Being on the left and saying that you know (not just think or feel, but know) that Jeremy Corbyn is failing the left very badly right now takes courage.
I know. People with whom I thought I shared common ground now think it entirely appropriate to be rude in ways I never expected and which say so much about them and so little about me that I am very saddened.
I am not a red Tory, a turncoat, a neoliberal, a Blairite or anything else that they suggest.
I am just a person who is deeply concerned that first of all Jeremy Corbyn claims to be radical and is so emphatically not that he wants to issue bonds to pacify the City rather than do People's QE that could crush PFI.
And second, to be candid, I do not trust a man who will not trust parliamentary democracy, as he clearly does not. That to me has been his step beyond the boundary of acceptability.
For a man I have long admired, and who I believe to be of the real left, that step beyond acceptability came on Europe. The man in question is Alex Andreou, who has written a 'long read' on his transition from being a Corbyn supporter a year ago to someone who now realises that he really is simply unelectable.
Alex has already taken much abuse for saying this on Twitter. So much in fact that he's taken a break from that medium because, I suspect the hurt of being on it is too great. He has my sympathy. I know too often how he feels.
In solidarity with him I endorse what he has to say. I urge you to read it. And if you don't agree do at least wonder why some of us - in fact many of us - who were apparently the people who wrote for the left a year or so ago now think as Alex does. Because I will tell you none of us have changed except for the fact that we did perhaps get quite close to Jeremy Corbyn and then realised what a terrible mistake it had been for Labour to elect him. And we all - well, all of us who define ourselves as democrats because we believe in parliamentary democracy and all that goes with it - did something like the thought experiment Alex outlines.
It takes guts to say so right now. Alex Andreou is in my opinion a man of courage.
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:
I have far more faith in your appraisal of Jeremy Corbyn’s influence on politics than I do in Alex’s. He writes like a petulant jilted lover and his narcissism has spoiled what might have been an article to change opinions, needlessly, into a target. You have a far less emotional style and, as a result, far greater influence.
My intention into vote once more for Corbyn, not because I don’t see his flaws but for these reasons
1. The candidate chosen to oppose him does not appear to be one I would ever have voted for.
2. I believe the Brexit vote has revealed a deeper discontent in the electorate than papering the cracks will satisfy.
3. Many of the criticisms of Corbyn have been veiled or vague or from those who are themselves equally flawed.
I think there is a deep and possibly terminal mistrust of the political class in Westminster. In particular, the behaviour of the PLP has offended a significant number of party members who may never trust them again. Some may even face local deselection.
It may take radical electoral reform to resolve matters in the long run, but I cannot see any way to avoid a split in the Labour Party in the short term. Now may be the ideal time for people such as yourself who have credibility in a profession and gravitas within the left wing to step into the void. It occurs to me that it might be necessary to elevate a suitable unity candidate to the Lords from outside the Westminster “bubble”. You might be the ideal choice.
Thanks for your confidence
I doubt I could ever play such a role
Whatever you think of Jeremy, he has failed in his role as leader of the opposition and leader of the party. If his job was simply to boost the membership he’d be on for a bonus, but as leader he has simply preached to the choir, doubled the size of the choir, but has emptied the church. He is incompetent, not in the “slick before the media” sense, but in the basic ability to turn ideas/slogans into policies, stick with those policies (not change his mind on TV!), sell those policies to those not sure of them – in short to do what you need to do to get what you want to get done. He is a dead leader at -40% approval, and 14% behind in his first year, who will never recover. There is no evidence Owen would lead as badly (he might?) so we have to give him a chance or be stuck with the Tories for the next 14 years.
I’m sorry but I don’t see courage in Andreou’s article, just the disappointment of someone with over-inflated expectations who finds it hard to keep going in tough times. Those of us who never thought Corbyn walked on water aren’t surprised to see him getting his feet wet. But this has never been about a single person. It’s about the empowerment that having a Labour leader committed to progressive causes gives to ordinary trades unionists, campaigners, community activists and those new to politics. It’s because this leadership campaign is about defending that liberating empowerment that few people are interested in policy detail such as PQE or fiscal rules. This matters but there’s a time and place, and it’s not now.
