Every new leader deserves a chance to flourish, so the epithet goes. It was a decency that was afforded Iain Gray, Wendy Alexander, Gordon Brown and, currently (though weaning), Ed Miliband. So it is only fair to wipe Johann Lamont’s slate clean and wait with optimism and hope that she shall lead a rejuvenated and energised Labour party that will strengthen Scotland through effective opposition to the SNP Government.
That said, one can’t help but think that as the SNP enters a long-craved campaign period leading up to the independence referendum, that if the Nats themselves could pick who the leader of Scottish Labour (sic) would be, they would pick someone precisely like Johann Lamont.
Wedded to the decaying force that are union leaders, inflexible on the question of independence for Scotland, often guilty of being an off-putting ‘point and shout’ politician, responsible for MPs who have no desire to be bossed around by a mere MSP, a leader who one can imagine would hold the line in the face of defeat when a change in tactics is clearly desperately required and, not that this should necessarily be held against anyone, doesn’t come across as the cheeriest soul in a nation famous for being pretty dour already. Some would say.
Add to all of this the clear probability that Johann Lamont’s leadership is already undermined by Ken Macintosh being the Labour members’ choice, receiving as he did 52% of the popular vote amongst members, and we have problems upon problems. Ken is to Johann what David Miliband is to brother Ed; a perennial reminder that the wrong person got the job due to a bizarre, byzantine electoral college system
But she deserves a chance.
Labour needs to do many things to reclaim former glories and many have postulated over what some of those should be.
Contrary to Alan Cochrane’s urging, I do not believe that constantly pressing the SNP over the date of the independence referendum will get Labour anywhere. The SNP won the election fair and square and, unless Labour can point to a deep and damaging reason why not knowing this date is causing Scotland harm, the public won’t mind (or really care) when the referendum is, safe in the knowledge that it’ll happen in a few years’ time. All that will happen is that Labour will look like it’s moaning (again) and the SNP will look reasonable (again). All the while, the constitution continues to dominate Scottish politics which in turn suggests that MSPs don’t have anything important to talk about on health, education, crime etc etc.
So what Labour needs to do is drop the constitution altogether as a talking point. If they claim the SNP is ‘obsessed’ with the topic, then highlight that supposed fact by being the polar opposite. If Labour believes in devolved Scotland within the UK being the ideal model of governance then magnify that. A blizzard of Holyrood-level proposals that are thought through and genuinely believed in, irrespective of other parties’ positions on the matters, should be pushed forward in the next six months or so by the Shadow Minister responsible for them. The young talents of Kezia Dugdale and Jenny Marra should be unlocked and unleashed alongside commentary from the pleasingly familiar Hugh Henrys, Sarah Boyacks and Malcolm Chisholms.
Alex Salmond does not need to be nobbled, he will go of his own accord before too long. It shouldn’t be about leader vs leader, as Labour’s hustings so often had it, it’s about team vs team.
So, if devolved Scotland is Labour’s chosen ball game and the SNP’s focus is on independence, which party is going to look like it is caring for Scots more in the years running up to an independence referendum, a referendum that polls continue to suggest the SNP will lose? And if that is the case, who is best placed to win the election in 2016 if the referendum delivers a No vote?
Not that the SNP makes it easy for Labour, and other opposition parties, by having so few chinks in its armour and running an economy that is powering along nicely, third in the UK only to London and the South East.
Johann could nullify SNP successes by getting on board with minimum pricing and NHS spending while playing to her strengths by utilising union power and know-how to find the fairest model for a national minimum wage, apprenticeships, taxation levels, regulation and pensions that pushes her ahead of an SNP that wants to be free-marketeers and social democrats all at the same time. It is an awesome task to consider but Johann could pull Labour more left, more Socialist, than the Nationalist big tent is willing to stretch and therein lies success within Holyrood and, by extension, at the referendum, whenever it may be.
I personally don’t believe that Johann will be able to do it as I don’t believe the above is a strategy that will be embarked upon, the ever-shrinking middle ground will remain the battlefield, and I also sensed a glint in Johann’s eyes on the day of her victory that even she believes she’s not quite up to this.
But she deserves a chance.
#1 by forfar-loon on December 20, 2011 - 1:05 pm
For me, and I’m guessing for a fair few others, it boils down to this: I don’t think Johann Lamont has shown anything in her career to date to suggest she is up to being First Minister. The prospect of her representing Scotland on the international stage does not enthuse me to put it mildly.
