Scottish voters should punish Keir Starmer's Labour for betraying the hope of a new start

There are many aspects to political campaigning that shape how voters decide who to support. Sometimes the qualities of a particular candidate – or a distinct lack of any – can be a strong influence in a particular seat. More likely it is the general tenor of a party that decides the matter, playing out as either positive votes for a party – or negative votes that seek to identify who has the best chance of stopping a particular party from being successful.

In British general elections, it normally requires at least 40 per cent of the votes cast for a party to form an administration. With Labour winning the 2024 general election with less than 34 per cent of the public’s vote, I think it is fair to say that many people voted more in hope than in expectation that Labour would be different.

READ MORE: Why Keir Starmer would resign if he had any sense of honour

After Tory chaos, Labour promised change

The Conservatives had run the country either in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, with an outright majority (twice) or as a minority government after four general elections over a period of some 14 years. Voters could be forgiven for thinking it was time for fresh ideas or, given that many of the Labour and Conservative policies were not that different, at least a new set of faces should be offered the heavy responsibility of government.

Voting for Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour on a platform that gave clear assurances about accepting the Brexit referendum outcome, not raising taxes for working people, and protecting various welfare benefits provided hope that Labour could bring about some improvement without the chaos of having four Tory prime ministers between 2017-24. With each change of premier – Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak – came uncertainty, divisive leadership campaigns and policy upheaval.

READ MORE: How many of the Scottish Conservatives' noisier 'beasts' are facing election defeat

What may not have been appreciated were some of the positions Starmer took over that time. While many Remain-supporting politicians accepted the democratic vote, it was Starmer who was in the vanguard of using parliament to try and frustrate Brexit. This included campaigning for a second referendum which, of course, opened the door for a second referendum on Scottish independence.

It was Starmer who called for earlier, stronger and longer lockdowns that did so much damage to the economy and had a lasting, damaging effect on the education of young people. I have no doubt many of the social problems we face today would be even worse had Starmer had his way during Covid.

READ MORE: Reform UK: How Scotland's commentariat is coming down with bad case of Offord Derangement Syndrome

Labour’s first Budget set the tone

Surely, though, we could hope that further chaos could be avoided with Labour in power. We now know that any such hope was naïve. We can see that as soon as he had taken power, his government chose to go back on its word on many issues people least expected him to. The first Budget of Rachel Reeves set the tone and Labour has deservedly never fully recovered its support since.

That Labour’s proposal to cut the winter fuel allowance for ten million pensioners became a hill to die on was an inexplicable betrayal. That it had to be reduced in the second year but still applies to three million pensioners still rankles with many.

There was the attempt to cut benefits to some categories of disabled people, the failure to initiate a national grooming gangs inquiry, the repeated teasing over compensation for Waspi women, the introduction of the family farm tax, the plan for mandatory digital ID. So many bad decisions requiring so many U-turns.

Why should all that matter at Holyrood? That’s Westminster, what relevance does all that have?

Well, we can ask ourselves what positions has Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar taken. Like Pavlov’s dog, he often defended the policies of Starmer – until it suited him not to. For himself, when he had the opportunity to protect women’s rights during the passing of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, he chose to ignore their appeals and back it. Only Alister Jack and Malcolm Offord’s use of a Section 35 order prevented it becoming law. When given the chance to oppose the SNP Budget, Sarwar let it pass.

Unforced betrayals

When we look at the ballot paper, it is always difficult to know what a party might deliver, despite all the warm words and sweet mood music. We have to take our politicians on trust and hope that they will live up to their claims, that they will keep their promises and deliver on their pledges.

Of course there may be some delays and there will be some nuances of difference due to unforeseen circumstances but, in the grand scheme of things, we should not expect our politicians to make 180-degree reversals to the assurances they gave. We should not reward politicians of any party for going against their own chosen words. Forced changes in policy might be forgivable, unforced betrayals should be punished.

The best guide to how credible and reliable a party will be in government is how its politicians conduct themselves when actually in power, not what they say in opposition before elections.

Labour’s performance in power at Westminster – and Sarwar’s in Holyrood – have not achieved the standard that voters should expect and, in my judgment, deserve to be punished. There are other alternatives available. When it comes to offering hope for a better future, I fail to see how Labour can be trusted to deliver at Holyrood without other parties holding their feet to the fire.

That suggests to me voting directly for pro-UK alternatives to Labour makes more sense than risking yet more betrayals from Labour.

Brian Monteith is a former member of the Scottish and European parliaments and editor of ThinkScotland.org