Blogging, as a form of journalism, can be lonely. Like all writers you look for the validation of others and when there is little you feel self-doubt: did I just get it wrong?
I was starting to get that feeling about my post of May 11, “Labour should get on with opposition rather than fighting over leadership“.
Today, May 21, the Guardian comes to much the same view in its first leader, saying:
In the Guardian’s view it is an outrage that Labour MPs are deciding the shape of this important contest so prematurely. No candidate has published a detailed argument about why Labour lost and how it can win. None has had more than a brief chance to take an argument to the public through the media or into the new Commons. No one actually knows what they really think about the big hard issues, yet the contest is being irrevocably moulded all the same. An essential process risks being sacrificed to the abuses of machine politics.
The paper suggests Alan Johnson as an interim leader. His name had come into my mind but I did not write it, thinking there might be someone else I had not considered.
Seumas Milne, in a column, takes the same topic and concludes:
One way or another, the wider Labour party needs to take back control of its own contest. If the politics currently paraded by the main candidates wins out, Labour’s prospects in a country where hostility to the Westminster elite has already redrawn the electoral map look bleak. Union disaffiliation could then become a reality and eventually trigger a party split. Where Labour goes now will affect us all.
To put it bluntly, the leader is right when it says:
Choosing the leader now is pretty daft.