Andreou makes the usual complaints about abuse. I don’t use Twitter as it’s never struck me as a medium that encourages reflection, so I can’t comment on what goes on there. Outside cyber-space, my experience is that Corbyn supporters are polite and welcoming. We’ve gone out of our way to work with those with whom we disagree. The hostility comes from those who see new members as a liability rather than an asset. There has been no purge but that is exactly what we fear if Smith wins. The lengths to which some party officials have gone to rig the election is shocking.
Corbyn has taken a lot of unjustified stick on the EU, some of it repeated by Andreou. ‘Remain and reform’ was the only credible line to take. The ‘holiday’ criticism is absurd as well as false. Even Corbyn’s opponents admit he works hard and after one day’s break he was in Port Talbot speaking with steel workers who had just learnt their plant would close. Stating after the referendum that we now had to implement article 50 was an acknowledgement of political reality. Denouncing him for that is a bit like condemning your doctor for a diagnosis. Smith is proposing a second referendum “when terms are clear” but that can’t work as the EU will not negotiate until article 50 has been triggered and once it has then we’re on our way out. I campaigned to Remain but we lost.
I note what you say
But I wonder how you can ignore so much and nitpick on so little
I guess what’s important and what’s nitpicking depends on the circles you move in and what you’re trying to do. I’m not an ‘Armchair Che’ of the type that bothers Andreou. I was a trades union activist for 35 years and I’m now a Labour Party branch secretary working with my local community. The attempt by party officials to demonise and marginalise people like me matters greatly.
Don’t worry so much about those who rant on social media! If you really want to know who supports Corbyn, then visit events like the one I was at in Merthyr Tydfil on Friday, with hundreds of local people to hear him at a rally chaired by the mayor of Merthyr council, with follow speakers an agricultural worker who is a member of Unite’s EC, the Wales organiser of the PCS and Tyrone O’Sullivan, the Welsh miners’ leader who led the buyout of Tower colliery. Not an ‘Armchair Che’ to be seen!
But doesn’t it worry you that JC can’t deliver?
Doesn’t that matter?
If not, why not?
It’s not about him, it’s about us. The party now has half a million members. If we can engage a good number of those in active work in workplaces and communities then we can turn this around after Corbyn’s re-election. That’s a big challenge but it’s the only way.
But you’re not interested in having a functioning opposition
Why is that?
Is it all about the coming revolution for you?
Please explain
Agree Penderyn
Deeply disappointed that the Corbyn Crew have dropped the alternative QE option – particularly at this moment which is absolutely the right one to be pushing it forward when the Bank of England are trying to push on string once again.
However I will continue to support Corbyn. He may be a poor leader – I am not in a good position to know. I doubt that even Richard is in any position to compare Corbyn to that superb leader Blair, as I doubt Blair would have given Richard the time of day.
The Labour Party needs to regroup and repair the damage that has been done over a long period when it completely lost it’s raison d’etre. Until that process has worked through I am sticking with Corbyn.
There won’t be party to repair then
How exactly this (and David Turner’s post) exemplify the most glaring flaws in the very position they think they’re championing! Note that the writers’ response to criticism is first and foremost to woundingly and patronisingly disparage the critic, whilst conspicuously failing to rebut the substance of his (well-argued and -documented) critique. Who, apart from the baying mob, (see https://medium.com/@ruthie_dee/no-longer-welcome-in-my-own-home-4672dc7a08a5#.7t5damtqh ) do they think that that tactic succeeds in fooling?
Given the plethora of testimony to precisely the opposite effect (of which the link cited is but one random example), not to mention the published content of Millenium’s and other groups’ propaganda, to suggest that it is Corbyn aupporters like Penderyn who are the ones being threatened with being purged is simply risible.
“It’s because this leadership campaign is about defending that liberating empowerment that few people are interested in policy detail such as PQE or fiscal rules. This matters but there’s a time and place, and it’s not now”.
