THE SUNDAY Herald’s hatred of the Labour Party is illustrated (again) this morning by this introductory paragraph in a story about the party’s ongoing election contest:
THE CIVIL war engulfing Labour about the powers of the Holyrood leader has opened a new front, with several MPs expressing total opposition to calls for more powers for the Scottish party.
Civil war, eh? Well, I expect there will be lots of “civil wars” in the next few weeks. There will be plenty of “civil wars” at each of the party conferences, including the SNP’s. There will be “civil wars” on the issues of the health service and education. There will probably be votes at the end of each “civil war”. And when parliament – as well as the Scottish Parliament – resumes, there will be lots of “civil wars” in the respective chambers.
The Sunday Herald would have been among the first to complain about the absence of a debate on the role and power of Labour’s leader at Holyrood. Now that we’re having that debate, they’re calling it a civil war. Is it because journalists who have never been involved in politics directly (other than offering support to their party of choice through their writing) just don’t understand? Do they genuinely believe that if there’s a debate within a party, then it has to be devisive? No, I didn’t think so.