logo
John Swinney's far-right summit failed to talk about something key

John Swinney's far-right summit failed to talk about something key

The National29-04-2025
The mission statement agreed oozes amorphous words about 'participation and openness', but nothing concrete or material by way of an action plan, despite its laudable stated aim of 'combating inequality and discrimination'.
To say, as the statement does, that 'we recognise many people feel distant from politics or failed by society' is the understatement of 2025!
For the mainstream politicians present to make that comment without so much as blushing shows a remarkable lack of self-awareness; they are the people in office at local, national or UK Government levels who've provoked the anger and alienation which multi-millionaire, far-right fraudsters like Nigel Farage tap into.
All political forces and parties ultimately reflect material class interests. In the vast majority of parties, it's the rule and furtherance of the fortunes of the millionaire and big business class that is represented in Parliament. This was at the root of the viciously anti-working class, privatising, jobs-slaughtering Maggie Thatcher regime, enforced – as in the battle with the miners – by police thuggery.
READ MORE: ICC arrest warrant requests must be kept secret, court judges order
Subsequently, 13 years of Tony Blair's 'New' Labour governments continued this assault, retaining all Thatcher's repressive anti-union laws, privatising schools, hospitals and other public service projects with their private finance initiative (PFI) schemes. Then we suffered decades of Tory rule, only to be confronted by Keir Starmer's Labour Government carrying on where the Tories left off.
Millions of people are heartily sick of overpaid politicians telling us to 'tighten our belts', that 'there is no alternative' to escalating and life-threatening attacks on wages, benefits, pensions, jobs and public services. As the colour of party rosettes change, but conditions only get worse, no wonder people feel 'distant from politics and failed by society'.
The point is, what to do about it.
The far-right taps into the well of disgust and disillusionment with the rule of not just the Tories, or even 'modern' Labour, but also the SNP, who do nothing substantial to challenge and defeat Labour's austerity with a fighting plan of resistance. But Reform UK are no friend of the working class, to put it mildly. They are backed by billionaires; four of their MPs are multi-millionaires; and behind their opportunist rhetoric lie policies that would devastate working-class people's lives.
They want to drastically reduce taxes on big business and the super-rich; slash spending on public services and jobs by £150 billion a year; voted against Labour's milk-and-water improvements to workers' rights; and aim to dismantle our NHS, replacing it with private health insurance schemes for profit.
Their main calling card is to divide and weaken working-class resistance to their arch-Thatcherite measures, by scapegoating immigrants; people seeking asylum from wars, starvation and climate catastrophes; and people of colour born in this country.
The far-right is the enemy of working-class people, regardless of colour, creed or country of origin.
(Image: PA)
But to stop their growth, we first need to recognise their success relies on the utter failure of misnamed 'centre' parties to match people's basic needs in life. Instead of an assembly dominated by politicians from the very parties which create the alienated, despairing conditions that fuel the far-right's growth, we need assemblies of the working-class majority to devise a People's Charter of concrete, material demands.
A People's Charter offering a vision of an entirely different Scotland, where the nation's fabulous natural, manufactured and human wealth is harnessed for the benefit of its people, not the enrichment of the profiteering capitalist and landlord minority.
Let me illustrate some examples of what the organised, 600,000-strong trade union movement, community and youth organisations, and genuine socialist forces like the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), could and should wage a struggle for, cutting the feet from under the far-right fakes in the process.
The average worker's wage is £11,500 less now than in 2008, prior to the bankers trashing the economy and 20 years of austerity to pay for the bankers' bailout. A guaranteed £15-an-hour minimum wage for all workers aged 16+, and pay rises to compensate for cuts, would unify and embolden hundreds of thousands into action.
True, minimum wage laws are reserved to Westminster, but the Scottish Government should declare a £15-an-hour minimum 'living wage' for all 550,000 public sector workers, plus those on public sector contracts, setting a benchmark for the private sector. Labour's PFI schemes in Scotland's schools and hospitals on average cost £5 in repayment fees from the public purse to consortia of bankers, venture capitalists and other speculators for every £1 invested.
A People's Charter should demand cancellation of all PFI contracts, which have cost Scottish people £14bn in fees since 2007, and this year alone costs £27m in repayments for Hairmyres hospital – depriving the local NHS of funds to instead hire 850 nurses.
Scotland officially suffers a housing emergency. The Scottish Government should be pounded into building 100,000 quality council houses at affordable rent, creating jobs and apprenticeships, giving hope and renewed purpose to a generation that feels particularly divorced from politicians, prey to the false doctrines of cynical wide boys like Farage – who owns two mansions, making him a property millionaire.
Why can't the Scottish Government grow a collective spine, combine with workers and communities in a mass campaign, and win back some of the billions stolen from Scotland in block grants by Westminster?
Even within the devolution straitjacket, the Scottish Government could abolish the unfair, regressive Council Tax and replace it with the SSP's fully costed Scottish Service Tax, based on incomes, on people's ability to pay.
That would literally double council funding from £2.7bn in Council Tax to £5.3bn from the progressive Scottish Service Tax, whereby 75% of people would pay less, but the rich cough up far, far more. That single measure would provide more than £2bn in a year for council house-building, renovation, and District Heating Schemes to cut fuel poverty.
There's plenty of wealth in Scotland, but it's in the hands of far too few. Even a modest 5% wealth tax on all millionaires would have generated £260bn last year for jobs and services.
That's one of the reasons the SSP candidate in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election, trade union activist Collette Bradley, is standing to become an MSP living on the average Scottish worker's wage, in keeping with the SSP's core principles. When the politicians at Swinney's summit speak of people feeling distant from politics, no wonder! How can an MSP on £74,507 basic salary possibly relate to the daily conditions of ordinary people they claim to represent?
When Farage not only takes his £94,000 MPs salary, but grabs a further £572,000 in six months, how can he claim to be 'anti-establishment', as he tries to seduce disgusted Labour voters?
We urgently need a serious campaign for socialist measures to combat poverty, inequality, alienation, and the false gospels of Thatcherite racists who want to protect the rule of the millionaire class by dividing the working class.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Rayner's youth blunder
Rayner's youth blunder

