy.

It was this approach to political marketing that the late Philip, later Lord, Gould brought to the modernisation of the Labour Party in the late 80s and 90s. It is this responsiveness to public mood that has been sorely lacking in the Scottish Labour Party since the inception of devolution.

For too long we have relied upon opinion polling and canvass returns to gauge the public mood. These have consistently let us down in recent years. In 2011 we fought an offensive election – targeting gains like Livingston and Stirling – when, we should have been defending seats like Shettleston and Cunninghame South. Up until a few months ago, Labour’s key-seat list in Scotland comprised of Argyll and Bute; Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale, and Tweeddale; Dundee East; East Dunbartonshire; and Edinburgh West – our average share in those five seats was less than 15%. These seats were targeted because of both local polling and uniform national swings.

We saw in this election the dangers of relying on opinion polling (and those of us who are political punters paid the price!) Outside of an election cycle there is a tendency for voters to simply provide the answer that they always do – which would explain how Labour’s massive opinion poll leads in the run up to the 2011 election translated into a massive defeat. We failed to detect that “our voters” are no longer “our voters” until it was too late to stem the flow away from us.

Labour needs to make better use of focus groups and modern marketing techniques in order to adequately craft our message to suit the public mood. This might sound frightfully Mandelsonian to some, but it does not mean simply telling the people what they want to hear. In many areas of policy, the public mood appears to be far closer to our core values than we are. If Labour values are what the public wants, then it is utterly incredulous that we appear hesitant to embody them.

I do not believe that our product is fundamentally flawed, we just need to stop trying to flog the people’s last year’s model.

A new visual identity

Aschroft’s focus group discerned that the Scottish Labour Party is perceived as being a mere ‘branch office’ of the Labour Party in London. When even our leader shares that view, there’s bound to be a lot of truth in it. Jim Murphy, at least, recognised that that is a perception that needs to change, and made some attempts to dispel it.

Visual identity is hugely important. Tarnished brands frequently seek to change perceptions of themselves by updating their visual identity. McDonald’s responded to the perception of tackiness by ditching red and yellow in favour of earth tones in their restaurants. BP sought to bolster their environmental credentials by updating their logo. David Cameron did nearly the exact same thing when he changed the Conservative Party’s branding in 2006. And Peter Mandelson, too, sought to renew Labour’s brand by ditching the red flag in favour of the rose in the late 80s.

As a tarnished brand, the party’s visual identity needs to be renewed – urgently – to distinguish ourselves from the failings of the past, as well as the UK Labour Party of which we are perceived as being a branch.

This involves more than merely throwing a few saltires around the place. Name, shape, and colour should all be up for debate.

Of particular focus should be the name. It is arguable that the name ‘Scottish Labour’ evinces a sense that we are the Scottish bit of the Labour Party, rather than being the Labour Party of Scotland. The starting point for any rebrand ought to be the question ‘what would we call ourselves if we were starting from scratch?’ The answer, I suspect, would be ‘Labour’.