I’m afraid my optimism and hope, such as it was, evaporated when she announced that she would lead in Scotland’s interests and that no policy was off limits, except of course for a 2 question referendum and independence (or “separation” as she put it). In other words, she would rather that we suffer any fate as part of the UK rather than, horror of horrors, become an independent nation.
Why does she have such ingrained, dogmatic opposition to what is a perfectly honourable, and indeed normal, desire for self determination? I struggle to respect anyone who opposes it under any circumstances, surely the very definition of a closed-mind.
#2 by Jeff on December 20, 2011 - 1:16 pm
Definitely agree. Even though my suggestion is for Labour to just not mention the ‘i’ word for the next year or two, if they are going to broach the independence debate then they should learn from Calman and May 2011 that, as you say, being open to all suggestions and accepting each of their merits is the only way to be taken seriously.
#3 by A Cairns on December 20, 2011 - 1:29 pm
Yes I agree with you Jeff, I don’t think Lamont will be very flexible and forward looking and she’s in danger of continuing to mention separation/independence.
Still she’s largely got the labour shadow cabinet right and I hope labour can turn it’s attention back to public services and the economy.
#4 by Jeff on December 20, 2011 - 2:21 pm
I thought the Shadow Cabinet looked a bit same-y but Johann’s hands were tied on the matter I suppose and I guess the young ones shouldn’t be thrust too blinkingly into the limelight too soon. So yes, I agree, first hurdle has been cleared with a decent looking Cabinet.
I certainly agree that a real debate on public services and the economy would be very welcome.
#5 by Craig Gallagher on December 20, 2011 - 2:22 pm
It’s not always the case that we are in complete agreement Jeff, but we are here. Although I’m avowedly nationalist, and most in favour of the SNP’s political platform (contradictions and all), I do recognise the need in a unicameral parliamentary system for a strong opposition to ask the important questions that any majority government is likely to overlook because it no longer has to think about appeasing its critics.
The problem with electing Iain Gray’s deputy to follow him is the obvious one: continuity, where continuity could not be more unwelcome. Maybe Lamont will surprise me, but I don’t hold out hope. Whatever you think of Tom Harris, he was mostly right to spend considerable chunks of the leadership campaign railing against the vested interests in the party, the very same forces which seem to have plumped for Lamont as the best safeguard of their interests. I feared this would be the case when Ken MacIntosh joined Harris in suggesting some genuinely distinct policy platforms (the railways, for example).
The short-term result of this is going to be resounding, I think. Barring an Alex Salmond sex scandal between now and May, we’re going to witness a Glasgow Labour stalwart at the head of the national party lose her city’s council to an SNP insurgency, or at least come very, very close to doing so. Her own difficulty in retaining her seat at the last Scottish election echoes that of Gray’s, adding to the perception that she’s on a shoogly peg with both the voters and the Labour membership.
Ultimately, what has happened is that the Labour party has contrived to vote against change when it was most needed. Though the (dwindling) membership seemed to indicate they wanted a fresh start, following the lead of the Scottish Conservatives earlier in the year, the party’s electoral college system has contrived to frustrate that. I can’t read this result as anything other than a party that has not only has failed to learn any lessons from this year, but also refuses to acknowledge there are lessons needed in the first place.
Where this leaves our democracy, I have no idea. But whatever happens, Labour have set their course. They must hope the headwinds stay favourable, and that Hurricane Bawbag isn’t waiting at the end of the next strait.
