I am going to quote for the second time from an article by David Wearing in the Guardian yesterday supporting Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party. I did so yesterday to note that the touchstone for radicalism in Labour is, apparently, a policy I authored that Corbyn has not adopted. I now note that Wearing says:
Jeremy Corbyn's support unites around clear basic principles: the need to break decisively with neoliberalism, in favour of a new egalitarian economic model, and to defend migrants, minority-ethnic people and those on social security from the rising tide of bigotry and the effects of spending cuts.
This is interesting because in each case I have to ask what this policy really means, and how it translates into electoral policy.
Let's do it in turn. First the claim that there is:
the need to break decisively with neoliberalism
This obviously requires a certain degree of understanding on what neoliberalism is. George Monbiot has written about it. It can be summarised as a logic that suggests that markets are the best determinants of all social outcomes and that anything that interferes with their operation is detrimental to well-being.
Now, of course, I think that neoliberalism is wrong. It very obviously is. And I have spent countless hours saying so. But, let's be clear, unless you are at the far left end of the spectrum which suggests that there is no role for the market at all then the decision on what part markets should play in an economy is not a binary one. The reality is that the UK has been a mixed economy since at least 1945 and that makes it like just about every other major economy in the world. The model does, essentially, work. The question asked in most cases is then where the line should be struck between the sectors.
In that case to say we should break decisively with neoliberalism is easy: we do not have a neoliberal economy as such. What we do have is one where, undoubtedly, the direction of travel has been towards a bigger role for markets, and New Labour did, beyond question, play a part in that trend.
What though does breaking with neoliberalism mean in that case? Does is mean ending markets? Or does it mean changing the direction of travel? And how will we know? And at what point aren't we neoliberal any more? I think these are fair questions to ask. I can offer my answers, of course, but right now i am not sure what the Corbyn answers might be.
I could pick some clear signals for change. Ending the NHS internal market and the trust process would be a start.
Ending school privatisation via the academy programme.
Renationalising rail as franchises end.
Limiting outsourcing from Westminster.
Ending PFI and repurchasing the debt.
Ending the student loan scheme.
Is this what a break from neoliberalism is?
Or does it extend to increased minimum wages, removing tax reliefs on high pay, or even a universal basic income whilst seeking to close tax havens and hold major companies to account via country-by-country reporting, all of which I have suggested and written about?
And if not that, what? I want to know, because I don't. And I do want to know what the role of the market is then. I think it has one. Is that right? Who is saying? And what is the electoral proposition and how will it be framed? Does anyone know?
Then we have:
a new egalitarian economic model
Where has this been written about? What does it mean? Is it even true? Is there such a plan? I really don't know. I think more detail is required. And again, how is this being framed for electoral purposes? Has anyone thought about that? Or whether it will be voted for? It's question that needs asking, surely?
And the policy on migration also needs elaboration. I, of course, believe passionately in defending all people's human rights in all their forms. I would hope everyone on the left and beyond does, but the UK population does not appear to be pro-migrant right now so what defending the rights of migrants means cannot be left hanging as a claim. It has instead to be very carefully explained with the implications made clear and how this results in changes to policy set out. But I have not seen that.
In fact the only claim here that I think is unambiguously understood is the claim that Corbyn is about defending those on social security from the rising tide of bigotry and the effects of spending cuts. This, I think is true and has been evidenced, and I welcome it. I also have set out to explain how it is possible.
But this exception apart the claim David Wearing makes is not clear, despite his claim that it is. The principles around which he says support is being secured have not been clarified. And their consequences have not been explained. In fact, what is really happening is that a wide range of opinion is being projected onto a campaign, just as it was last summer, with a mirror being set up to reflect it back but without evidence being supplied that the campaign has heard or understood, let alone acted upon what is being said to it.
And that is deeply worrying. I genuinely do not know that the clear principles David Wearing says exist do actually have any substance and have no idea what some critical ones mean. And that's my worry: this campaign, like that last summer, could be selling people very short by letting them believe what they want when there is no substance at all to the actual offer and no idea how to deliver whatever that real offer is. And that, when so many have invested so much energy in the idea rather than the reality of the Corbyn campaign is worrying.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
All of this is true… i.e. these are slogans, not policies. They should also be looked at in the light of Corbyn’s aim to turn Labour into a “mass movement”, something that is also not clear but seems to imply the relegation of Labour as a Parliamentary force to a secondary aim or ambition. In which case, even if we have clear policies about “breaking decisively with neoliberalism” “alleviating poverty” or whatever, we will have no obvious way of implementing them.
