Can Humza Yousaf unite the SNP?

On Monday, Humza Yousaf succeeded Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister of Scotland following a bruising leadership contest that exposed deep divisions within the SNP over the future direction of the party. Having defeated chief rival Kate Forbes by a narrow 52% to 48% margin, it is clear a large portion of the SNP is no longer united around anything other than the (far-off) quest for Scottish independence and, as a result, Yousaf will now face a huge challenge uniting the party. Yousaf campaigned as the ‘continuity candidate’, pledging to continue the centre-left, socially inclusive agenda of the Sturgeon era. Forbes, on the other hand, was highly critical of Sturgeon and Yousaf’s record as a minister in her governments. Forbes was defined by her socially conservative beliefs, with her plans to drop Sturgeon’s commitment to fight Westminster’s veto on the Holyrood gender recognition reform bill in the courts causing controversy, even if her policy was supported by a majority of Scots. Yousaf’s first opportunity to unite the party was the formation of his cabinet. However,Yousaf has already fallen at the first hurdle as Kate Forbes turned down his offer for the (low-octane) position of Minister for Rural Affairs, deciding instead to leave the government. If Humza Yousaf had been able to successfully work in government with previous leadership rivals it would have automatically eased tensions and offered important acknowledgement to the rival wing of his party. Additionally, a successful working relationship between Yousaf and Forbes could have provided a model of collaboration for how the party can successfully navigate differences in opinions over key policy issues, including the Scottish government’s response to the UK blocking the gender recognition reform bill The gender clash was a significant flashpoint in the leadership campaign given the growing feeling of ‘independence fatigue’ within the party. Yousaf has already shown a more conciliatory approach to this policy issue throughout the leadership campaign by backing away from his commitment to challenge the ruling by saying he will be guided by legal advice. However, he will have to continue to navigate this issue sensitively if he wishes to maintain some semblance of party unity. Ultimately, the key policy area that will need careful manoeuvring is Scottish independence, the SNP’s raison d’être. Absent the dual binding factor of Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond, the issue of Scottish independence has increasingly become a tension point. Given the totemic importance of independence to the party, it would be wise for the First Minister to avoid engaging proactively with Scottish succession until he has secured full control of a fractured party.

Taking the lead on Met reform could be the making of Labour’s Crime Policy

The institutional racism, homophobia and misogyny laid out in the Casey report this week are a damning indictment of the Metropolitan Police. Trust in the service remains at a record low. It is clearly time for top-to-bottom reform of the service and Labour would be smart to make this issue their own going into the next General Election.

The Conservatives clearly view Labour’s approach to Home Affairs as a weakness and will continue to pit Labour as the party of ‘woke nonsense’ as the election campaign ramps up. This risks leaving Labour on the defensive as it struggles to communicate tangible alternatives to the Tories’ tough on crime positioning such as the controversial but popular ‘Stop the Boats’ policy.

However, by using Met reform as the figurehead of its policing policy Labour can cut through this Tory focus on small boats and highlight what are proportionately much greater issues affecting local communities.

In October it was reported that crime had hit a new high, with the number of those solved plummeting to a record low. Labour would do well to characterise this as the crisis it is, in contrast to the trickle of boats which dominate the mainstream news.

Under a rallying call to ‘get the police doing policing again’ Labour has several opportunities. It can continue to evidence that it has moved on from the failures of racism of the Corbyn era by stamping out the institutional racism and misogyny within forces like the Met that have become a huge distraction for Police forces. What’s more, it can draw increased attention to the embarrassingly poor performances on crime which have occurred under the watch of a Tory government. On the latter, London’s Labour Mayor, Sadie Khan, may technically have some responsibility for the Met - but that shouldn’t stop Labour putting the blame at the feet of the Conservatives. Despite devolution - when public services get it wrong the public are still disposed to blame central government.

In electoral politics, personalities also matter as much as policies. One of Labour’s most capable, measured and experienced frontbench figures is their Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper. Labour should leverage Cooper more and highlight the contrast with the Conservative’s Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, who is often perceived as a more radical politician. Sir Keir Starmer’s credentials as the former Director of Public Prosecution do no harm here either. Together, Cooper and Starmer can argue for professional standards within the Met from a position of knowing what professionals means. This argument is all the more persuasive when pitted against a Conservative Party too often mired in controversy over just that issue, its professionalism.

On Lineker, the BBC has smashed it into the back of the(ir own) net

Congratulations BBC, you’ve set the gold standard for how not to practise crisis communications.

Where to begin?

How about with timing? The BBC waited too long to issue a statement in response to the Gary Lineker furore, which let others set the narrative and made the BBC the story. If BBC brass couldn’t see that suspending one of their highest-profile presenters would be an issue, that brass is in need of a serious polish.

How about stakeholders? The Beeb failed to bring Lineker’s co-hosts and other BBC presenters on-side. As a result, those co-hosts and colleagues stood up – or stood down, rather – in solidarity with Lineker, impacting vast swathes of programming.

The BBC’s mismanagement of Lineker’s tweet points to a deeper failure to recognise that the way you brand your organisation must be demonstrated in practice, especially for a crown corporation which relies on public trust and confidence.

When BBC Director-General Tim Davie declared his founding principle to be “impartiality” in 2020, he set himself up for failure.

Impartiality is hard to operationalise. The BBC has a long history of presenters expressing political views on the right and left, including Lord Alan Sugar and Nadiya Hussain. But they mistakenly assumed concerns of its executives’ partiality could be addressed by the same case-by-case basis that presenters like Lineker are.

An inevitable and high-profile impartiality row over a presenter therefore becomes a black hole that sucks in the top bosses. That includes Chairman Richard Sharp who helped secure an £800,000 loan for Boris Johnson, which is currently under investigation. A recent YouGov poll shows 38% of Brits think Sharp should resign, versus 16% who say he should stay.

If you can’t practically implement a policy, don’t announce it as your governing principle. But, if you stake your credibility on the foundation of “impartiality,” that means you actually have to be impartial – especially when it’s hard.

To regain trust, the BBC must have a hard conversation with the public and with itself.

First, the BBC must own up to this massive own-goal, recognise its mismanagement of this crisis undermined trust with staff and the public, and admit it has an inconsistent record with implementing impartiality.

However, it should emphasise that its presenters – be they sports commentators or cooking show hosts – are not beholden to the same impartiality standards to which the BBC must hold its news and current affairs staff and executives… including Sharp.

The BBC has a choice: either propose to the government that future Chairs be appointed by an independent body. Or, Sharp resigns immediately, acknowledging that even the most thorough conflict-of-interest investigation will distract from the good work at one of the world’s most trusted media brands.

Make no mistake: another impartiality row will happen. With two years left in Sharp’s chairmanship, the BBC must ask itself how many more crises of confidence it can withstand in that time.