#6 by Michael on December 20, 2011 - 2:24 pm
‘Johann could nullify SNP successes by getting on board with minimum pricing and NHS spending while playing to her strengths by utilising union power and know-how to find the fairest model for a national minimum wage, apprenticeships, taxation levels, regulation and pensions that pushes her ahead of an SNP that wants to be free-marketeers and social democrats all at the same time. It is an awesome task to consider but Johann could pull Labour more left, more Socialist, than the Nationalist big tent is willing to stretch and therein lies success within Holyrood’. Ehrrmmm, and where is the evidence for this. Left parties appeal to Left voters but the problem with this strategy is it makes a number of assumptions which are either wrong or aren’t backed by any evidence. First, what has been the ‘success’ of Left parties in Holyrood elections up until now. Let’s say the greens and SSP fall into that camp. We don’t need the percentages to know that they have been deeply unpopular with the electorate even at the height of their respective levels of support. The Greens uber-left manifesto at the last election was overwhelmingly rejected by voters and the SSP were so unpopular they did worse than the Lib Dems. Unionist leftism was as much of a failure as George Galloway’s result in Glasgow demonstrated. Scot Lab are tied into the UK party’s policies and models for one big reason – they need to campaign together on the same platform for UK elections. Anyone who believes the UK party is going to move to the Left is out of their mind so that leaves Labour in Scotland where they are – in some sort of post Blairite limboland tied to a party whose policies are intended to make them attractive to middle England. Another of the wrong-headed assumptions here is that left policies appeal to Scottish voters but there is little evidence to support this, certainly in terms of tax. There just aren’t enough voters who support tax rises to make this work as a policy for Lamont. Those that do probably support Labour already so where are the new supporters going to come from? Blair was right in his analysis of Labour’s failures in England in the 80s. Talking loudly to people who already support you and your way of thinking about life is never going to win an election, it’s bringing in new folk that’s the problem. Just as Labour had to wear some Tory clothes to bring over middle England so Scot Lab really has no option but to dress up like the SNP, even to out nationalist them if it is to win. Problem is they can’t and won’t do it and Lamont is doomed to follow McConnell, Alexander and Gray into the dustbin of Scottish political history.
#7 by Jeff on December 20, 2011 - 2:36 pm
Fair challenge Michael.
My argument would be that the Greens and SSP struggled because (internal warfare and sex scandals to one side in the latter’s instance), they have no chance at winning FPTP victories so field minimal contestants on that ballot which artificially depresses their support on the second vote. Also, and quite possibly a deeper reason, is that Greens and SSP don’t get invited to the prime-time TV debates so many voters think they only have 4 choices – SNP, Lab, Con or LD.
So Labour tacking left doesn’t mean a similar fortune to that of the Socialists and the Greens; it means (I think, and of course I have no evidence, this is a blog post not a position paper) that the Nats may get trapped in a pincer movement with Scottish Tories picking up votes on the SNP’s right shoulder and Labour picking votes on the left. The Lib Dems might pick up votes from those who are lost and confused, but that won’t be too many (*boom tssh*)
I disagree that Scottish Labour are tied to UK policy and I think the party north of the border will be champing at the bit to try out the new power and party hierarchy that has been created by making Scotland’s voice distinct from London. I may be proved wrong, we were promised that after 2007 after all and it didn’t materialise, but it would be particularly foolish if Labour made the same mistake twice.
Note also that I don’t necessarily equate leftwing policies on tax with taxing people more; though I do confess that that is my preferred policy, regardless of which party is proposing it (and it only seems to be the Greens who are honest enough to say that that is the best way forward, painful as it is for some middle-high earners to accept).
Anyway, i think consigning anyone to “the dustbin of Scottish political history” is premature and certainly needlessly mean.
#8 by Allan on December 20, 2011 - 7:12 pm
“First, what has been the ‘success’ of Left parties in Holyrood elections up until now.”
If you cast your mind back to 2003, the Greens picked up 7 MSP’s and a united SSP picked up 6 MSP’s. Of course, if these parties were really unpopular, then Salmond wouldn’t have been taking notes (or maybe confirming a few suspicions) about the rise of these parties, and modifying the SNP message.
By the way Michael, what exactly was “uber-left” about the Green’s manifesto in 2011?
#9 by Observer on December 20, 2011 - 3:40 pm
The Greens & the SSP did not achieve great electoral success because they are seen as being fairly extreme. Although I think Scotland sits to the left of England (in very broad terms), it sits in the centre left. Many of the policies proposed by both the Greens & the SSP were simply too radical & challenging to command majority support. That may change in the future as we enter into the dark economic times ahead, but for the moment I would say the majorty of voters sit in a spectrum where they could vote Labour or SNP.
I also think most voters are pretty pragmatic about whether Scotland should be independent or not. Whether they vote yes or no in the referendum is probably something that most will decide just before it happens.
So we have both the SNP & the Labour Party talking to the same set of voters who will probably decide the outcome of the referendum as well as the next Scottish elections. We all know what the SNP stand for & what they will be talking about, but Labour seem to be determined to give us the same old same.
Not very clever, that.