Spectator

timea minute ago

  • Spectator

Rayner's youth blunder

Oh dear. After the government announced that 16- and 17-year-olds will be allowed to vote in time for the next general election – in a move Reform's Nigel Farage has slammed as 'an attempt to rig the political system' – the Deputy Prime Minister penned an op-ed for the Times to praise the policy. But eagle-eyed observers were quick to spot a rather glaring error. The Ashton-under-Lyne MP reflected on the expectations placed on her shoulders when she was just a teen, writing: Nobody expected much of me when I become a young mum at 16. I was suddenly faced with serious responsibilities for putting food on the table, paying my bills and giving my son Ryan the best possible start in life. With support, I rose to the challenge. I got a job, I paid taxes, I supported my son… So far, so reasonable. Rayner continued: By law, [16- to 17-year-olds] can get married and serve our country in the armed forces — but, unlike their peers in Scotland and Wales, 16-year-olds in England and Northern Ireland can't vote. Why not? Er, wait a second. 16- and 17-year-olds in England can't marry – something that the Deputy PM should be aware of given Rayner was a sitting MP at the time the marriage age was raised from 16 to 17 in 2023, under the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act. The article was swiftly updated, as was – Mr S suspects – an embarrassed Rayner…

What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?
What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?

The Independent

timea minute ago

  • The Independent

What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?

Grappling with economic difficulties including rising prices at a time of accelerated social change and growing concerns about immigration, Harold Wilson's Labour government introduced legislation to lower the voting age. The Representation of the People Act 1969 was a major milestone in the development of modern democracy, as the UK became the first country to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. The Act triggered change elsewhere as other democracies soon followed suit. The economic and social conditions in the late 60s have clear parallels with those facing the current Labour Government, while the announcement of its intention to lower the voting age to 16 has been described as the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969. Sir Keir Starmer said it was 'important' to lower the voting age, as 16-year-olds were old enough to work and 'pay in' through tax, so should 'have the opportunity' to say how they wanted their money spent. Polling suggests Labour stand to gain the most from reform, with 33% of 16 and 17-year-olds polled by ITV news saying they would back the party, while 20% said they would choose Reform UK and 18% the Greens. Therefore, while ministers will not accept that electoral advantage is a motivating factor for the changes, some opponents may argue that this is the case. Some historians suggest an expectation of a boost in vote share was not a factor in decision making within Harold Wilson's administration at the time. This, it is claimed, was because the voting intentions of younger people were far from clear. But in his history of the Labour Party, Andrew Thorpe claimed the lowering of the voting age was 'less a principled commitment to young people than a piece of gerrymandering based on the assumption that young people were more likely to vote Labour than Conservative'. While today some argue that lowering the voting age will counter political apathy or disenchantment among the young, research by the University of Huddersfield found no evidence that this fuelled demands for reform in the 1960s. It highlighted that there was no significant difference in turnout between young and older voters prior to the 1969 Act, with large numbers of young people joining youth organisations linked with the main political parties. However, amid contemporary concerns about radicalisation, the push for voting at 18 in the 1960s has been linked in part to growing concern that social alienation among the young could lead to 'widespread antidemocratic embrace of either far-left or nationalist causes'. The path to reform was set when the government in 1965 announced that a committee chaired by Justice John Latey would examine at what age individuals are considered an adult. Published in 1967, the committee concluded that young people aged 18 should have adult rights, including owning property and being able to marry without the consent of their parents. The report said: 'This Committee is convinced that we must ensure that the young go out into the world as fully prepared for their adult responsibilities as possible, and that in giving them adult status at 18 we are doing no more than recognising the simple facts.' Some in Harold Wilson's cabinet were against reform, but the matter was resolved in favour of change and the government published a white paper. Some of the subsequent arguments against reform at the time were said to focus on what can be considered the appropriate age of 'maturity' and contained 'assertions over the extent to which young people were competent, sentient humans, capable of voting', according to the University of Huddersfield research. However, advocates at the time echoed arguments regularly heard today under the principle of 'no taxation without representation'. Conservatives repeatedly requested a free vote on the issue, but the Labour government – with an overall majority of 67 – whipped its MPs, suggesting a nervousness over the depth of commitment to reform. The Representation of the People Bill passed into law in July 1969, but by the following year the Labour Party had lost a total of 16 seats in by-elections. The economy was showing signs of improvement, boosting Labour's standing in the polls and prompting Mr Wilson to call a general election. But, in what many observers considered a surprise result, Labour was defeated by the Conservatives led by Edward Heath. In the context of arguments then and now about political engagement and lowering the voting age, it is notable that the 72% turnout at the election was the lowest since 1955. Census data suggested that although about 800,000 newly-enfranchised 18 to 20-year-olds were due to be added to the electoral register for the general election, only 464,000 were actually registered. Lowering the voting age was also considered under the last Labour government led by Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown. Neither leader formally declared a commitment to enfranchising 16-year-olds, but the issue was debated in Parliament and supported by some Labour MPs. However, there was not widespread cross-party backing for reform at the time, with many Conservatives either opposed or unenthusiastic about reform, raising the prospect of legislation facing a difficult passage through Parliament. Competing policy priorities have also been cited as a factor in electoral reform being sidelined, with issues such as constitutional reform, health and the economy taking up political bandwidth. Historians have also referenced concerns over potential controversy due to doubts over public support, while the lack of a prominent campaign for change is said to have prevented votes at 16 gaining momentum.