Put simply, if we are not in power, and Corbyn seems careless about that, we cannot achieve anything. In which case all the fine words mean nothing.
This is a scathing indictment of the weaknesses of team Corbyn. It explains how the public at large remain unmoved by him as a politician.What exactly does he stand for other than decency and a stance against Trident which both have merits but which do not have the power to move electorates. I have lived in hope for some time for clarity of policies from Corbyn but nothing but a vague sense of niceness has emerged.It really is time for his team to provide answers to the questions you have raised.
That ‘vague sense of niceness’ will be smashed by the Tories at a GE when Corbyn’s associations & actions with the likes of the IRA are presented on main stream media. He will be crucified by it & so will Labour.
Jeremy has never been crash hot on policy detail.
We’ve waited since his election to hear more about how he intends to move from broad objectives to narrow and specific policy proposals. I’m not sure he really has much of a clue how to develop sound policy, and I’m clear that he doesn’t have the communication skills required to explain that to the wider electorate.
In comparison, Owen Smith does recognise the need to come up with concrete proposals and seems to be bursting with ideas and energy.
If Corbyn is indeed no good on policy detail, then to be honest he is no better than Tony Blair because by all accounts that is how Blair was (still is).
And conversely being in power and continuing Tory policies will not achieve anything (worth having). At least with Corbyn the intention for change is clear. That cannot be said of the rest of the PLP.
You can believe that
But only if you ignore what is being said
Yes, that may be, but if they only started saying it in the last couple of weeks and have contradicted it with previous statements or actions, it is pretty hard to take them seriously. Don’t you think?
I am sorry: because of the way I see comments I cannot see what you are responding to and as a result am unable to reply
It grieves me to acknowledge this, but speculating about the policy offering that the Labour party might make to voters in an attempt to secure sufficient popular support to command a majority in the Commons is a thoroughly futile exercise at the moment. And it is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. It will take a long time for the party to emerge from the mess in which it finds itelf. There is no point whatsoever in discussing its policy priorities as a government-in-waiting when it is clear to the vast majority of voters that it is totally incapable of governing itself.
In my view the focus now should be on pressurising the Tories to provide some legislative and policy implementation substance to the ostensibly progressive policy departures (e.g., curtailing tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, remedying dodgy corporate governance and the abuse of dominant positions in markets for essential services, promoting infrastructure investment and advancing an industrial strategy) advanced by the new PM.
History suggests that the Tory commitment to legislate for and to implement these policies will be half-hearted at best.
The nature of coverage at the moment makes it rather implausible for either candidate to get a policy message through except as a stick to beat them with. The focus has been squarely on ad hominem and petty bickering within the party.
Of course, Corbyn has had more time to deliver a message but as the LSE report revealed, only 26% of the coverage has reported his views without misrepresentation. (http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf)
For clarification on the role of markets, I would recommend reading this blog post: http://socialisteconomicbulletin.blogspot.dk/2016/07/the-corbyn-government-and-private-sector.html
This approach is reflected in McDonnell’s repeated messages about a strategic state, a mixed economy where government is willing to intervene and so on.
There are two issues with that
First, it’s not what John McDonnell has said
Second, Tom O’Leary says I have renounced Corbynomics when that’s not true: it is simply not being delivered is my message
So that piece resolves nothing
Very well said Richard. I think that really hits the nail on the head.
It seems to me, as a concerned outside observer, that — whatever his original intentions were – Jeremy Corbyn has become something of a cult figure, idolised by a band of followers who are incapable of making & intolerant of listening to even the smallest criticism of their guru and for whom achieving the political power necessary to deliver their stated goals democratically is of at most secondary importance. Either (as I tend to suspect) Jeremy is perfectly happy with this state of affairs — in which case he is surely not the man we need to lead the Labour party (and the official opposition) in Parliament — or he is not. In the latter case, surely the time has come for him to a) to say so, unambiguously and b) to seriously consider passing the reins to someone with no such undesirable baggage. Having seen the video recording of his Newsnight interview, I have the feeling Owen Smith could well be up to the task. But — as has been said elsewhere – he will have a huge mountain to climb unless Jeremy Corbyn does the honorable thing and abandons his dogged fight to remain as leader at all costs.