#10 by Allan on December 20, 2011 - 7:16 pm
“The Greens & the SSP did not achieve great electoral success because they are seen as being fairly extreme.”
Not sure about that. At the point of the SSP’s breakthrough there were Labour voters who were unprepared to stop voting for “nurse” even though McConnell’s Labour administration were moving to the right on certain policies.
#11 by Observer on December 21, 2011 - 12:31 am
Look up the SSP’s actual policies. I was in favour of a lot of them, as well as with a lot of Green policies. But I am very much to the left of the spectrum & acknowledge that.
#12 by Observer on December 20, 2011 - 3:47 pm
What I do think is blindingly obvious is that all the evidence points to the majority of Scots wanting more power for the Scottish Parliament. Adding together those people who either want independence or devo max, there appears to be a clear majority in favour of devo max as the minimum they would accept.
Lamont seems determined to ignore that. If Labour don’t embrace devo max, & their window for doing that is closing all the time, then that leaves the door open to the SNP to persuade those voters who are not content with the status quo that independence is the only option, because the unionist parties won’t concede anything else.
#13 by Michael on December 20, 2011 - 4:07 pm
Well, she has been in Parliament for 12 years and in politics much longer so hardly premature. But mean, no I don’ think so. It’s a perfectly reasonable and commonplace expression to make – ‘dustbin of history’, I mean. I’ve never subscribed to the currently fashionable ‘nicey-nicey’ approach to politics and looking back over the years I can’t say it has made any of my analyses less valid. Honestly, though, Jeff, I can’t see how the British parties are going to make up lost ground. You suggest a Tory revival on the right but many of their policies are shared by the other mainstream parties including labour so how would that happen particularly as all the trends show they’re in an unrecoverable position? And a Labour shift to the left would only be attractive to Left voters, most of whom are already comfortable in other parties and deeply distrustful of Labour in view of their record in government here and the UK. Labour shifting to the Left would require movement away from the UK party and you would need to explain how that would be possible without compromising the UK party’s position on a number of issues like nuclear weapons, military adventurism, the economy, tax, etc. And even if all that were possible who exactly, which constituency of people exactly, would be attracted to Labour as a result, beyond those people who presently vote for them, that is? Left activists certainly won’t be signing up to Scottish Labour while the party in the Uk continues to subscribe to rightist policies. What would be the point when there are other more attractive home based alternatives? Prior to the Scottish election I suggested that if the SNP won big – something I was convinced would happen – it would lead to the implosion of the British party system in Scotland. Actually i think that’s the interesting story, the death of the Uk party system – it’s happening as we speak and anyone who expects it to recover just hasn’t understood the nature of the Scottish electorate or long term trends in Scottish politics. Everything indicates a long term movement towards the development of an independently functioning political system. There are almost no indicators to the contrary which is where I think your analysis fails since it requires an almost complete reversal in that trend.
#14 by Jeff on December 20, 2011 - 4:31 pm
Again, fair challenge.
You seem to be saying that the SNP didn’t just win a majority in May but it blew a permanent hole in Scottish ties to British parties. It remains to be seen whether that’s the case; I could be churlish and ask you for evidence ;), but I see no reason why that definitely won’t be the case. My expectation probably still remains that the political cycle will run its course and, after a couple of elections, Labour will lead Scotland at UK and devolved Scotland level, albeit with fiscal autonomy north of the border, and the SNP will be back on mid20% support.
It won’t be Johann Lamont at the helm though.
#15 by Allan on December 20, 2011 - 7:36 pm
Michael.
You are not the first person to make that prediction about the UK party system’s relationship with Scotland. In the book “Football Against The Enemy” I think the author muses that had Labour won the 1992 General Election and a Scottish Assembly had been set up “Soon truly Scottish parties would have replaced the Labour and Tory parties.”.
Maybe the rise of the SSP was a harbinger of that, maybe Murdo Fraser thoght that there was something in that. What is true is that the political sensibilities of England and Scotland are moving apart.
#16 by Leighton on December 20, 2011 - 4:56 pm
In my view Labour’s problem wasn’t that they were necessarily too far to the right at the election but rather the party seriously lacked creditability the best to examples of this being the discretionary/compulsory knife crime policy and having spent the last few years attacking the council tax freeze to then go and offer a 2 year freeze, left Scottish voters thinking “aye right sure you willâ€. What Labour need to do to combat the SNP is to campaign for policies they truly believe in, the living wage idea has potential the only problem is in this age of austerity it hard to see how it would be delivered especially with Hollyrood funding determined by the Tories at Westminster.
