No political party does catastrophe to calamity quite like Labour.
After years of in-fighting, backstabbing, navel gazing and electoral failure, it would seem members reckon more of the same is the solution to last week’s trouncing.
Conventional wisdom suggests Jim Murphy’s position as leader in Scotland is untenable. It seems inconceivable that someone can oversee a campaign which results in 40 seats, including his own, being lost and still cling to power.
We live in odd times though and there are two mitigating factors for the pro-Murphy camp to cling to.
One is, he has only been in charge for five months. This, clearly, is not enough time to turn around a party which has been in decline for years because of self-interest, a sense of entitlement and a belief that voters will eventually “wake up” and return to their traditional voting habits.
The problem with this argument is the scale of Labour’s defeat. It’s not that Murphy failed to turn things round, it’s the possibility he made things worse.
He ran an extremely energetic campaign, filled with enthusiasm and with policies coming out of his ears. The latter point could have also been a problem, though.
There were lots and lots of promises and pledges without a single overarching narrative. Labour failed here and the SNP succeeded.
There was much to challenge the Nationalists on in terms of facts and figures but beyond it all you knew what they stood for and their message was one designed to instil confidence in the country.
Contrast that with the words Labour activists say challenged them most: “What does your party stand for?”
Well that and Murphy being “like anthrax” on doorsteps.
What we got from Labour was a series of lofty policies which seemed rushed, ill-thought-through and frankly unachievable, like the promise to abolish the need for foodbanks.
How does that work in practice? No one knows. Despite employing a big- name strategy team, there appeared to be very little coherent messaging.
The second factor in Murphy’s favour is the lack of a leadership alternative. Neither Neil Findlay nor Alex Rowley, the two front bench members to quit, have indicated they are looking to stand for the top job.
Essentially, this could come down to whether Kezia Dugdale, the party’s deputy leader, wants the position. She is well respected and seen as having plenty of potential. What she would need is the time some are currently not keen to give Murphy.
Although this goes much deeper than who is in charge, it’s worth noting Johann Lamont felt knives in her back from people loyal to her successor as moves were made to dump her.
Perhaps that’s something for the current top team to ponder in between their desperate calls for loyalty.
Murphy’s jacket is on a shoogly peg, to use a football analogy I’m sure he’ll appreciate, and if he is to have any hope of continuing his role he must be confident he has his team 100% behind him.
Having lost the support of three major trades unions and come under attacks from his own MSPs, that is questionable at best.
He cannot go into next year’s Holyrood election as leader if his own candidates don’t see him as the man for the job.