I'm a fan of Tom Harris' blog. It seems to me the most independent-minded of any Labour MP's. But I'm baffled by his latest entry here - called "Which candidate is the Tory Party most afraid of?"
In it, Tom explains that the contest is "about" (he means "should be about") "choosing the candidate the Tories least want us to choose".
However, a few sentences later, he explains that the Tories are "incapable of looking at Labour objectively".
But "that's only because there are plenty of Tories who will pretend that David" - David Miliband, Tom's preferred candidate - "poses no threat to their government".
The logic is hard to follow.
If plenty of Tories will pretend that Miliband poses no threat to their government, why aren't they pretending this now?
In any event, why will Tories pretending that Miliband poses no threat to their government prove that they're incapable of looking at Labour objectively? Does the pretence provide the proof? If not, what does?
But above all, if Tories are incapable of looking at Labour objectively, why does it matter who they're afraid of in the first place?
I fear that the excitement of the Labour leadership contest has gone to Tom's head. It's gone to mine already, as indicated by my helpful letter to Ed Miliband here.
Paul Goodman
