My theory as to why Labour and the unionist media chose the wrong saviour in Anas Sarwar

As I pointed out after one of Anas Sarwar's catastrophic TV debate performances during the campaign ("HOW DARE YOU JOHN DON'T YOU DARE JOHN THAT MAN WANTS TO DEPORT MY FAMILY JOHN THIS IS A MORAL ISSUE JOHN DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT JOHN"), I have genuinely regarded him as an atrocious politician since long before he became Scottish Labour leader.  That opinion was largely formed by seeing him in action during the 2014 referendum campaign when he was Johann Lamont's deputy as leader.  I was completely bewildered by Labour's and the media's total faith in him as some sort of charismatic, inspiring leader who had great things ahead of him, and sure enough their faulty perceptions have finally faced the inevitable rendez-vous with reality.  

However, I have now developed a little theory as to why they went so badly astray.  It seems like a billion years ago now, but regular readers might recall that last June I attended the Holyrood Sources event at which both Sarwar and John Swinney were interviewed, and I was fortunate enough to be called to ask Sarwar a question about the Gaza genocide.  After I had finished reading my question out, Sarwar said "it sounds like you have a particular view on the Scottish constitutional question" and it suddenly became obvious that I was in the midst of a heavily Labour-supporting and unionist audience, because I heard lots of knowing chuckles around me as if my question had somehow just been deligitimised.  After the podcast recording was over (or possibly it was at the half-time break), Sarwar came up to close to where I was sitting and greeted a lot of the people near me, several of whom he seemed to already know.  I got the opportunity to see what he's like when he's not conscious of TV cameras on him, and he actually came across completely differently.  He was very likeable and had an easygoing charm about him.

I think the media and Labour genuinely believed they were onto a winner because of the man they actually knew in person, and were forgetting that he comes across as a half-automaton, half-clown on TV screens.  You sometimes hear the claim that it's better if parliamentarians rather than rank-and-file party members choose leaders, because they know all of the candidates' strengths and weaknesses, but Sarwar is actually a good advert for the opposite being true.  You might well be better off leaving the decision to people who only know the candidates via mass media, because exactly the same will be true for voters at election time.

I know a lot of people had a similar epiphany about Douglas Ross during his stint as a pundit on the BBC results programme, because as soon as he was no longer functioning as a politician, the real person started to shine through and you could see for the first time why people like Ruth Davidson rated him highly.  (But that of course doesn't even begin to excuse what he did to David Duguid.  What. A. Cad.)

*  *  *

Please check out the Scot Goes Pop polling fundraiser, particularly if you'd be interested in helping me commission another opinion poll in the future at a moment of maximum impact.