I experienced a classic Murphy Moment yesterday when I opened my copy of The Herald.

"Jim Murphy wants working class parents to have middle class children". Images crowded into my head of a maternity ward full of genetically-engineered babies in private school uniforms, talking proper and insisting they simply must live in Morningside.

Of course the Scottish Labour leader was talking about aspiration, ending inter-generational inequality and other worthy things in his speech to the David Hume Institute in Edinburgh. But there's just something about the whole Murphy approach to politics right now that invites ridicule. The past two months have been a succession of half-formed policy announcements, stunts and contradictions.

The New Clause Four that was nothing but; the Vow Plus that only underlined the vacuity of the original; the opposition to fracking that didn't quite make it to the Commons vote; the Mansion Tax grab that infuriated London Labour MPs.

This week Labour had to delete a YouTube video of their leader condemning cancelled operations in Scotland because it turned out they weren't comparing like with like. This is extremely embarrassing and obscured the legitimate charge that the Scottish government's self-congratulation about NHS Scotland is not wholly justified.

It's not the first such deletion.

There was that misleading election claim on social media that "Fact: the biggest party gets to form the next government". As any modern studies student knows, this is simply wrong: it isn't the biggest party that forms the government but the one that commands a majority in the House of Commons.

Half-baked policy announcements tumble over each other day by day. There may well be a case for the restoration of alcohol sales at football matches, but it needs to be laid out in a way that doesn't antagonise women's groups and appear to be soft on domestic violence.

I agree with Jim Murphy that the Offensive Behaviour at Football Grounds Act is illiberal and unworkable, and should be repealed. But you can't just toss these pronouncements out willy nilly; the approach has to be more measured and considered so as not to make it look as if you are soft on sectarianism too.

Too often initiatives have been risible if not self-regarding. Political leaders normally mark their performance after 100 days in office, but Mr Murphy had to go one better and proclaim his achievements after only 50.

These included achievement No. 24: "Supported knighthoods for football legends, Billy McNeil and John Greig"; No. 28: "Introduced a £1 membership of the Scottish Labour Party"; and my personal favourite, No. 26: "Promised to raise educational attainment for all" - as if anyone was seriously proposing reducing educational attainment.

He also congratulated himself for "urging the Scottish government to support Devo Max for Scotland", which suggested that he had suddenly joined the Scottish National Party. This is all confusion marketing designed to confuse the voters. But the voters are too sophisticated.

Fair enough, everyone makes mistakes, but Labour is making too many of them. And the reason is simply that their leader can't take his foot off the accelerator. Labour staffers and politicians don't know what to think or say next.

Last month Labour's education spokesman, Iain Gray, launched an attack on the Scottish Government's policy of free school meals - "they just benefit wealthy parents" - only to discover later in the day that his leader apparently now supports them.

Labour politicians have stopped saying anything about home rule because they simply don't know where they're going next. Mr Murphy used to opposed income tax devolution but became an enthusiastic supporter after the Smith Commission report.

But not content with that conversion, he now wants to give Holyrood powers to increase the state pension and most welfare benefits in a new Home Rule bill within 100 days of Labour winning the general election.

Ed Miliband seems relaxed about this, but what are Labour party loyalists to think? For the last seven years they've been trying to hold the line against the SNPs' supposedly irresponsible and selfish demands for more powers. Now Labour is trying to out bid them.

Johann Lamont's objections to the "something for nothing society" have now been wiped from Labour's memory banks. The party seems to accept, by default, the "free stuff" that it previously suggested had been used by Alex Salmond to bribe Scottish voters: free prescriptions, university fees, concessionary bus fares, etc..

Now, I'm on record as saying Mr Murphy is a good thing for Scottish politics - a comment that infuriated legions of SNP-supporters. I believe the Scottish Government needs stronger opposition in Holyrood and Mr Murphy is - or used to be - a first-rate politician with an astute grasp of street politics.

But recently he's been making it too easy for the Scottish Government. Unlike her predecessor, Nicola Sturgeon doesn't mix it with testosterone-fuelled politicians. She has avoided being drawn into pointless confrontation and waits instead for the successive Murphy initiatives to come apart under scrutiny in the media.

Now, it is surely a good thing Mr Murphy is trying to bring Labour more into line with mainstream political opinion in Scotland and has dropped his former enthusiasm for things like university tuition fees and private provision in health. Labour invented the welfare state and he is right to oppose measures like the bedroom tax. The party is rediscovering its soul.

Like many Scottish voters I found it hard to disagree with the social democratic tenor of the Scottish Labour leader's speech yesterday. In fact, his remark that "lack of resources amongst people at the bottom is hindering economic growth" is almost exactly what this column was arguing only the day before yesterday.

But the good that Mr Murphy is doing for Labour is being undermined by the air of contrived frenzy and by an unavoidable scepticism about his sincerity. Maybe Labour is now - as the party claims - more left wing and socialist than the SNP, willing to contemplate renationalisation of rail. But it is hard to see Mr Murphy as Scotland's answer to Alexis Tsipras - it just doesn't add up.

I think this credibility problem is why so many Scottish voters have apparently resisted his drive to remake Labour in the SNP's image as a patriotic party of the social democratic left. The Murphy bounce has yet to happen and the opinion polls remain dire for Labour.

I still don't believe Labour is going to lose, as some polls suggest, 40 seats in May or even 20, so the bounce probably will happen. But the way the party is behaving right now isn't helping it get airborne. There has been too much hype and not enough hope.

Of course Mr Murphy had to draw a clear line between the London-dominated Scottish party that was as Johann Lamont put it; "a branch office" and assert its independence. He had to dump a lot of negatives and make Labour again the party of home rule.

But the man has got to slow the hell down. He's looking like the Wile e Coyote of Scottish politics. And we all know what happened to him.