Today’s big Scottish political news is undoubtedly the surprise story that Tom Harris has thrown his hat into the ring to be the next Scottish leader of the Labour party, in whatever guise that position will be once Labour has finished its review.
It is a bit of a bolt out of the blue. I mean, where the actual flippityjibbity did that come from?
It is difficult not to immediately suspect that Tom’s new blog Labour Hame was part of the same strategy, to build an online power base of sorts and show that he is helping to shape the debate that will take Scottish Labour beyond their current woes.
It would be churlish not to wish Tom good luck but it would also be dishonest to suggest that I thought he had any chance of winning. There is his somewhat right of centre views on certain topics and, going by his online presence, he certainly seems to go out of his way to avoid talking about issues north of the border. Furthermore, his at times visceral dislike of the SNP will surely count against him. Who can forget Mr Harris’ description of SNP Conference as a “hate fest“?
I suspect, though, the Glasgow South MP is just looking to shake things up and hurry the process along a bit as, as the man said himself: “Iain Gray announced he was standing down in September, which is next week, and I don’t even know if that’s going ahead.” And, to be fair, the announcement does have a ring of ‘I’ll do it if noone else will’ about it. Not overly inspiring though.
In going over the top and forcing Labour to get back on its feet, impatience may well be a virtue. I’d nonetheless suggest not taking the bookies up on Tom winning the contest at whatever odds they end up offering.
#1 by CassiusClaymore on August 23, 2011 - 1:33 pm
Rudderless doesn’t even begin to describe them at present. What a joke.
CC
#2 by Dougthedug on August 23, 2011 - 1:35 pm
Tom Harris has thrown his hat into the ring to be the next Scottish leader of the Labour party, in whatever guise that position will be once Labour has finished its review.
Not entirely true. If the review creates a new post of Scottish Labour Leader he’ll be the first regional Scottish Labour Leader not the next.
If there is no new post created then he’ll be the first Leader of the Labour MSP’s in the Scottish Parliament who won’t actually be in the Parliament.
#3 by Zoe Smith on August 23, 2011 - 1:35 pm
It’s a damning indictment really isn’t it?
Makes me think of all those CLP meetings when we’re looking for a treasurer or an IT officer-
“I’ll do it if noone else wants to”
Tragic. We can only hope someone else wants to do it.
#4 by Gavin Hamilton on August 23, 2011 - 3:29 pm
You’ve been to those sort of meetings too?
Secretary and Fundraising Officer seem to be poisoned chalices too!
#5 by Indy on August 23, 2011 - 2:04 pm
Good old Tom. You can always rely on him to make a bad situation worse lol.
#6 by Dougthedug on August 23, 2011 - 3:20 pm
Iain Gray isn’t going to resign until Labour’s October conference because under the rules a new Scottish Labour Parliamentary Group Leader has to be elected at the next following Labour Conference. If he resigns now they’ll have to hold the election in October at the latest but if he waits until after the October conference that gives Labour until Spring to sort out their review.
There’s two good reasons why no-one else in Labour has thrown their hat into the ring. They’ve got no idea what the review is going to do with the current post of Labour Group Leader in Holyrood and it’s never going to be a leader’s post whatever the review recommends because at most it will be a post of regional Labour leader not party leader. No-one in Labour really has ambitions to be in a dead-end middle management job.
#7 by Davie Park on August 23, 2011 - 3:26 pm
Tom’s Westminster career ambitions have been frustrated by the deposing of the Blairite faction and the subsequent incumbency of Miliband minoris.
Tom is the quintissential New Labour careerist – he even curtailed his successful blog in an attempt to appease the ‘other side’.
If he is serious about becoming LOLISPIA (Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament In Absentia),
then I suspect it’s in an attempt to give his fading profile a boost.
#8 by Dr William Reynolds on August 23, 2011 - 4:22 pm
I have never heard of Tom Harris.
#9 by Munguin on August 23, 2011 - 4:29 pm
Harris is the worst kind of career politician. After all the highest he got in his so called profession was a reporter on the East Kilbride News and then the Paisley Daily Express, then he found a quicker way to the top of the greasy pole and attached himself to Labour in the guise of press officer to Scottish Labour and then Strathclyde Regional Council. A pile of judicious toadying and towing of the party line got him his safe Glasgow seat.
Regrettably his recent decisions seem to be less than fortuitous to his career after all he was sacked by Gordon Brown for being too Blairish oops! and I thought he quit his blog when he thought he was in line for a shadow cabinet position till he backed the wrong Milliband oops again! Then like Frank Sinatra he un-retires from blogging and now seems to be angling for leader of Scottish Labour…ah well any port in a storm so they say!
