Anyone steeped in the traditions of the British labour movement – not a category that includes each and every Labour Party MP these days, at a guess - understands the mythical significance of Red Clydeside.
But given that Gordon Brown was once one of the best sympathetic chroniclers of radical Glasgow in the early part of the last century, the prime minister certainly realises the symbolic importance of Glasgow East.
A by-election to be held there in a fortnight’s time sees Labour at risk of losing a constituency it has held uninterruptedly since 1922. Forget the forgone conclusion sideshow in Haltemprice & Howden today; this is the contest that counts.
Labour’s majority in Glasgow East at the last general election was 13,507, making it the party’s eighth safest seat in Scotland and its 25th safest in Britain. The Scottish National Party would need a swing of 22% to take it. Astonishingly, it seems confident it can pull this feat off.
Labour officials are reportedly talking up the party’s chances of holding on, and journalists that have a better grip of Scottish politics than I do don’t rule that out.
Meanwhile, there’s a spat on the far left on this one. Both the Scottish Socialist Party and the breakaway Solidarity grouping are running candidates. But in such a polarised contest, neither is likely to do well. The stakes are too high for protest voting.
Respect MP George Galloway is backing New Labour rather than the Sheridan outfit, a development that has evidently discomfited some of his English supporters.
I’m simply too far south of the border to make a call on the result, although witnessing Labour’s difficulty in finding a candidate for what should be a rock solid weigh the vote stronghold, clearly it is not looking good for the government.
Let’s work from the premise that a SNP win is, at the very least, not inconceivable. Its platform, moreover, will be identifiably social democratic, topped up by opposition to both Trident and the Iraq war. What would such an outcome tell us?
Defeat could not simply be written off as another bout of the mid-term blues; it would represent, at the very least, a mid-term blues festival with an all-star bill, headlined by B.B. King and featuring Stevie Ray Vaughan back from the dead to play a support slot.
The Blairites have long theorised their project as constructing an alliance between Middle England and the heartland vote, with the section of the electorate formerly known as the working class expected to know its deferential place.
After the London and local government elections and Crewe & Nantwich, it is already clear that the Middle Englanders have upped and outed. If New Labour has in addition lost its traditional base, this will represent an implosion of neutron star proportions.
Labour MP John McDonnell has argued publicly that Labour might be sleepwalking into a meltdown on a par with 1931, a parallel that will mean nada to many of his colleagues. They should dust off the history books.
Some backbenchers have even suggested privately that the Liberal Democrats could form the next official opposition, although thankfully the opinion polls do not currently support that prognosis.
If Labour loses Glasgow East, the argument between New Labour and the socialist left within the party will have been definitively settled in the left’s favour. Unfortunately that conclusion may have come too late to do either side any good.
[Picture shows Labour candidate Margaret Curran and Scottish Socialist Party candidate Frances Curran. The two women are not related, but Labour fears it could lose votes as a result of the confusion.]
Posted at 14:19, 10 July 2008
Comments (33)
"Some backbenchers have even suggested privately that the Liberal Democrats could form the next official opposition, although thankfully the opinion polls do not currently support that prognosis."
Why be thankful if the LDs aren't set to be the opposition? I'd rather have them than Labour facing down Camoron.
I guess that's why you call yourself Asquith, then? The clue's in the name.
The focus of the blog is on class politics, and the Lib Dems are never going to be an explicitly working class-based party.
"If Labour loses Glasgow East, the argument between New Labour and the socialist left within the party will have been definitively settled in the left’s favour."
In the context of Glasgow East, yes. But the basis of New Labour's hegemony within 'the movement' was never about its ability to mobilise the poor and alienated - particularly those in Scotland.
New Labour's challenge to the left was and remains: "We can win a majority at Westminster - you demontsrated in the 1980s that you could not."
New Labour may be in crisis, but the left has yet to demonstrate that it can meet that challenge. Until it does, many in the unions and the party will cling to some version of New Labour and hope for the best.
I agree Dave, 'the LDs are never going to be an explicit working class-based party' - the trouble for the last remaining socialists in the Labour Party is that they haven't been since the mid nineties.
"Labour at risk of losing a constituency it has held uninterruptedly since 1922 . . ."
Dave,
if you're basing Glasgow East on the old Shettleston seat then the Labour Party didn't hold the seat from 1932-47.
John McGovern held the seat for the ILP in those years.
Darren. Hats off, you're right of course. Serves me right for harping on about being steeped in labour movement traditions.
Why is George Galloway supporting the Labour Party candidate, Margaret Curran,?
On 'keep the union' grounds, I think, Jim. Galloway has always been opposed to Scottish independence.
How sweet and naieve, Dave
"Galloway has always been opposed to Scottish independence"
That's not accurate actually.
In the aftermath of the victory of Major and the last Tory government George was an enusiatic backer of 'Scotland United', a movement which arose with incredible speed and demanded Scottish self determination.
George was right there at the front with his Saltire.
Galloway doesn't have any political principles, only his own interests.
So you suspect he wants to toady his way back into the Labour Party, Eddie? BTW, are you going to be campaigning?
I think he's keeping a door open, ready for a swift exit if necessary.
Yes, I was through for our launch on Tuesday and I'll be back through, we've got 42,500 4 page full colour bulletins ready to go.
"..it is already clear that the Middle Englanders have upped and outed. If New Labour has in addition lost its traditional base, this will represent an implosion of neutron star proportions."
