In opposition, a party has two functions: to critically scrutinise the government; and to develop and communicate its own ideas and philosophy to offer an alternative vision of how the country should be run.
Fulfilling the first of these functions is now relatively straightforward for the Scottish Labour party, as community groups across the country are becoming steadily more vocal about budget cuts and their impact on services, and with the SNP’s plans to introduce an expensive, unwieldy and unjust local income tax, it appears the only problem these days in criticising the government is the number of hours in the day.
Progress is also being made on fulfilling the second function of opposition, the generation of ideas. Wendy Alexander’s new pamphlet, Change is What We Do, makes clear that our values of justice, equality and community, remain as central to our identity as ever. What has to change however, are the ways in which these values are translated into policy to meet the changing demands of the electorate.
Alexander offers several examples to illustrate this new approach. On health, she advocates providing patients with the ability to access treatment when it suits them, rather than their doctor, as well as a focus on promoting healthier living – prevention rather than cure. On education, enabling every child to discover their interests and strengths, through personalised support and a focus on ensuring all children have an essential base of reading, writing, arithmetic and oral communication skills, with which to explore and pursue their ambitions.
On communities, Alexander recognises the success of community buy-outs of crofting estates in rural areas, and questions how we empower urban communities to similarly shape their own future. This mean the police working in partnership with local communities and agencies adopting a joined-up approach to provide personalised support for the most vulnerable members of our society.
The overarching theme of these examples is the recognition of people as individual members of our community, with their own needs and their own contribution to make. This valuing of the individual does not detract from the building of community, but rather recognises that through the nurture of individual strengths and talents, and through the empowerment of communities to determine their own solutions, we can create a more cohesive, more engaged society in which we all have a stake.
This is exciting stuff, but one question. Alexander cites the need to be in tune with the ever-increasing aspirations of families, but is this responsible? It may be true that many families now aspire to owning a second home, two cars in the driveway and two foreign holidays a year, but do we really want to be feeding those aspirations? The confusion between needs and wants in today’s society may be our most contagious social sickness; it leaves us dissatisfied, it irretrievably damages our environment, it leads many of us into debt and to working the longest hours in Europe in order to meet our ever-increasing list of ‘needs’.
This is a tough, potentially unpopular issue to tackle, and we are in opposition, yet want to get back into government. However, if we question how best we meet the needs of those we hope to be elected to serve, how we build a healthier, more sustainable society, it becomes clear that this is an issue we cannot shirk.
We are a party of ideas, a party of principles and values. This is our key strength. To play to it, to stay true to it, we must be willing to do not just what is popular, but what is right.