How pleasant it must feel to be luxuriating in that warm bath of “liberating empowerment” whilst all around you the Labour party disintegrates! And how telling that a branch secretary should appear quite unperturbed that his party is totally failing to undertake the task in the Commons which those who voted for it elected it to perform, namely to be an effective opposition, because the leader whom the grass-roots elected doesn’t subscribe to parliamentary democracy and is only interested in “empowering” an extra-parliamentary “movement”, to the exclusion of turning his mind to such inessential details as party policy and leadership of the opposition!
The electorate punished Benn, Foot, Militant and (inferentially) Scargill and all he stood for. Nothing is more certain than that it will punish Corbynism.
“It may take radical electoral reform to resolve matters in the long run, but I cannot see any way to avoid a split in the Labour Party in the short term”.
Oh, so that’s OK then. It’s good that you can feel so detached about the prospect of one-party (Tory) rule, with no effective parliamentary opposition to speak-of, for as far ahead as anyone can see. And is UKIP invisible from your eyrie?
Sorry, I meant “Momentum” of course, not “Millenium” – tho’ come to think of it perhaps that would be more apt as its name.
Richard, I wish you would take some time to write about our actual government and all the mistakes they made and how they are still ripping off Britain. I’d love to know your take on how Osbourne has been rewarded for cutting public funding (in some councils like Lambeth by 52% so all our services are suffering, as well as cutting benefits so that the government is being cited by the UN for human rights abuse. Mrs May is and will continue to quietly privitise everything while people like you are joining the media with Corbyn bashing. No-one seems to care that Cameron & Osbourne & Farge have thrown a genade into our country and have just walked away – no doubt into 6 figure salary “rewards” from those organisations they have been serving.
If there is no functioning opposition to deliver what I might write about what is the point?
Speaking as an outsider to the labour party’s position, I read Mr Andreou’s article with interest. From previous pieces I have seen him as an articulate and interesting commentator, though I do not always agree with him.
This piece strikes me as illogical, which is unlike him. I fully accept that one’s interpretation of events can honestly differ, and that is no bad thing. What I cannot understand is criticism of failure to support trident, as arrogance in face of the majority will: and simultaneous criticism of support for launch of article 50, which is demonstrably the majority will. The latter has been directly canvassed; the former not. I do not say Mr Andreou is wrong in his perception of wide support for trident: but it is far less certain that the other which has so recently been tested in a referendum. At worst Mr Andreou seems to be attacking Mr Corbyn for doing what he does himself, at least in that aspect.
It is sad that personal abuse has been “normalised”, but for myself I am far less disturbed by that than by the generalised abuse which is far more readily accepted. Such generalisations will predictably generate a response from some. For example, I am sick of being characterised as a nazi because I vote SNP, for now. Tired of accusations of thuggery, as well. Weary of hearing that I am stupid, or racist, because I voted to leave the EU. I do not often respond in kind, but I understand how that happens and those who level such charges do not have clean hands in the cess pit. It does not make it ok to say such things if you do not attach a name to them. Libel/slander law says it does, but in the real world of exchange the distinction is irrelevant to the experience.
We all have our core issues. Mr Andreou appears to say his are Europe and competence. Yours, Mr Murphy, seem to be Europe (perhaps) and neoliberal economics. That is all fair enough. Yet I am unable to understand that a call for radical challenge to economic orthodoxy ( which I also seek and support) can be reconciled with the “pragmatism” demanded in pursuit of “electability”. Do you honestly believe that the “household budget” narrative has been undermined enough, as yet, in the public mind? I see no sign of that. People do not shift from that understanding even to a keyesian tale, in one move. No more than they change from what Mr Andreou characterises as centrist social policy to socialism in one move
I am not a “corbynista” and indeed the very framing of the debate in terms of leadership is distasteful to me. I am not comfortable at all with the presidential character of uk politics, which has increased steadily since Thatcher. “Strong leader” is the chant of totalitarians everywhere: current focus on that is deeply worrying to me. Prior to Thatcher and in the early years of her government there were figures in government who had clout because they represented a strong strand within each party. and those of us old enough do remember names from that time of people who had influence and power independent of patronage. Where are such figures now? The quality of candidates for leadership in both main parties tells a story: one which is reflected at all levels of society as power and autonomy have been centralised while the siren song of “empowerment” has been sung to hide the change to homogeneity. The EU referendum is a direct consequence of that, it seems to me, since the tory party internal division was so deep and long lasting that the “courtier” model could not contain it.
