Labour's UK mistakes have cost Sarwar dear - but he would still be the best First Minister

PA

Labour governments are unaccustomed to plaudits from farmers. The folk memory that it was the 1948 Agriculture Act which saved British farming from ruin has long since passed into the mists of time.

So it was a rare moment when the NFU President, Tom Bradshaw, expressed thanks that “common sense has prevailed”, revealed “two very constructive meetings with the Prime Minister” and praised the DEFRA Secretary, Emma Reynolds, for “a key role underlining the human cost”. Bravo!

Andrew Connon, president of the Scottish NFU was scarcely less fulsome in welcoming revised proposals for inheritance tax. Again, “common sense” was invoked and “while there is still tax to pay, this will greatly reduce that burden for many family farms, those working people of the countryside”. Relief all round.

Labour’s problem is that not many voters greatly care about inheritance tax on farmers, in their own great scheme of things. So what the wider audience perceived was less an act of political magnanimity by a listening government (even if it was) than another hole which Ministers had to dig themselves out of.

In that respect, the mutually satisfactory peace terms which the Starmer government negotiated with farmers seems like a metaphor on its first 18 months in office. Early mistakes were so politically inept that reversals became inevitable. Unfortunately, repentance is not automatically accompanied by forgiveness, once impressions are formed.

That is the battle with past pitfalls that Labour now has to fight, from a far lower base than if more political wisdom and experience had been applied in these early months. The daddy of them all, of course, was Winter Fuel Payments which as a self-defining action from an incoming Labour government remains beyond comprehension.

The same cycle was gone through. A presentational disaster, followed by a backlash, followed by a re-working of the policy which has arrived at a perfectly sensible position acceptable to the vast majority of the electorate. But not before industrial quantities of political capital were squandered.

Ditto disability payments. The objectives are correct but it should not have taken a backbench rebellion to point out that the manner of going about reforms had spread alarm among many who could have welcomed a change in balance between enhancing benefits for those who need them while facilitating work for those who can.

The recklessness of these early actions was grossly unfair to Labour MPs who were required to defend them as essential when, within a relatively short period of time, it has been confirmed (by their reversal or revision) that they weren’t really necessary at all. The economy has not caved in as a result of the Chancellor being forced to think again.

It was particularly tough on rural MPs, newly elected in parts of the country where Labour had little previous record of success, who were called on to defend inheritance tax proposals which many of their constituents certainly understood and hated. It might have been better to establish that the threshold could be more than doubled without significant loss to the Treasury before the tractors rolled down Whitehall.

Another downside from these early mis-steps is that it they have obstructed communication of positive reforms now being implemented. These are more visible in England since policy areas like the NHS, education and housing are devolved.

But Scotland too – on subjects like employment rights, minimum wage and indeed via increased funding for the Scottish Government – is seeing changes it voted for in 2024, if they can cut through the earlier mist.

There was blasé talk in these early days about Starmer’s government having five years to turn round the indisputable fiscal mess inherited from 14 years of the Tories, but that too was a mistake. The relevant timescale was two years before elections for Holyrood, the Welsh Senedd and English local government would take place.

That deadline for delivery should have had priority from day one; not least in the survival interests of the Prime Minister and Chancellor.

I have no doubt that by far the best outcome in May would be the election of a Labour-led government in Scotland to work closely and in common cause with a Labour government in Whitehall. Apart from party affiliations, it is just plain common sense that governments working together rather than in a constant battle to outwit and/or discredit each other is likely to produce better results.

It was the hope and possibly expectation of Scottish Labour that the offer of this scenario would help them to success in 2026. Instead, the perceived performance of the UK Labour government soon became a hindrance rather than a help and that has been reflected in opinion polls, making Anas Sarwar’s job much harder.

Yet the basic premise holds good. The offer of two governments of the centre left working together in Scotland’s interests, without any diversion around the constitution, is by far our best bet for social and economic progress. On health, on education, on housing… Labour’s challenge is to persuade voters that the election is about how Scotland’s potential is realised, rather than a referendum on the Whitehall story so far.

There is no settled will or anything approaching it. The SNP has hard core support around independence but minimal enthusiasm for their record in government. Reform UK is an outlet for disillusionment with politics in general. Scottish Labour offers the only realistic prospect of change but has been hobbled by association.

The competing elements in that mix are difficult to quantify. Local by-election results suggest a much more nuanced picture than opinion polls imply. But the focus has not yet turned to the key questions: “Could Scotland do better or will we settle for more of the same?”.