As for being tied to the UK party in terms of policy it’s clearly too early to call, but the indications thus far are that Johann is refusing to budge on the constitution when poll after poll shows the vast majority of Scot’s want the government here in Scotland to have far more influence over Scotland than present (albeit short of full independence).
An interesting issue is Johann’s continued support of Trident, its symbolic of both the difficulty Johann will have straying from the UK party line and moving to the left of the SNP.
#17 by Ben Achie on December 20, 2011 - 6:18 pm
Frankly, I don’t think twelve years time-serving at Holyrood is a recommendation for anyone. The double whammy for Labour in this year’s election was not just getting hammered by the SNP, but also losing most of what established talent they had.
Now that the three opposition parties have chosen their respective leaders, it’s worth assessing how each of these elections played out. That means disregarding the Lib-Dems, of course, because they didn’t have one, but they are now an irrelevance anyway.
Ruth Davidson only got it because the subliminal message to their mainly elderly members was that she was the candidate anointed by Cameron. She’s just playing a more aggressive and assertive Anabel Goldie, without the charming self-deprecation (or good jokes), and with even less policy substance.
Murdo murdered his chances by his bold proposal for a new party, but doesn’t this suggest 1. he felt obliged to do that because he knew all HQ influence was going to go behind Davidson, whose youth and background gave her the upper hand with the media anyway, and 2. he’s playing a waiting game in the belief that his time will come.
Labour’s Scottish leadership election has parallels with 2. I don’t recall that Ken Mackintosh was very radical in his proposals, but his popularity is a killer for Lamont’s prospects as leader, while he can modify his views in the future. He’s in pole position to replace her, although when it comes to retaining lame duck leaders, Labour are the conservatives!
Cameron is looking increasingly superficial and surprisingly insecure though, with echoes of the Republicans’ presidential contenders in that his main opponent is a right wing buffoon – not that I am saying Boris (or Newt) is stupid. Labour seem so lacking in real intellectual vigour combined with nous that they don’t realise that either Miliband was the wrong choice.
When leadership matters so much this is all a huge gift to Alex Salmond, who will not be around for ever as a politician (nor will anyone else) but who certainly has plenty of time to take us to an independent Scotland, and to establish our place in the world as such. He’s got a competent, trusted, team, which leaves him to concentrate on the big stuff that he so clearly enjoys.
#18 by Allan on December 20, 2011 - 8:33 pm
There’s probably two things that “Scottish” Labour can do in the short to medium term. Firstly, they can tack themselves to the imediate left of the SNP voicing the concerns of ordinary people as the cuts agenda progresses. The problem with that of course is what Tom Harris described as “hard choices” – can we afford to keep that hospital open or can we afford not to introduce tuition fees. “Scottish” Labour wore their ability to make these hard choices like a badge of honour. Many people have not forgotten that.
The other thing they might do which might bring them votes is to adopt a slightly Euro-sceptic tone. They could do that by pushing the SNP for a referendum on EU entry should there be a yes vote and by pushing for us not to use the Euro. The problem with that is that “Scottish” Labour are even more in favour of the EU and the Euro than the SNP. That’s positions they could adopt while they think about the thing that was the foundation stone of their defeat in May – a lack of policies.
On a tangent, while Lamont doesn’t quite have the look or feel of being the next First Minister there is some hope for her. Five years ago, David Cameron looked about as much like being the next Prime Minister (but one) as Lamont, while Thatcher didn’t really look like a Prime Minister in waiting until Gordon Reece & Saatchi & Saatchi got to work. There is a precident for opposition leaders growing in the role (not that I think she will).
#19 by Barbarian on December 20, 2011 - 8:45 pm
The Scottish Parliament desperately needs a strong opposition, and so do the SNP.
The Scottish Government will start pushing through legislation without it being properly examined. New SNP MSPs will not want to rock the boat, and during the last Parliamentary session, Labour seemed hell bent on opposing anything the SNP tried. So as a result, people do not pay too much attention to Labour.
Labour need to focus on being a proper opposition.
I cannot see them winning the next Holyrood elections, therefore Lamont is probably under less pressure. And she has the additional bonus that if the SNP cock up, they can’t really blame anyone else, such is the price for a majority government.