#10 by Don McC on August 23, 2011 - 5:57 pm
I think Tom Harris becoming leader would be absolutely fantastic for Scotland. It would make absolutely clear how the Labour party view Scotland – with contempt and expect us to accept any rubbish they wish to foist on us, be it an absentee leader who couldn’t appear in FMQs or a rag tag bunch of MSPs, not one considered good enough for the post of actual leader.
In the words of ol Bendy, “bring it on!”
#11 by Richard Cain on August 24, 2011 - 1:41 pm
Type your comment here
Steady on! Just remember how AS began his 2nd stint 🙂
#12 by Allan on August 23, 2011 - 7:01 pm
To be fair to Tom, he did say that he thought that either the Shadow Defence Secretary or the Shadow Foreign Secretary should go for it…
In all fairness, it does rather show the dramatic lack of talent in “Scottish” Labour that there’s not one contender for essentially the leader of the opposition. Is that a good thing? Hmmm
#13 by souvey on August 23, 2011 - 7:04 pm
how can this work? who will be the labour opposition leader in the Scottish Parliament?
#14 by Barbarian on August 23, 2011 - 7:15 pm
Labour are rudderless at the moment, but I wouldn’t write them off.
Remember how close the SNP came to disintegrating under Swinney? Had Salmond not jumped back in, the party would have fallen apart.
Don’t assume Labour are finished….at least not yet anyway.
#15 by Indy on August 24, 2011 - 7:05 am
Actually the SNP came nowhere near disintegrating under John’s leadership. Indeed were it not for the internal reforms that John brought in the party would not have been in such a strong position now.
#16 by Tony on August 23, 2011 - 9:15 pm
Don’t remember any disintegration Barbarian, it was a bad run led by a good guy.
I think souvey has it right it can’t work and could you blame the anglo’s for no comin hame as they can always position themselves for a safe seat in England when the time comes.
#17 by Barbarian on August 24, 2011 - 12:08 am
It didn’t disintegrate, but it was in danger of doing so.
The SNP, like every other political party that exists or has existed, has its own internal divisions. Salmond is the strap that holds the party together.
Had he not returned, there would have been a bit of a bunfight, with certainly Alex Neil in the running (a politician I feel they would be better without).
Labour up here has the problem of Westminster, where “talent” tends to go (I’ll make an exception with my MP, Michael McCann). This has now been shown in spectacular fashion with Ian Gray. But the Labour vote has not disappeared, and that means there is still the potential for them to come back.
Look at the Lib Dems; no matter what they do or who takes over, they are heading for political oblivion.
Labour are not yet in that situation.
#18 by Indy on August 24, 2011 - 7:10 am
The SNP really seriously wasn’t in danger of disintegrating. It is true that under John’s leadership the party constitution was extensively re-written and a whole series of major reforms brought in – OMOV, a centralised membership system being two of the most notable changes – and politically the party adpted a more mainstream position on a number of issues. Some people did not like that and we saw a couple of high profile resignations/expulsions. But, as I said, were it not for the changes John stteered through we would not be in the position we are in today.
#19 by derek on August 23, 2011 - 9:34 pm
“The 46-year-old writes:
But the blog has become a burden. It’s taking up too much time (though not as much as some might think – I am a very fast writer), it’s getting me into too many squabbles with people I have never met and are likely never to meet. And increasingly I’ve felt like I’m adopting stances simply for the sake of being confrontational and provoking a row.
“Basically, the bottom line: blogging is having a negative effect on my personal, family and political life for reasons too many and complicated to recount.”
Mr Harris, who has been an MP since 2001, recently ”
Hmm! can he handle leadership? it would seem he can’t handle blogging?
#20 by fitalass on August 24, 2011 - 5:00 am
“I think Tom Harris becoming leader would be absolutely fantastic for Scotland. It would make absolutely clear how the Labour party view Scotland – with contempt and expect us to accept any rubbish they wish to foist on us, be it an absentee leader who couldn’t appear in FMQs or a rag tag bunch of MSPs, not one considered good enough for the post of actual leader.
In the words of ol Bendy, “bring it on!â€
Just remind me, isn’t that just what Alex Salmond did initially? And he was in no hurry to vacate that Westminster seat when he was elected to Holyrood either. QED
Despite not being a Labour supporter, I quite like Tom Harris, so wish him all the best if he does enter the Labour leadership contest.
#21 by Indy on August 24, 2011 - 7:14 am
Lol. But then Alex had Nicola as his Deputy. Who would Tom have? Johann Lamont?
#22 by DougtheDug on August 24, 2011 - 8:09 am
Fitalass,
It’s not comparing like with like. Alex Salmond was elected leader of his party and therefore had authority over all members, councillors, MSP’s and MP’s in his party and his location was immaterial.
