Labouring under the fear of failure

Does anybody in the Scottish Labour Party actually want to be the leader in the Scottish Parliament? More than four months after its worst ever election defeat, and the announcement by Iain Gray that he would be standing down as leader there are no candidates to replace him. In the place of a leadership campaign there has been the strange spectacle of people who hadn’t formally announced their candidacies briefing informally that they no longer wanted the job.

Perhaps that’s because the priority for Labour is not replacing its leader, but diagnosing the reasons for its current inability to thrive in the Scottish Parliament. If that were so there would be a debate raging about the vision, values and purpose of the Labour Party in a modern Scotland. But there simply isn’t. There is utter silence. Now, this may misguidedly be an attempt to preserve unity, but in the face of a catastrophic defeat such silence is merely the unity of the graveyard. I once did a strategy session with the leaders one of Labour’s international sister parties. “Hands up”, I said, “Who thinks you’re going to win the next election?” One person out of 20 hesitantly raised a hand. In the ensuing discussion it turned out their ambition was to come a good second at the next election. “Fine”, I said, “At least I know what you are. Losers. You don’t want to win, so you won’t.” And that, in truth, is Scottish Labour’s problem. They seem to have already lost in their heads already.

If you want to win, you need first to confront why you lost – and then be willing to do whatever is necessary to get back into the game. So, let’s name Scottish Labour’s problem – it’s Alex Salmond. He’s the First Minister for the same reason David Cameron is Prime Minister – he looks and acts like a leader. Self-doubt is essential for a normal, well-functioning life. It is, however, death to a politician – or a political party. Even when Salmond is wrong, as when he accused short-sellers of creating problems for HBOS, when it was the management who destroyed the company, he knows he’s right. And often he’s memorable. “Spivs and speculators” – wrong analysis, bad policy, but a great soundbite.

Leadership is the great difference – and in the end, Labour will have to fight fire with fire. But how? Iain Gray is head and shoulders above the other Labour MSPs as a thinker, as a performer in parliament and as a public speaker. Yet he couldn’t dent Salmond during the general election. Now Gray is going and there is no-one on the Labour benches who can match him, let alone best the First Minister. That’s why candidates for the leadership are invisible. They reckon they’re just being measured for a coffin, or its political equivalent – a certain defeat. There are many theories why Labour’s parliamentary representation lacks strength in depth and how to address that. It’s simple – in the Ronald Reagan sense, “It is simple, but it’s not easy” – the pool that selections draw on is too shallow, it should be broadened and deepened.

The same is true of the leadership question. Which is why Tom Harris’ intervention yesterday morning was so welcome. Speaking to the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland programme he confirmed that if Scottish Labour’s rules were changed he would put himself forward as a candidate for the leadership. His reasoning? That the party needs a debate about its defeat, that there are no candidates, and powerfully that: “It would be useful if we had names from Westminster in the mix as well… and I think the bigger the range of candidates then the more likely it is that we will get someone who will challenge our own party and appeal far, far beyond the bounds of the traditional Labour vote and if the next leader doesn’t do that then we’re not going to win the next election…”

Harris deserves his bold move to be rewarded by the opening of a healthy and healing row within Scottish Labour. The party cannot go on only whispering behind closed doors about the fundamental challenges it faces. Organisations that don’t confront failures openly live with, and then die from, that failure. In doing this, Scottish Labour needs to push back against all its enemies who seek to define it, and in doing so damage it. The accusation that Harris’ move is a sign of London Labour – Tom Harris’ cockney accent gives him away – will not be slow in being mouthed by the SNP, and sadly even by some Labour activists. Of course, you should always look at what your opponents do, not just what they say. And, as Harris points out, in having a leader who was an MP but not an MSP, Scottish Labour would only be following the example of Alex Salmond who was re-elected as an MP in 2005 when he was SNP leader but not yet a member in Holyrood.

The Salmond example points to a little noticed failing of the Scottish Parliament. In 12 years it has not generated a home-grown figure to match those who served first in the House of Commons. So far its outstanding figures – Dewar, Wallace and Salmond – have all had extensive Westminster experience. Scottish Labour should take note. One of its great strengths is that it is part of a British party and thus able to draw on reserves of talent in the Commons.

Some will see in this move by Harris a desire to flush out bigger beasts – say Douglas Alexander or Jim Murphy, both a match for Salmond. Nobody, though, should dismiss Harris who has the wit, presence and energy of a natural leader. The point is that he has asked a question which deserves an answer – “Hands up anyone who can name the MSP who will lead Scottish Labour back to office?” Sure, in five years time Salmond will look more shopworn and weary. The early arrogance shown by a majority SNP administration will, in time, erode their electoral coalition significantly. But an election victory has to be won, and to be won it has to be led. And if you can’t see that happening under the current rules of the game, change them or start drafting your next concession speech.