The penny has dropped.
In the aftermath of the victory of Major and the last Tory government George was an enusiatic backer of 'Scotland United', a movement which arose with incredible speed and demanded Scottish self determination.
If memory serves, Scotland United was a pro-devolution, rather than an independence movement. I can't stand George Galloway but as far as I'm aware, he's been consistently pro-devolution but anti-independence.
I think it's a tenuous distinction Shuggy, to be honest.
The Scotland United movement probably could well be said to be restricted to devolution rather than full scale self determination.
But the distinction was blurred at the time.
Galloway stood shoulder to shoulder with many advocates of full independence.
In his Record column Galloway is painting a picture of a fearless defender of the Union against the perils of nationalism.
The excuses for Galloways support for New Labour by the leftist elements of Respect Renewal have centred around his 'long standing principled stand against nationalism'.
I think I'm right in pointing out that in fact this alleged principle is far from long standing.
In fact Galloway was a very vocal cheerleader for the splitting of the Scottish left in completely unprincipled terms when he helped launch Solidarity in the aftermath of the Sheridan court case in 2006.
Solidarity were unequivocally in support of Scottish self determination, achieving the incredible by getting long standing SWP members marching alongside Scottish nationalist formations.
Having helped fuel the split in the Scottish left Galloway now uses his position, his paid column in the Unionist Daily Record, to call for a vote for New Labour, just when Gordon Brown needs it most.
I don't see too many principles there, to be honest.
Oh Dave, when will you join those of us who live in the real world?
"Gordon Brown was once one of the best sympathetic chroniclers of radical Glasgow". You obviously didn't read his "Maxton" the way I did.
I read about a man who put his personal, abstract views above united and effective action and in a long and dedicated and hard working life achieved almost nothing.
Gordon Brown was much too polite to call him a world class prat, but the implication is there in the book for all who would read it.
What would Alan Ji like to have seen Jimmy Maxton achieve? I mean, what would qualify him Not to be called a world class prat?
Eddie.
If its about unionism,why are web logs disappearing for fear of legal action?
If you're hip to Stevie Ray Vaughan, you can't be all bad, but you're still full of shit. What was the point of this post, by the way?
Given that this election is taking place in another country (one where Respect does not organise) why would Galloway's English supporters be bothered by who he supports? Just who is discomfited?
It's a two-horse race between Labour and the Scottish nationalists - he was bound to come out for one or the other and given his opposition to Scottish independence, he was never going to be urging his readers to vote for SNP.
Or then again the (much predicted) loss of a Glasgow seat to the nationalists could just be another temporary upset reversed at the next General Election like Glasgow Govan in the late 80s. Most importantly the seat is not lost yet so this type of speculatoin should be saved untill the result really.
Rupa,
Govan isn't the same as Glasgow East.
Govan had a history of SNP by-election upsets - Margo MacDonald in the seventies - and there was also the anti-Primal Scream backlash to factor in. (Bob Gillespie was the Labour candidate in '88, and that part of Glasgow had issues with the Sonic Flower Groove album.)
charlie marks: "It's a two-horse race between Labour and the Scottish nationalists - he was bound to come out for one or the other and given his opposition to Scottish independence, he was never going to be urging his readers to vote for SNP."
your naivety is very sweet, there is a reason why Galloway is supporting Curran, but neither of them ever will admit what it is. GG's lawyers moved swiftly earlier in the week to remove the details from a pro-snp blog. It has nothing to do with nationalism on either side
The nearest you can get to explaining what is happening without risk of litigation would be to say, it is alleged that Labour choose their candidate in the knowledge that the leader of Respect would be certain to support her publicly.
Isn't it ironic that Galloway's blogging nemesis is called Tim? (I know he's currently using the name of Georgie Porgie on this thread.)
That joke may be lost on a few people.
"Govan had a history of SNP by-election upsets - Margo MacDonald in the seventies - and there was also the anti-Primal Scream backlash to factor in. (Bob Gillespie was the Labour candidate in '88, and that part of Glasgow had issues with the Sonic Flower Groove album.)"
And after 'Country Girl' nobody would vote for him now either.
Actually Darren, you're wrong on this one I'm afraid.
Apologies, Tim.
Looks like you've got a doppleganger.
GP
Email me off site with the gossip. Pleeeeese.
But I get the joke.
As you do I guess Darren?
The joke?
Yeah, it struck me after that latest article of his in the Daily Record, and his insistence on mentioning the 1978 Margaret Curran in certain terms.
That particular chip of his pisses me off. Never did him any harm, did it?
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5457608463947849320&postID=5436901891692225263
Dear Sue R,
That's a perfectly fair question, and I've just been scouring the house for my copy of "Maxton" by Gordon Brown to bend my mind to giving you a well informed answer. Unfortunately, the love of my life has been tidying the place, and I can't find it.
Broadly, he showed no interest in being strategic in any way, and he thought evanglism would do in place of leadership.
I don't think he'd been influenced by "the road to power" by Karl Kautsky.
Sue R,
I read both Brown's and William Knox's biographies of Jimmy Maxton over 15 years ago, so my memory's a bit sketchy about both books but I'm sure that Brown was saying something a bit more than Maxton was a world class prat. (Remember this was the same Brown who, ten years previously, had edited the Red Paper on Scotland.)
However, I did spot this piece from someone who has read Brown's biography in more recent years.