The current vacant post in Labour is for Labour group leader in the Scottish Parliament in which a group leader absent from the Scottish Parliament would be quite odd.
Just like the Conservatives, Labour have no party or, “party leader”, north of the border.
#23 by Douglas McLellan on August 24, 2011 - 10:20 pm
I think the point Tom is making is that if the Labour leader in Scotland could be an MP with the responsibility for Labour in Scotland then he would stand.
He has not formally announced his candidature yet due to this very problem.
If the Labour Party review in Scotland does allow for a powerful Scottish Leader then he can, basically, do an Alex.
#24 by Dougthedug on August 25, 2011 - 12:34 am
If the Labour Party review in Scotland does allow for a powerful Scottish Leader then he can, basically, do an Alex.
The only regional party leader in Scotland out of the Lib-Dems, Labour and the Conservatives is Willie Rennie as Iain Gray and Annabel Goldie are just parliamentary leaders. Even with Willie Rennie as a regional leader the idea that Danny Alexander and Michael Moore take orders from Willie Rennie is a joke.
Labour aren’t going to create a regional leader because that would mean the creation of a sem-autonomous party structure for Labour in Scotland and the Labour MP’s are not going to take kindly to the idea of a Scottish regional leader, even one as powerless as Willie Rennie.
In any case the comparison between a newly created Labour regional manager in the style of the Lib-Dems and Alex Salmond simply doesn’t work because Alex is a party leader not a regional manager.
#25 by Douglas McLellan on August 25, 2011 - 10:48 am
I dont deny that, from a purely Scottish Party point of view, the SNP approach when Alex was re-elected worked well as he was leader of the party.
I also understand that SNP activists will never be able to understand that there could be a leader of a party in Scotland that has a relationship with a wider UK based party.
But I do think it is important to note that it is the members in Scotland, part of the actual (however small a proportion of) population of Scotland, that chose the Scottish Lib Dem party leader (when there is more than one candidate) in a party and structure that they are happy with. If Labour did something similar then, again, it would be Scottish people choosing their leader in party and structure that they want.
The constant denigration of these Scottish people making their choices about who they want to lead them in a political party is very disappointing and more than a little insulting.
#26 by Dougthedug on August 25, 2011 - 11:42 am
The constant denigration of these Scottish people making their choices about who they want to lead them in a political party is very disappointing and more than a little insulting.
I’m unsure how there can be a Scottish LIb-Dem party leader when there is no Scottish Lib-Dem party. I’ve hunted all over the electoral commission registers and there is no sign of one just as there is no Scottish Conservative Party or Scottish Labour Party.
I think it is wonderful that the Scottish members of the LIb-Dems get to choose the Scottish regional manager for the Lib-Dems and I’m sure that they are happy that they have the chance to do that but it’s a fact that Willie Rennie is not a party leader because that’s Nick Clegg for the Liberal Democrats.
Perhaps you could tell me how pointing out that Willie Rennie is not a party leader and is just a bit player in Scotland compared with other Lib-Dems such as Danny Alexander and Michael Moore is denigrating the membership of the Scottish section of the Liberal Democrats.
#27 by Douglas McLellan on August 25, 2011 - 10:30 pm
If you dont understand how a Federal party works and understand the control given to Scottish Members via the constitution of that Federal Party then I cant even start the process of telling you the difference between a Party Leader and a regional manager.
#28 by DougtheDug on August 26, 2011 - 8:21 am
I understand exactly how a federal party works. It’s just like a federal country. It’s a single entity which gives constitutionally protected local powers to its sub-regions.
I’ve read the Lib-Dem constitution carefully several times and the Lib-Dem party is definitely federal.
#29 by res on August 25, 2011 - 3:58 pm
“I also understand that SNP activists will never be able to understand that there could be a leader of a party in Scotland that has a relationship with a wider UK based party. ”
The key difference is that Alex Salmond when he was party leader during his MP tenure was subordinate to no-one.
Tom Harris or any other Labour politician as an MP or MSP will continue to take their orders from Ed Miliband.
#30 by Douglas McLellan on August 25, 2011 - 10:32 pm
Only if you believe that the members dont have a say. If the review gives more power to the members and the members set a direction there is little or nothing Ed can do about it.
It depends on where the constituted power lies.
#31 by Doug Daniel on August 24, 2011 - 10:55 am
Alex Salmond threw his hat in the ring after being convinced by those close to him that the SNP needed him at the helm again. He didn’t just say “och, well if no one else wants it, I suppose I could do it”, which is effectively what Tom Harris is doing here.
