Am I the only one having difficulty getting their head around Kezia Dugdale’s very special ‘logic’? Is there something I’m missing here? Or is the argument that exceptional and repeated failure makes her particularly qualified to both lead and advise just as demented as it sounds?
She is undoubtedly correct when she talks of British Labour in Scotland’s decline being “what happens when a party repeatedly refuses to listen to the message that the electorate is saying; when repeatedly it seems out of touch”. What she seems to have forgotten is that she was the one refusing to listen. She was the one failing to get the message. She was the one who was out of touch.
Dugdale talks as if somebody else led British Labour in Scotland (BLiS) to electoral humiliation in the last Holyrood election. She genuinely seems to believe that it was nothing to do with her. At the time of that election she had been ‘leader’ of the pretendy wee party for nine months. Prior to that, she was deputy ‘leader’ for a similar period. But neither the near obliteration of BLiS at Westminster in 2015 nor relegation to the LibDem League in the Scottish general election earlier this year was anything to do with her.
Apparently, the only effect of this serial electoral failure is to make Dugdale better qualified to tell others how to run a campaign. Being a proven loser, it seems, makes an utterly compelling case for her being the ideal person to run British Labour’s North British branch office.
No. I don’t get it either.