Anyone who has any doubts about what we are in for under the present Tory government could do worse than read George Monbiot’s latest article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/27/sovereignty-corporations-liam-fox-eu
as well as Aditya Chakrabortty here:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/26/broken-britain-lives-on-in-sports-direct-and-bhs
and, for good measure, the latest TUC report showing that “between 2007 and 2015 in the UK, real wages fell by 10.4%, the joint lowest in OECD countries”
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jul/27/uk-joins-greece-at-bottom-of-wage-growth-league-tuc-oecd
The Guardian adds that “While wages in the UK have faltered, ministers have sought to instead highlight rising employment” – something that neds to be said more often.
Taken together, they paint a chilling, but I fear far from inaccurate, picture of what lies ahead if the progressive opposition cannot somehow get its act together — and fast.
I am saddened and fearful for the future of the land of my birth. I may no longer live there (and am thankful to have a French — as well as a British – passport), but I do care deeply.
And while real wages fall, we are told that ‘the economy’ (as measured by GDP) continues to grow – for whom does it grow and for whom does the bell toll?
Hint: no answer needed
I agree with this – there are defifinate principles of intent but nothing more concrete.
It’s more Anthony Giddens or Steve Hilton to be honest. There’s not much too it but feel the warmth……………….
Corbyn and McDonell have been making mistakes by listening to New Keynesian economists. They may be in the woods, so to speak. But even that is an achievement compared to many in the Labour Party. My belief is that should he lose this battle, there will not be any more economic conferences, no more debate, and no more invitations to economists who happen to have a view outside the neoliberal consensus.
Corbyn said at the May Conference in Imperial College, (right at the end), that “we will consult more widely.” That was with regard to the economy. I think that his desire is to find the right economics to fit the needs of the people. He will find it if we give him a chance. I think that a mistake is much better than the wrong beliefs.
Last year Yvette Cooper was shouting at Corbyn on camera last year telling him that PQE would cause inflation. She along with Chris Leslie are firmly in the neoliberal mould and would change nothing. They would be back firmly in place should Corbyn fail to keep the leadership. the support Owen, because he will deliver what they want.
Sandra
Respectfully, your last comments are, I think, just wrong
But I have been having discussions with owen Smith off and on for five years and maybe you have not
Richard
That’s great Richard, but Owen Smith isn’t going to win, is he? He knows he isn’t going to win, so he can make any promises he wants, because however pessimistic you are about Corbyn’s chances of ever becoming PM, they are higher than Smith’s; which are effectively zero.
As to your sub rosa discussions with Owen Smith, perhaps rather than merely referencing them, you could elucidate the substance of them. I can’t be alone in being eager to find out with what policy ideas he has seduced you.
He hasn’t sauced me with anything
And you can read his speech today as readily as I can
I am also not a member of Labour – wasn’t for Corbyn and am not for Smith
But from what I see he is vastly more competent and could at least lead an opposition
Corbyn can’t and won’t be as a matter of fact doing that – he can’t full the required posts
So the reality is you can choose Corbyn if you wish but I will point out that in doing so you effectively choose non-opposition
And I can that a failure in terms of parliamentary democracy that is hard to forgive
Surely we’re approaching a tipping point when the IMF (a bastion of neoliberal policies) publishes an unfavourable critique of neoliberal as it’s been applied in many western countries. It won’t be very long before everyone is anti-austerity as highlighted my May’s statement on the steps of 10 Downing Street.
(Neoliberalism: Oversold?)
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm
Although the IMF Chief Economist, Maury Obstfeld has said that the article has been widely misinterpreted and it does not signify a major change in the Fund’s approach
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2016/POL060216A.htm
Richard
Of course you have a right to pose these questions but what you seem to be saying is Corbyn must come up with an election manifesto immediately, when there is no general election in sight. No other LP leader has ever been asked to do that. The fact his opponents have liked your post says it all really.
The changes Corbyn Labour hope to achieve are momentous I’m sure you will agree, and powerful forces will and are fighting against implementing this policy tooth and nail. Corbyn Labour is not about issuing as Owen Jones does policies manufactured by his PR advisor which often contradict things he has said and done in the past. One of the reason’s Momentum is so important is because it moves beyond the mainstream media and will give an extra parliamentary push in helping to achieve these plans by taking these ideas throughout the nation..
The LP neoliberals understand full well if Jeremy can keep his job, given time his policies will gain traction in the land, hence their show of desperation to get rid of him now. With respect now is not the time to help help them even if it is unintentionally. Or do you believe Owen Smith is willing or even capable of implementing anti neoliberal politics?