As for him being in “no hurry to vacate that Westminster seat”, he made it absolutely clear when becoming leader again that his intention was to return to Holyrood ASAP, and he made it clear when elected to Holyrood that he would not be contesting the next Westminster election. Can you imagine a scenario where Tom Harris leaves Westminster for Holyrood, when the direction of travel for Scottish Labour politicians has generally been the exact opposite? I can’t. Not unless he gets deselected from his Westminster seat and has to settle for what Labour clearly considers to be the glorified council in Holyrood.
But as my namesake above says, the main difference is Salmond truly was leader of the party. Tom Harris, if elected, would be nothing more than a regional manager, and it makes absolutely no sense for Labour to do that, since they’d end up having to appoint a LOLITSP as well anyway – who, incidentally, would then have even less authority than Iain Gray enjoyed, as they would be third or fourth in command (depending on where you place the Shadow Scottish Secretary in the chain of command – I would say they would be second, after Ed Miliband and ahead of whoever is their Scottish Regional Manager.)
#32 by Indy on August 24, 2011 - 4:35 pm
Aledx also chose to stand in a far from safe seat for the SNP.
I wonder where Tom would stand?
#33 by Dr William Reynolds on August 24, 2011 - 8:12 am
John Swinney is a very talented politician,but he was not succesful as leader of the SNP.However,the loss of seats in 203 was due to a failure to work the reigional list votes.The party won three extra first past the post seats(North Aberdeen,Dundee East and Ochils).Those victories layed the foundations for further advances by FPP seats in 2007 and of course the SNP learned the lesson of the importance of working hard to gain seats on the regional list.
I partly agree with Barbarian,butnot entirely.When the SNP has disapointing results,different views about how to move forward emerge.I was an SNP member and attended all annual conferences around the time of John Swinneys leadership.While there were disagreements about the way to go,I saw little evidence that the SNP were in danger of disintegrating.I viewed the dabate as essential and healthy,as I did in 1979 following an electoral disaster for the SNP.I also believe that the contribution of Alec Neil,John Swinney and many otheres was invaluable and helped to prepare the SNP for success on the 2007 election.While Alec Salmond is a very gifted politician,I do not regard him as the strap that holds the SNP together.The party has many formidable politicians who could be succesful leaders.my personal preference is Mike Russell.
To get back on topic,the SNP has a rich vein of gifted politicians who could be succesful leaders.In contrast labour appears to have very few people with leadership potential within its 37 MSP;s at Hollyrood.I might be wrong,perhaps there are some outstanding individuals within that group.I just cant see it just now.Appointing a leader who is not an MSP,highlights my point.
Labour suffered from the fact that many voters did not recognise Ian Gray.I do wonder whether many people know Tom Harris? If not,the combination of choosing a leader who is not an MSP,and who is not widely recognised by the public,would seem to be a very bad idea.
#34 by Indy on August 24, 2011 - 4:41 pm
There are actually quite a lot of parallells between what Labour is now going through and what the SNP went through under John’s leadership.
It’s fundamentally about adapting to devolution. The SNP had to adapt to devolution. Between 1999 – 2003 we were pretty poor. Negative and not constructive. That was not down to any individual as leader since both Alex and John were in that position at the time. It was a collective failure by the party as a whole.
But as I said earlier in the aftermath of 2003 the party under John’s leadership did some really serious thinking about our internal organisation and our political direction and John was very successful in pushing through some of the reforms which were necessary.
I agree he did not perform well as leader and I don’t think he was ever that comfortable in the role but, if he did nothing else, the party still owes him a debt of gratitude for grabbing a number of bulls by the horn and of course he has subsequently become a pretty impressive Finance Minister.
#35 by thenippysweetie on August 24, 2011 - 8:58 pm
To paraphrase ‘Eck: ‘Tom Harris’ problem is that he is no Iain Gray’. 🙂
#36 by Brian Nicholson on August 24, 2011 - 11:09 pm
Eck is being kind. Tom Harris is not only no Iain Gray, he is a sober George Foulkes.
#37 by Chris on August 25, 2011 - 4:33 pm
The referendum is the Elephant in the room.
If – as looks likely – Scotland votes no to a referendum it is hard to imagine Alex Salmond wanting to continue as First Minister or even as a leader of a damaged SNP in opposition. The loss of Salmond to the SNP would be as damaging as Labour’s loss of Dewar, although the ever-so-fraternal SNP at least would have the advantage of succession planning.
And if Scotland votes Yes there will be a lot of soon to be unemployed MPs. Fortunately for them there are not a lot of incumbent Labour MSPs standing in their way.
#38 by Chris on August 25, 2011 - 4:39 pm
Sorry my second paragraph was unfinished. In the short term the Labour leader only needs to mount a respectable opposition without the silly, directionless name-calling of Iain Gray.If the referendum is lost they are unlikely to be face-to-face with Salmond at the next election.
Pingback: Revolution in the air – Scottish Roundup