³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

For those in search of resonance, the venue offered pointers. Here, at the Apex Hotel in Edinburgh's Grassmarket, Wendy Alexander had set out her vision for the future of the Labour Party in Scotland.

Those with longer memories might have recalled that this was also the location of choice when David McLetchie defeated Phil Gallie to win the leadership of the Scottish Conservatives at the advent of devolution.
This was different, though: the Edinburgh hustings for the three contenders seeking to succeed Ms Alexander.

There was a decent turn-out. A few laughs such as when the chair invited young people to pose questions. Some of the self-selecting hands raised in response struggled to meet the definition "young".

There was little in the way of overt, sharp distinction between the candidates, at least on the night.

Perhaps Andy Kerr has laid the greatest stress on Scottish party autonomy: He mentioned that. Perhaps Cathy Jamieson has stressed her union and Left credentials: those were, gently, on display. Perhaps Iain Gray has been most vigorous in stressing the urgent need for co-operation across the movement, including Westminster: that came through.

But, you know, all three talked of Labour values, all three talked of the need to talk, to communicate with the membership, all three insisted that Labour must sound less negative, must advance a positive policy offer.

All three condemned Alex Salmond, claiming that he was out to "use Scotland" for his own Nationalist ends, not to serve her needs. All three used variations of that formula.

Alex Salmond was Banquo at the feast: reviled, yes, but feared too. Indeed, Cathy Jamieson, who deputised on occasion for Wendy Alexander at First Minister's Questions, said she had proven expertise in tackling Mr Salmond. The others stressed their willingness to be combative.

In truth, the mood of the evening struck me as tentative, somewhat provisional. Labour in Scotland is still coming to terms with defeat. It is too soon to expect certainty about attempts to revive.

Some of the questioners last night seemed to be to be seeking reassurance in the midst of anxiety. They wanted to hear how the contenders would engage with the grassroots, the local authorities, the unions. The equivalent of a political hug. They were duly comforted.

They wanted to hear too that there would be an end to bickering between Labour at Holyrood and Westminster. They were suitably assuaged.

To be fair, however, the questioners also wanted to hear evidence of policy thought: action on housing, employment rights, training. Again, the answers were inevitably somewhat tentative. They would press for this, seek assurances on that, strive to build coalitions on the other. Welcome to opposition.

So tentative, provisional. But healthy for all that. More than one speaker noted, with approval, the value of open debate, of a contest, of full OMOV voting. Novelty, indeed.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?