IT would not be impossible to conclude – after a little more than a week of election campaigning – that Labour just aren’t much cop at this politics lark.
Straight out the gate with a soaring poll lead, the party decided to do what they do best - get into a bloody and destructive factional war.
To the uninitiated – meaning most reasonable people who have never been members of Labour’s warring tribes – these are incomprehensible.
I am a member of the uninitiated, so I cannot shine any special light on why, just as power is within reach, Labour allowed a blazing row over the fate of Diane Abbott (below) - the first black woman elected to Parliament and one of the country’s biggest political names - to overshadow their election campaign.
I also cannot explain why they dumped Faiza Shaheen, a perfectly respectable candidate with a braw CV, just as they began parachuting people like Luke Akehurst – who believes the United Nations is antisemitic – into safe seats.
There is a Twitter/X account I like run by the historian Ewan Gibbs who regularly shares a meme cautioning people against caring about the contemporary Labour Party, saying they should focus on nuancing the history of the Labour Party.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer says Diane Abbott 'free' to stand as a Labour candidate amid row
It is my sorry lot in life that I am forced to care about the contemporary Labour Party.
And so to Greenock, where the contemporary Labour Party were giving it big licks about their plans for Great British Energy – previously touted as a publicly-owned energy company.
It will, Keir Starmer (above) announced, with all the nous of Rishi Sunak cancelling HS2 in Manchester, not be an energy company.
Instead it will take public money and inject it into the private sector in the hopes of creating some green jobs. An investment vehicle, is what Keir Starmer calls it.
Because Labour famously have a great record when it comes to mixing public money and private enterprise.
Please, contain your excitement – we’ve still got five weeks of this to go …
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel