I ask because last week they voted against the changes proposed by the Liberals and Tories in Westminster. But, when the government won the debate (on English votes), and they cuts were approved, I heard that Ed Balls said that they couldn't guarantee to overturn the changes.
Then in Scotland Mrs Lamont has been insisting that we can't expect to have 'something for nothing' and that universal benefits can no longer be afforded. She appears to believe that we will have to submit our poor to humiliating means testing from now on.
She has called for a debate on benefits, set up a commission to look into the affordability of our current social security (which will not report until after the referendum) and has accused the SNP government of stifling the debate for which she has called.
It was, therefore, a bit of a mystery to us all that Labour took the attitude it did to last Thursday's proposed Holyrood session on that very subject. Following a report from the left wing organisation the Jimmy Reid Foundation entitled The Case for Universalism, Claire Adamson, for the SNP, had proposed a members' debate on benefits. This was backed by the independent members, but, to be accepted as a member's debate, it required a backer from one of the major opposition parties, or the Liberals.
Needless to say the Tories and Liberals didn't relish any further publicity on how their English bosses were intending to starve the poor out of house and home. But, given Mrs Lamont's enthusiasm for the subject, you would have expected Labour to put forward not just one, but many backers, to ensure that the debate took place. However, oddly, backers from the Labour desks came there none!
Could it be that Mrs Lamont's party was stifling the debate that they had accused the SNP of...erm.... stifling?
But there's more!
On the Andrew Marr show today, Johann's boss, Ed Miliband, said that universal benefits were 'the bedrock of our society', driving a coach and horses through Mrs Lamont's policy in just a few words. He was so enthusiastic about the idea that he actually said: "I think that universal benefits which go across the population are an important bedrock of our society."
Nicola Sturgeon said: “It is deeply revealing that Labour politicians are running scared on this issue to the extent that they are now trying to close down the open debate on universal services which they themselves called for.
“Perhaps they are afraid of what they might hear about their insulting claim that pensioners – who have paid taxes all of their lives – receiving free personal care, or the sick receiving free prescriptions, are getting ‘something for nothing’.”
So, I ask simply, anyone who knows...what is the policy? Do we have universalism, or means testing and will or will not Westminster roll back the changes that the Tories have made, but that they, together with the SNP voted against?
Answers on a post card... or a banana skin...