‘Britain is doomed to a Left-wing government for the foreseeable future'
‘Britain is doomed to a Left-wing government for the foreseeable future'

Telegraph

time2 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

‘Britain is doomed to a Left-wing government for the foreseeable future'

Labour has confirmed it's plans to give 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote at the next general election. First proposed in their manifesto last summer, the change will align national polls with those in Scotland and Wales. In an exclusive Telegraph poll, readers were strongly opposed to the change, with 94 per cent of 52,000 voters saying 16-year-olds should not have the right to vote. 'Labour have completely lost the plot' Many readers express concern that 16-year-olds lack the judgement and life experience needed to vote in the interest of the country. David Upton, a Telegraph reader, says: 'Labour have completely lost the plot. I didn't get the vote until I was 21 when my father explained to me how the Government works. He told me I am not entitled to an opinion unless I vote. Very few 16-year-olds will understand the responsibility or mechanisms of the voting structure.' Charlie Burkett, another reader, states: 'they don't pay tax, own property, cannot drive legally, can't drink or smoke, in fact nothing they do is impacted by the government.' In response to the Prime Minister's argument that 16-year-olds are able to pay tax, reader Geoff Smith remarks: 'If the argument is that you vote because you pay tax, does it follow that you lose your vote if you don't?' Concerned for the precedent this ruling may set, reader Penny Morie writes: 'Age restrictions are in place either to protect children or because the law does not consider them to have the maturity to cope. 16-year-olds are not deemed old enough to buy tobacco, lottery scratchcards, solvents. They may not marry, enter nightclubs, go to war, or have cosmetic procedures. 'While there may be some parents who think voting at 16 is a good thing, perhaps they should consider what might follow, such as lowering the voting age for all or any of the above – bearing in mind that this is not a definitive list of age restricted items and processes.' Others also argue that being given the right to vote should come with corresponding responsibilities. One reader went further, suggesting that 'if 16-year-olds are enfranchised to vote, then the state should view them as adults in every respect.' 'They're most likely to vote for Labour, Liberal or the Greens' With the voting population now expected to expand, readers speculate how a more diverse ballot will affect Britain's future. Malcolm Partington says: 'Britain is doomed to a Left-wing Government for the foreseeable future.' He added: 'Young people are most likely to vote for Labour, Liberal or the Greens.' Another Telegraph reader was convinced that these changes had only come about due to Reform's recent success in the polls. A recent Ipsos poll found that Reform were on course to win 34 per cent of votes, enough for an outright majority at the next general election. 'A party that only secured 20 per cent of eligible voters has unilaterally changed the voting system for Mayors because Reform started winning. It's now unilaterally changing the eligibility to vote because Reform are ahead in the polls. Apparently, we live in a democracy.' Labour and Tories 'worked against' the young A minority of Telegraph readers sought to make the case for extending the franchise. One reader argues: 'Whatever Labour's intentions, 16-year-olds given the vote is the right decision. 'The truth is people tend to vote according to their own interests, not those of their country. And older people are not more honest than those under 18. The older people get, the more they tend to get corrupted by life.' Readers also pointed to Scotland as a case study; the voting age was lowered north of the border ahead of the 2014 independence referendum. Rodney Brown shares: 'What I will say as a teacher of that age cohort is that they don't tend to vote without some encouragement. When they do, they don't do as their parents do. 'They seem to be encouraged to vote for the SNP and Greens which has ensured a majority under proportional representation for them for decades. I do not think Labour, nor the Tories will benefit. Both have worked against that age cohort for a very long time.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store