Yes Corbyn has made mistakes he is on a learning kerb, but if you cannot help him please don’t hinder him, as far as I can see he is the only frontline politician willing to take on the Neoliberal louts who have damaged and destroyed so many people’s lives.
If you’re asking too be elected don’t you think it fair to say why?
Owen Smith clearly does
And I think he’s right
I meant Owen Smith above not Jones in my post above You are not serious about Mr Smith , surely, he has said far less than Jeremy yet you take him at face value, you know where Jeremy stands on the big issues of the day why are you muddying the water. You demand detail from others but have failed to deal with any of the points I raised above and as Matty said if Jeremy had made up party policy as he went along he would have been howled down by the neocons just as he was when he voted against Trident.
I just cannot see how any one who professes your ideas would support Smith, surely in life the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and Owen’s record is not one which would appeal to a working class pensioner like me. Even his rolled up shirt sleeves wreaks of Blair.
You keep saying Jeremy should have delivered, but you do not say what nor to whom this delivery should have been made. if it is the the nation at large this is exactly what will happen over the coming weeks. Yes it would have been better if he was working with colleagues on policy details, but your mate Mr Smith put paid to that.
I have always admired your work but I am stunned by your support for Smith, I find it irrational to say the least, you say he’s competent and could at least lead an opposition, which may be true as the neocons will troop in behind knowing full well if not one of their own he is a pliable and over ambitious fellow.
If you are not a LP member why are you meddling in internal LP affairs with such vigour? Just out of interest has Mr Smith offered you a role? If so fine but we need to understand where you are coming from.
By the way Corbyn has not taken up your ideas, some of us were arguing for these when you weren’t even a twinkle in your dads eyes.
There are so many absurd assumptions in there it is hard to tell to start, beginning with the claim that only Labour members are allowed an opinion
And most of it is pure drivel e.g. on on borrowing ideas: he did, and that’s a fact
But let’s come down to the essence. What you’re saying is that there is no one in Labour who ever did anything of worth before last September, apparently
I can confidently say that’s not true
And I can confidently say there are many people in labour I can work with – Jeremy included so long as he is not leader, for which he has no relevant skills – and also some who voted against him
But then I am happy to also work with Tories, LibDems, the SNP and others on occasion because this idea that only a tiny number of labour MPs hold the truth in their hands is absurd
I am quite sure Owen Smith and I would not agree on everything. But I want an opposition. I want a government that helps those in need. I want a government that rejects neoliberalism. He’d deliver all them as far as I can see
And I know Jeremy Corbyn never will
Why wouldn’t I take a workable option in that case?
Instead of, as you are, choosing to continue the status quo
If only all you commentators would get behind Corbyn and give him the benefit of your knowledge and clear policy ideas , then we could evolve a new anti austerity and fairer economic system, instead of making constantly unhelpful crticisms. There is no election in sight so get on with working out the alternative political approach, including your list which includes taking back the railways into public ownership and all the other positive proposals. Corbyn has set out good policies too, for instance paying for higher education with a reasonable tax on corporations. No young parson wants to start their working life with up to £50,000 debt. The people are hungry for change towards a fairer society and Corbyn is the only one to have offered that vision in a greedy capitalist world. He will win the election so work positively with him.
He had my benefit
He borrowed my policies
And he was useless with them
A bit harsh, even leaders can’t just wave a hand and say this is now policy. Policy has to go through a democractic policy-making cycle of Joint Policy Commissions, the National Policy Forum and eventually Party Conference. Corbyn hasn’t even reached a single conference yet (at last year’s he had been leader for about 2 weeks). See http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/ for Labour’s website on policy-making
He can propose what he likes
Stop making excuses
He’s failed to deliver
Have you even looked at the website http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/ ?
Sure
And I just looked again
Where’s the list of policies?
I can’t even find them
From the website:
“Please read the document, think about the questions it asks, and share your ideas in a submission. Submissions will be considered by the Policy Commission in advance of the National Policy Forum meeting in July. Commissions will submit a report on their work to Annual Conference which is responsible for agreeing Labour’s policy programme.”
You see the Labour Party is a democratic party – detailed policies get approved by the Annual Conference. Do you want the leader to force policies on the membership?
