Sarwar must take on Labour in Westminster if he is to win Holyrood

The Herald Scotland

12 hours ago

Mr Sarwar's pitch to voters at last July's General Election was that Scots should vote Labour to get rid of two governments failing Scotland – the Conservative Government at Westminster, and the SNP Government at Holyrood. That pitch was wildly successful, with Scottish Labour winning 35.3% of the vote and 37 of Scotland's 57 seats.
The pitch made by Sir Keir Starmer in the same campaign was premised on the idea that what Britain needed after years of Conservative turmoil was stable, grown-up government. As Rachel Reeves put it, 'stability is the change'. That was the heart of the UK Labour pitch, and in turn it was foundational to Mr Sarwar's: replace Scotland's failing governments, SNP and Conservative, with stable, capable Labour government.
Read more by Mark McGeoghegan
This week's fiasco over Labour's Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill exemplifies where that pitch has fallen apart. Whether one agrees with the bill itself, how it was handled by Number 10, and by the Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, was the height of political malpractice.
A bill infused with cuts to PIP that anyone familiar with the Labour Party knew would be unacceptable to dozens of Labour MPs (in the end, over 130 signed a reasoned amendment against the Bill). A Whip's Office that seemed unable to keep track of where the Parliamentary Labour Party was on the vote. A political office in Number 10 incapable of carrying Labour MPs with it. A compromise on cuts to PIP that simply created a new, potentially more toxic problem of a two-tier disability benefits system. More compromises agreed while Liz Kendall stood at the dispatch box, arguing for MPs to back a bill being gutted in backroom deals as she spoke, to the confusion of MPs in the chamber.
This absolute clusterbùrach exemplifies the issues Labour have faced since coming to office last year, from the infighting that led to Sue Gray being ousted to policy U-turns on the Winter Fuel Allowance and a national grooming gangs inquiry. If stability was the change being promised by Labour, it has not delivered.
It isn't unreasonable for Scottish voters to look at the Labour Government in London, which Mr Sarwar told them would restore stability and good governance to Westminster and conclude that they have no reason to believe, based on the evidence, that that is what Labour would deliver in Edinburgh.
And that's the conclusion they seem to have reached. An Ipsos poll released earlier this week found that Scots' net satisfaction with Sir Keir has fallen from -12 a year ago to -42 today, and their net satisfaction with Mr Sarwar has fallen from -1 to -18. Net satisfaction with John Swinney has also fallen, from -2 to -17, but the 32% of Scots satisfied with his performance as First Minister seems enough to put him in pole position to remain in Bute House after next May.
More problematically for Labour, the SNP is more trusted than it is on the top issues that voters say will determine how they vote next May, from healthcare to the economy, and enjoys a 25-point lead over Labour on being most trusted to stand up for Scotland's interests.
Part of the difficulty for Mr Sarwar is that it is exceptionally challenging for Scottish leaders of GB-wide parties to distance themselves from their Westminster counterparts, for a variety of reasons. But he also hasn't attempted to. When he backed Sir Keir's immigration policy and accepted that immigration had to come down 'across the board', he upturned decades of Scottish Labour policy. He tied himself closer to the Starmer project. When he refuses to criticise or explicitly backs UK Labour policies, then claims that he would do differently as First Minister, as he did on disability benefits, it's not hard to understand why he might be met with incredulity.
Asking a question at a Holyrood Sources event a couple of weeks ago, Cat Headley put it to Professor Sir John Curtice that there's a fundamental unfairness in holding up Labour's year in power at Westminster, cleaning up a mess of the Conservatives' making, against the SNP's nearly two decades in power in Edinburgh as if they are equivalents.
Liz Kendall has performed woefully of late (Image: PA)
I have some sympathy with that view. Ultimately, voters are electing a Scottish government next May, not voting in a referendum on Labour's performance in London. In principle, it's right that it's the SNP's record in government that is the focus of that campaign and media scrutiny of our politics.
And perhaps that shift will happen. After all, in December 2010, while Scottish voters were still focused on Westminster political news, Labour led the SNP by 49% to 33% at Holyrood. It wasn't until the campaign began in earnest that attention shifted, as did the polls.
But in the end, if Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour don't want to be judged by Labour's record at Westminster, they have the option of distancing themselves from that government. Just a third of their own voters last July trust them most to stand up for Scotland's interests, while a fifth trust the SNP to do so the most.
Mr Sarwar could still find himself sitting behind that desk in Bute House a year from now. That likely means clawing back the SNP-Labour swing voters that delivered dozens of Scottish Labour MPs last year, and that starts with Mr Sarwar making the politically tricky decision to critique his colleagues at Westminster.
Mark McGeoghegan is a Glasgow University researcher of nationalism and contentious politics and an Associate Member of the Centre on Constitutional Change. He can be found on BlueSky @markmcgeoghegan.bsky.social