WHAT should we make of a political party which has been thrown a lifeline but prefers instead to drown?
After a disastrous General Election campaign – worse than that, in Scotland – we heard a lot from the Labour Party about its need to reconnect with its core values and with the electorate.
There is no doubt that the candidate who has connected most with the public is Jeremy Corbyn, and he has done so to such an extent that thousands pack out his public appearances.
Yet instead of welcoming those newly politicised and energised voters, the Labour establishment has done the opposite.
Former leader Tony Blair yesterday warned that under a Corbyn leadership Labour would face “annihilation”, perhaps not the best word to use given his appetite for military misadventures.
John McTernan, a key Blair ally who played a prominent role in leading Labour to almost total wipeout in the General Election, also joined the fray yesterday, describing Corbyn as unelectable and suggesting his supporters were infiltrating the Labour party to damage it.
To be honest, The National’s main interest in the Corbyn campaign is its echoes of the political re-awakening we saw in Scotland during the referendum campaign.
While it’s good to see a similar re-awakening south of the Border we believe our future lies outwith the Union. In the short term, Labour under Corbyn could be a useful ally against Conservative austerity.
It is instructive, nonetheless, to watch as the reaction of the political establishment to Corbyn conforms to the same pattern we saw in Scotland.
Those who had claimed for decades they wanted to see greater public engagement with politics baulked at the reality. Suddenly it was the “wrong” sort of engagement, the “wrong” arguments and sometimes even the “wrong” people who had become engaged.
Of course those figures who watched askance as a new type of politics emerged had much to lose. After all, those years of public apathy had given them licence to do pretty much what they wanted with their power. That included, in some cases, using the Commons expenses system to their considerable advantage. It included, in some cases, accepting highly paid second jobs offered to them because of their position rather than ability.
And it included waging an illegal war on Iraq on entirely spurious grounds. Tony Blair was certainly the main culprit here but let’s not forget the supine Labour and Conservative backbenchers who allowed hostilities to start without a shred of evidence they were justified.
So if the Labour’s UK leadership election is largely academic to us, there is no doubt that the Scottish dimension is injecting extra entertainment value into the fiasco.
We publish today the pitches of both candidates for the job of leader of the party in Scotland for those who are interested in their plans.
Neither candidate has backed Corbyn. Kezia Dugdale went further and said clearly a Corbyn victory would be bad news for the party. No matter how much effort she puts into re-interpreting her comments about being reduced to “carping on the sidelines” she’ll never convince anyone it was anything less than an attack.
Which leaves just one question: is she now changing her tone because she’s worried about working with a man she dismissed as ineffectual or does she fear her support will drain away as so-called Corbynmania visits Scotland this weekend?
Kezza and Jezza: It's a love-hate thing
Former Murphy aide McTernan back on offensive in anti-Corbyn rant
Jeremy Corbyns's Scottish tour
Ken Macintosh: I will work with any and all progressive politicians
Kezia Dugdale: Our mission is to take Holyrood to task but to also renew our vision
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 here