This is a leadership election
People have to know what they are voting for
I distinctly remember that Cameron’s Conservative party didn’t have any specified policies for a good year or so after he won the leadership of the party. His conference speech in 2006 noted as such, talking vaguely about the areas they were to examine in a policy review.
Much the same as the Labour Party’s stance under Corbyn, it would seem – the Yourbritain web site notes the various policy commissions asking for submissions.
I can’t really see a substantive difference between where Cameron stood on policy at this point in the electoral cycle and where Corbyn stands now.
On the other hand, one difference between then and now (other than the slings and arrows being hurled at Corbyn from both the media and his own side) is that the government can’t easily call a snap election any longer.
Therefore, I agree it would be a good idea to outline policies earlier in the parliament, not least because it would give longer to try and promote them to the electorate. Keep bashing away at things, so to speak.
I do wonder if perhaps such a policy list might exist had there been a bit of support for or even some ambivalence towards Corbyn’s leadership within the PLP instead of the complete opposite? If you’re working endlessly to try and keep shadow cabinet posts filled amidst endless briefing in the media and resignations, it can’t leave as much free time to look at policy.
Nothing wrong with Smith’s new list of policies from a brief glance. As it remains likely Corbyn will win the leadership vote, let’s hope his opponents (including Smith) will look to bring some of these policies on board once the race has been run.
This is a leadership election
Jeremy does not need to refer to such things?
Why not?
“I believe that integrity is important in politics, as in all things. I was elected as a Labour representative, not as an independent delegate, and the leader of Labour sets our position.”
– Owen Smith explaining why he abstained on the welfare bill.
I do not trust Owen Smith, a former Pfizer consultant. Furthermore, by electing him a precedent is set. Even if Owen Smith is as anti-neoliberalist as you proclaim him to be, even if he were to win the election he will be leader thanks to the PLP and he will be at the mercy of the PLP. And the majority of them still think (even after 2010 and 2015) that you win elections by going Tory-lite and pretending that the New Labour wing of the party are the “competent”, “pragmatic” ones.
I worked for KPMG
In that case what are you doing here?
And why did Jeremy Corbyn eevr use my ideas?
Or is it that you’re just choosing to be prejudiced?
Wait until you need a Pfizer drug….then see what you think
Smith has said “austerity is right”. As Pfizer guy he actively promoted NHS privatization.
But most importantly, he’s the PLP’s candidate. They denounced your policies when Corbyn espoused them.
No he has not said austerity is right. Read his speech this week
I worked for KPMG. Is this blog a whole front then?
And the PLP did not oppose my views – some of which were in th last Labiur manifesto
Some questioned my opinion. Some. And that is their right
Now try engaging objectively
Thanks Richard, a thought provoking article. You’re absolutely right to call out the projection of all sorts of ideas onto the blank canvas of Corbynism.
Neoliberalism depicts competition as the defining characteristic of human intercourse. This means that market interactions are framed as basically combative and it is assumed that the most efficient allocation of resources and production leads to the most fair society.
I think this is in direct conflict with socialism and the ideals on which the Labour Party was founded. So to reject neoliberalism is to reject the idea that the market is the arbiter of our society and our moral conscience. That means policies that restrict markets only to areas where “efficient allocation of resources” aligns with our moral philosophy for a flourishing society. Concretely it means at the very least privatisation of structural monopolies that provide basic public services, regulation to ensure sustainable use of common resources & the environment, and support for worker collectives that can counter-balance corporate power.
I’m not sure whether a majority of the Labour Party has ever really believed in these ideals, but anything that rejects the moral framing of neoliberalism is a good direction to move in.
But what does this mean?
That offering an alternative to neoliberalism is an important ideological distinction, not just a difference in presentation or even policy. The establishment consensus is that the markets are the best way to distribute resources and that price-based value judgements lead to the most fair outcomes. This is very different to capitalism as imagined by Adam Smith and his peers.
I don’t believe that the current neoliberal consensus is compatible with socialism or social democratic principles; in my opinion it isn’t a sound moral foundation to build our society and economy.
The Labour Party needs to offer an alternative to the neoliberal model or it doesn’t truly offer an alternative to the Conservatives.
So what is that alternative?
I have said what I think it is
Few others do
What do you say?
Re: So what is that alternative? (July 29 11:21)
The alternative is socialism or at least social democracy, we need to break decisively with neoliberalism. For the record I’m not a member of any political party and I genuinely want to know whether Labour can offer an alternative to the current consensus.
