And so, after much speculation, the list from which we must choose our candidates
for the Scottish parliament is published. As it stands the list is an insult
to the intelligence of Labour Party members and to Democracy, Devolution in the party. At
best it represents a mechanistic centralised process incapable of recognising
ability at worst it comes across as a brutal act of political exclusion with
a little judicious carving out thrown in.
Rosemary McKenna assures us that the panel she chaired made judgements solely
on ability. If this is so then her view of those lacking can only be seen as
a belief that the Labour Party has in the past been poorly run; that party members
lack judgement; and that significant numbers of Scottish voters have been or
are represented by people who are second rate. How else can the exclusion of
Murray Elder, former Scottish General Secretary and adviser to John Smith be
interpreted? Similarly, how are we to judge the exclusion of former deputy General
Secretary Tommy Shepperd?
To take some examples from my own CLP. ClIr Archie Graham and Rosina McCrae
didn't make the Holyrood grade. Both sat for many years on the party's Scottish
Executive. What does this say about the CLP's and Women's Sections who supported
them? An inability to spot mediocrity perhaps? In Ms McCrae's case an inability
which stretches south of the border as she was a member of the UK Labour Women's
Committee and to the party's Scottish leadership who thought her senior enough
and competent enough to be part of the team that conducted the first enquiry
into the party in Renfrewshire ( their report was not acted on - with well known
results).
Other exclusions are similarly bizarre. Is the party going to offer an apology
to the people of Edinburgh for allowing their council to be led by such a seemingly
sub -standard individual as Mark Lazarowicz?
The verdict on individuals who have failed to make the list is indeed damning.
It has been decided that they are unfit even to present themselves to a CLP
for consideration. Pollok CLP might well have decided to have someone other
than Ian Davidson as their candidate, but now they have been told, officially,
by the party that their MP, who won Govan from Jim Sillars cannot be considered
for Edinburgh because he isn't up to the job.
But what of those who, according to the panel, are up to it? It does seem strange
that based on ability alone, so many right wingers are judged capable while
so many on the left of the party are found wanting. Talent may abound in the
tranche of (very) right wing ex-student politicians working as MP's researchers
or labour party staff who have been thought suitable, but are they so much better
than all the others?
The reason most often given for success or failure in this process is performance
at interview. Are we to assume then, that the third way twenty-somethings spoke
to the panel with the wisdom of Socrates and the eloquence of Cicero while rejects
like hard working and capable Glasgow councillors Irene Graham and Bill Butler
mumbled and spluttered?
But perhaps the stories are true, perhaps many of those left off did have a
bad interview. Can we have faith in a procedure that writes off a 15 or 20 year
track record of ability, achievement and commitment on the basis of a bad half
hour? Applying this standard everywhere would have meant the resignation of
half the cabinet by now.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the interview process itself was
used as an ideological screening process. The public effect of this is already
obvious. Those on the list will be unable to shake off the accusations, however
unjustified that they gained their place because they are not so much able as
manageable. The nature of those excluded inevitably casts a shadow on those
thought suitable.
Rosemary's list is a massive own goal for the party. While Tony Blair speaks
of governing Britain from the 'radical centre', here in Scotland we see the
results of a radical centralisation of huge power in a small group.