Analysing water under the bridge

The Labour leadership contest is travelling along on various sets of rails. At times they pass through dark tunnels, with the action taking place out of sight. Somewhat like Japanese plays in which a lot happens off stage.

Practically all the contestants have already complained that, at the very best, it is again becoming evident that all is fair in love and war.

I have a feeling that, like a great singer used to say at the end of each performance, we ain't seen nuttin' yet. The worst of the dirty tricks evident in the contest of 1992 and - in a separate context - in 2000 has not surfaced as yet.

No anonymous letters have circulated as yet, or been planted such that only the targeted victim initially gets them as a personal shot aimed at the person's psychological profile.

Knowing some of the dirty hands and brains at work behind the scenes, I would not be surprised if they will.

Meanwhile, among the more interesting things taking place is analysis of water that has already flowed under the bridge. The clear target is George Abela, who holds that the no-no to continuing with total opposition to the EU was examined during the 22 months of Labour rule in 1996-98.

It would be a grave reflection on the state of mind of the Labour protagonists at the time if it hadn't. Nothing, except deepest principles, is cast in stone.

Without all the elders necessarily being present at each occasion, the EU would have been discussed in better roundness than the public freeze which was official policy.

If there remains ambiguity in that particular patch of water, there was nothing ambiguous about Dr Abela braving the rest of the leadership in the MLP's general conference before the election of 1998.

He spoke out against going to the people at that particular time. He said that for the time being, he would stop there. He is on available film saying that; so is the thunderous applause, the standing ovation that greeted his statement.

Analyse though one might that water under the bridge, nothing can dilute what happened. Dr Abela was effectively referring to the power of incumbency and warning the MLP not to cede it. The rest of the leadership did not pay heed and the Labour government was soon no more.

If analysis of the past is to take place now, when the discussion should be about the future, the MLP could do worse than focus on 2003. The party clearly lost the EU referendum.

Yet its leader bragged that it had won. Instead of heeding the strong majority of the people and changing tack, Labour rushed into the general election still gnashing its teeth against EU membership.

To say that it paid the price would be to practise understatement. The leadership, not criticised and unchallenged by the elders of the party, hung on. The result was another defeat seven weeks ago.

The MLP can go on analysing all that water forever. It would not be doing itself any good if it did not learn the lessons inherent in the results. The lessons point Labour towards the direction it should take now, when it tasked to chose a leader to lead it into a hopefully brighter future.

If trickery or short-sightedness bring about what proves to be another wrong decision, all the analysis of downstream water will be so much waste of time.