Some on the “moderate” wing of the labour party seem to me to be facing precisely what happened to those of us who used to be on the left of that party and are no longer even supporters. They are being told that their vision is harmful and the party has no need for them. It hurts, doesn’t it? It is not true, either. In Scotland it is often said “I did not leave the labour party; the labour party left me” and that is true. And now there is the possibility it will be equally true for those who see themselves as centrist, but who are in fact to the right of Ted Heath. This is where the “lesser of two evils” has led. It is very sad indeed.
To me, those people in the labour establishment who rely on an appeal to the marginal voter have missed a central point: their success was achieved at the expense of the core labour vote. This is what we see in Scotland. The SNP are no more radical in the economic terms you promote than is a Corbyn labour administration. That is greatly to be regretted. Nonetheless they are the best on offer, for a social democrat like me: and so I vote for them. To that extent I vote “the lesser of two evils”, in the same way as those I criticise for recommending that course. I do not deny that at all. But that lesser evil vote is qualified in time, and in pursuit of a positive goal: it is not an end in itself, and therein lies the difference for me.
Corbyn appears to represent that same option for rUK, though without the clear and simple goal which make is easier for the SNP. Nonetheless I see no prospect for labour unless it re engages with the core vote, and that vote is left. It is inconceivable that labour can win enough centre and swing voters to repair the loss of the core support, which bedrock is assumed in all the calculations of the “triangulators”. Mr Blair said that core had nowhere else to go and in making that assumption he hollowed out the party. In Scotland we do have somewhere else to go and we went. In England Mr Corbyn may indeed be “somewhere else to go”: if not then labour is doomed, IMO.
One need not agree with any of that, of course. But nothing in Mr Andreou’s article seems to me to meet the substantive case as I see it.
You start with an error and continued with it
Keeping trident was labour policy and Corbyn ignored it
Opposing article 50 was in effect labour policy even if there was a brexit vote
Corbyn ignored the membership on both
Those thinking he wants a membership movement should take note. He doesn’t
He wants unaccountable power as badly as Blair ever did
But he wouldn’t even know what to to do with it
I see no error. Trident was indeed party policy, and Corbyn has always opposed it. He can be legitimately criticised for that as I said. Supporting a vote to remain was also party policy, and Corbyn campaigned for that rather effectively, judging from the labour vote to remain: many of his PLP critics did not deliver on that in their own constituencies. But what that tells us is not that Corbyn was in fact effective or his critics ineffective, necessarily. I see no reason to suppose that this was a party issue in a simplistic sense and I do not think that people were there to be “delivered” by any party (see tory vote for leave).
However after holding a referendum it seems to me we should all respect the result. For you to assert that “opposing article 50 was in effect labour policy even if there was a brexit vote” surprises me. I do not remember that decision being taken at all. I wonder what the force of “in effect” is in that sentence.
If you are correct, however, then I find it shocking. A referendum has been held, whether that was wise or not. I see no case for not respecting the result of that referendum and I think the majority of the population expect that whoever is in power, legal points about who has the authority to implement it, notwithstanding
My point is that Mr Andreou thinks Mr Corbyn should respect the will of the majority on trident but not on the brexit vote. Mr Corbyn is not consistently respecting that will, but to a lesser extent than Mr Andreou, in these particular issues, which he has chosen to raise in outlining his journey: the position on the EU has been directly tested very recently: that on trident has not, and it is not certain a majority of labour membership still support it, though they may well. It was not debated at conference last time out IIRC: one might wonder why.
I completely agree the party needs to be honest with itself: and that the acrimony is damaging too. But pots and kettles, at best.
Corbyn has now agreed he should not have said what he did about Article 50 because it was contrary to Labour policy
He does not agree with you
In that case what did Alex get wrong?
And what did I get wrong?
Fair enough. If labour policy is to ignore the outcome of a referendum, and Mr Corbyn accepts that is the case, then he should not have said it. I do not remember that policy decision, and I am astonished it was taken. But as I said, I turned away from Labour long ago. If it is a party which can indeed have a policy which opposes the outcome of a referendum then it is more evidence that I was right to do so: and right to be cautious in believing that Mr Corbyn could deliver a change which would make them worth reconsidering in the future.