Over the past 25 years Labour hasn’t offered an alternative to neoliberalism, it has simply sugared the bitter pill by funding social support mechanisms. At its core this policy relies on “trickle down economics” and assumes that a “rising tide will raise all boats”, both of which have been terribly unsuccessful and fundamentally always will be. This New Labour policy pact was always flawed and fell apart with the 2008 crisis and subsequent stagnation.
I’ve offered my opinion of policies that are an alternative to neoliberalism above, and there are political movements and academics around the world who have much more practical experience of this than a lay person like me.
I genuinely want to know whether Owen Smith or Jeremy Corbyn can offer an alternative, I doubt it but I’d very much like to be convinced that they can because a healthy Labour Party is needed for a healthy democracy in this country. In my opinion up to and including Ed Milliband the Labour Party was on a trajectory of slow decline simply because it didn’t offer an alternative. What do you think, does Labour offer a alternative?
So how do you define socialism
To put it another way, what would it look like?
And how will you make it work when no one has succeeded to date?
What is more, how do you make a materialist concept sustainable?
Ok, I’ll answer those.
While I’m thinking about it, could you tell me whether Labour does offer an alternative or whether it wants to continue with the current economic framework?
It wants to work in a mixed economy
It therefore accepts that the private sector and so private ownership of part of the means of production subject to appropriate regulation has a role in the eocnomy
That’s rather non-committal: I could, if I wanted to be mean, include the current Conservative policy framework under that remit. Instead I’ll assume the context of Owen Smith’s policy proposals. These offer a real alternative to the Conservatives, but I fear they won’t survive in government without the backing of a intellectual moral framework.
Do you agree with Owen’s 20 policy proposals?
What do you think is the intellectual and moral framework that underpins them?
I have broad agreement with the proposals
They need fleshing out
They are not comprehensive
I suspect I would be more radical in some areas
The framework is that of Keynes and the post war consensus coupled with a Green New Deal. And that does need to be written
Maybe that’s next year’s book for me
Sounds like a good idea. I get the impression that there has been a lot of misinterpretation of Keynes, or at least conflicting interpretations. It’s a shame that Keynes wasn’t around longer to clear these differing interpretations up and make his vision clearer.
Certainly I think we need something bold, incorporating a Green New Deal, I hope you’re able to get this message across in a new book or otherwise.
Thanks,
Simon
I’ve been thinking about this a great deal lately. I think I would be satisfied with a general understanding that public services act as stabilising institutions in a market economy and should not be outsourced or subject to internal markets.
Other stuff would be nice too, obviously, but at present I would vote for anyone who was offering that.
You say we should engage objectively, but that is not what you have been doing, when someone post something critical of you, you either ignore it, say it is absurd, drivel, or falsely claim those of us who support Corbyn believe there is no one in Labour who ever did anything of worth before last September. Which is not only completely untrue as you well know but is a ridiculous thing to claim.
I cannot understand why you claim ownership of austerity, taxation and nationalisation measures, yes you played a positive role in thinking through and publishing the necessary changes which must be made to the UK tax system, all credit to you for that, but many others contributed too this debate.
The whole point about Corbyn Labour is to change the public mind in the country, in many ways we are increasingly pushing at an open door. This is why the LP right have panicked into their coup attempt. It has nothing to do with brexit as I am sure you well know.
What we have been forced into is a cul de sac of an unnecessary side show. Owen who is how the overwhelming majority of the LP membership are coming at this contest. If you were truly anti austerity etc you would see that and argue to make the next few weeks a positive space to take the Corbyn Labour strategy into the country.
Read what I wrote this morning
Still the massive gulf between the beliefs and the economic theory, which many of us may hold and understand, and an argument which, put sensibly, can and will appeal to millions in the electorate who feel totally abandoned by the party. That isn’t a ‘Blairite’ stance, and the very suggestion that is, is a demonstration of the narrow simplicity that thousands of members are using in this debate ( nay…fight, because that’s what it is)but do these members, holding banners outside Westminster, have any idea how Corbyn will ever win over millions of working class voters that we have lost? Political debate, whether members agree with it or not, that sits better in a 60s student bedsit than in our real world, will never give the party power. The self-congratulatory enclaves that will cheerfully console each other when we lose another general election, need to reflect seriously on how they will explain to the millions that will have been let down yet again by the party that should be on their side NOW, not in forty years time…..ahhh, but that’ll never happen because these folk rarely venture out to address hostile groups from their own wing of the political spectrum.