A clumsy mistake

Martin Schulz boobed badly in the way he endorsed fellow MEP Joseph Muscat in his bid to become leader of the MLP, doing him no good at all. The endorsement style of politics is an import from the US. It aims to demonstrate that a candidate is backed by people of standing, signalling to voters that the endorsed candidate is admired by those who know him well.

The true value of such endorsements is undetermined. They can also backfire. Mr Schulz made very sure that his did. Had he endorsed Dr Muscat simply as a fellow MEP, his action would have lacked merit in that it was not based on comparative knowledge - Mr Schulz knows Dr Muscat well but he knows the other four contestants for leader not at all. He did worse than that.

Mr Schulz did not endorse Dr Muscat on a personal basis. He made it clear that he was doing so in his capacity of chairman of the European Parliament socialist group. That was a pathetic blunder, ein peinlicher Patzer. The Party of European Socialists and its group in the EP embrace Malta's three socialist MEPs as members of the MLP, not as independent individuals. The four candidates contesting for Labour leader with Dr Muscat are equally members of the MLP. Mr Schulz had no right, in his capacity of chairman of the EP socialist group, to discriminate among the five contestants. In doing so he goofed in a manner than seasoned politicians would be wary of. One cannot imagine, for instance, Pauline Green, a previous chair of the EU socialist group, being so unthinking.

Mr Schulz introduced unnecessary controversy into the MLP effort to elect a new leader. Ironically, aside from being lucky that there is no longer anyone around who might bite off his tongue, he did so without gain for anyone. He is a respected MEP who came up through the German social democratic ranks but not exactly a towering political figure in his homeland. Dr Muscat should be presumed to have enough going for him without the need of the German's unethical intrusion.

The troubling thing is that the capricious incident may defocus the leadership campaign without call. Whoever is elected the new leader of the MLP will have to look far beyond the likes of Mr Schulz for inspiration.

Meanwhile, there is the process of getting elected. That lies in the hands of the MLP delegates. Those of them who read the analytical report on why Labour lost the March 2008 general election will surely weep in anguish and grind their teeth in anger.

The report shames the thrice-defeated MLP and, particularly, its leadership, for ending up a shambles of a party, not ready for a long-expected election, let alone for office. A party whose leadership even refused to learn from the mistakes of the lost 2003 election, which had been clearly reported upon by another post-defeat analytical group. That report was practically ignored. Labour lost yet again this year, with some 7,000 known Labourites not bothering to vote at all.

What true Labourites will be expecting from their delegates will be that they ensure that the same thing does not happen again by electing a leader who does not go by the principle of eyes wide shut. Mr Schulz should be no more than a momentary distraction.