But she needs to be given a chance. Too many people are writing her off immediately. Politics is a strange world, and she might surprise us.
#20 by ianbeag on December 20, 2011 - 10:14 pm
One face missing from the top table photograph of the new shadow cabinet is the highly respected and experienced Malcolm Chisholm. Perhaps he was not invited. However, his presence there might well have widened the appeal in the public mind. Does anyone know if he was asked?
#21 by Jeff on December 20, 2011 - 10:47 pm
He said he wouldn’t have taken a position if asked and he wasn’t asked.
A win-win then really.
#22 by A Cairns on December 20, 2011 - 10:38 pm
Type your comment here
Fair enough, I guess Claudia Beamish could have been given the shadow rural affairs brief as Claire Baker is a weak link there.
#23 by Penny Dainty on December 21, 2011 - 9:54 am
“And if that is the case, who is best placed to win the election in 2016 if the referendum delivers a No vote?”
That is a very interesting, important question(overlooked by many). I agree that Ms. Lamont deserves a chance, but she has to exercise some flexibility asap and demonstrate that she is willing to listen to the people. Scottish Labour really need to put a devomax/FFA question forward. This is a potential game changer, winning move opportunity but it needs to be grasped soon. Although devomax/FFA is wrongly seen by many as a potential safety net for the SNP, if no second question is provided in 2014/15, a narrow NO vote could be a pyrrhic victory indeed. If the majority (including NO voters) are denied an option to vote for their constitutional preference, they could take it out on Labour in subsequent elections. The SNP could even campaign on the basis that “we tried, but keep voting fo us and we will pressure Labour to support devomax/FFA (which I belive they will, eventually). Unless Ms. Lamont performs a timely U-turn, Labour could be out of power at Holyrood for a generation.
#24 by James Morton on December 21, 2011 - 10:24 am
I reckon we should wait until her first appearance as leader in the parliament. We’ll judge her by her tone and general attitude. If it’s business as usual – then Labour is stuffed. You’ve seen it with the tories – this odd ability to “not” accept their unpopularity and keeping banging out the same old message.
I don’t know why that is – too much baggage, too much invested in their ideology to admit they could be wrong, not wanting to seem like a quitter? Maybe its all they know and it would take decades in the wilderness before they can ever recover.
She deserves a chance – I think she’ll blow it, but we’ll wait and see.
Pingback: College Daze « Better Nation
#25 by itsyourself on December 21, 2011 - 4:10 pm
I have looked at Lamonts winning speech and the composition of the Shadow Cabinet for any sign of Labour becoming a truly nationwide party. None exists. Rural Scotland is 95% of the nations land area and 18% of the population. No party can hope to govern Scotland without some relevance to such an important component.
The Lib Dems used to “do” the rural bit for Labour making up for the inbuilt geographical disadvantage Labour suffers. There is now effectively no Lib Dem party nor any serious prospect of one existing ever again.
So if Labour is serious about anything other than whingeing from the sidelines it has to get a rural strategy fast. Perhaps Tom Harris should have been given Rural Affairs and a place in the Cabinet? That would have been fun but it is probably already too late now.
So for any Labour strategist reading this or maybe even Claire Baker. Lets hear it. What are you going to offer 95% of Scotland?
#26 by Doug Daniel on December 22, 2011 - 9:18 am
Looking at the new shadow cabinet, it’s already glaringly obvious that Johann Lamont is not actually Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, but merely another Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament. Apart from the fact that no such separate Scottish Labour party exists, her “front bench” team all have devolved portfolios and are all MSPs. Who will speak up for Scotland in matters of defence or international development? Which of these people will argue Scotland’s corner against Theresa May or William Hague? The answer, of course, is none of them – these will be the remit of the infamous “Team Scotland”, which Lamont had no hand in picking. It’s quite laughable that Margaret Curran is included in that list of shadow ministerial “appointments”, given that she was picked by Ed Miliband months ago. That in itself was a daft mistake – the easiest way to prove that the winner of this contest was truly the head of all Labour politicians in Scotland would have been for the Shadow Scottish Secretary to be hand-picked by the winner. As it stands, it’s hard to see in what way Lamont has any power over Curran or her team in Westminster.
Johann Lamont’s position is no different to that of Iain Gray’s, they’ve just changed the name. As Alan Partridge would say, “they’ve rebadged it, you fool!”