Fundamentally it is none of my business. The information that the party opposes the popular will to that extent means it never will be.
Keeping Trident is not Labour policy. It was deliberately not discussed at the conference last year and there is in effect no policy on Trident at the moment.
So the last policy continues
You are so right
You say that you “know” Corbyn is failing the left, but why then is he winning the lion’s share of CLP nominations? Why are people flocking to the Labour Party and to see him speak? Why is it that you see him as a failure and a growing proportion of the general public and Labour Party members (surely CLPs are the very core of the Party?) see him as a new hope in politics?
His failings are overshadowed by the optimism and compassion that he embodies. This is the simple reason for his success and (likely) re-election.
A small part of society are taken in by him and have joined labour
J understand why people are so keen on an.alternative to what we have had
But the public do not share the view of those joining Labour. I genuinely feel they have rumbled him fir what he is
And whilst of course he has a role in labour I do not see him as a leader
But labour will decide , probably for him
I am certain that will end labour but many seem to want that
As a non-member I would regret it
We agree that there should be drastic change. We agree that JC originally had your support (in that he was proposing to implement policies that you had advocated) and that he has brought genuine leftwing ideas to the forefront of British politics.
How is it that JC supporters are taken in by him? He does not strike me as deceitful or disingenuous (in fact, that is one of the criticisms frequently levelled at him) so what is there to be taken in by?
I struggle to understand why brilliant campaigners like yourself are willing to abandon this political shift? Corbyn has pulled the political spectrum away from tory insanity and towards compassion. His skills as a manager are not the issue! It is his ideals that we elected him for.
When Corbyn was elected, we had 5 more years of Tory murder to look forward to. Now we have 4 more years of it, and we have a growing engagement with the Labour Party that is built on an ethos of compassion and respect. This is a better outcome than Labour would have enjoyed under any of the other three candidates last year. The politics-as-usual model is broken and rightly so.
I cannot support him because he is utterly politically incompetent in the sense that
a) He ignores everyone and says whatever he likes – and that is not possible in politics
b) He has no idea what he is really about, only what he opposes, and that is hopeless in a leader
c) He will massively disappoint as a result
d) His organisational ability is worse than that of the person who cannot organise a piss up in a brewery
I would live it were otherwise but he’s a walking disaster conning people into thinking he is listening when he is doing nothing of the sort and is able when I can see no real ability to deliver political leadership at all
I entirely agree that politics as was is broken
But Corbyn is no way forward
And will guarantee 20 years of right wing government
Ideals mean not a thing – absolutely nothing at all – if you cannot deliver then
Go to church if you want ideals – but in politics it is all about winning elections and Corbyn never will
The membership has increased by hundreds of thousands who have joined to back Corbyn. However, at the same time there are millions who are turning away from us and will never vote labour whilst Corbyn is in charge. If we maintain on our current path we are going to make Michael Foot’s election result seem brilliant..We are heading into the abyss and sadly Corbyn may have already caused damage that will take decades to repair.
He is winning by relatively narrow margins because of entryists and new naive members
I basically, and with a heavy heart, agree with you and Alex, Richard. But tell me, now what? Perhaps you’ve answered this is previous posts, but I can’t find anything in a quick skim of your headlines, so perhaps you’d be so good as to repeat here. Owen Smith? Can you see him healing the rifts, maintaining a solid left agenda, and marching all the way to No 10? And if not, how does electing another interim leader help? I genuinely don’t know which way to turn right now. Jeremy clearly isn’t up to it, but I remain thoroughly unconvinced that Owen is either. Rock and hard place.
Maybe
I cannot tell if Owen Smith will work or not
But ar least the UK might have a functioning opposition
That’s a start
Dear Richard
Let me first start by saying that economics is not my field and I would be lying if I said that my knowledge of it is deep or wide enough. It is also fair to say that most people across the country who are enthused by JC do not have that depth of knowledge either. What JC has done was to inspire people and give them hope for a change in the way politics is practiced ie. from the bottom up giving people a voice. His message of hope for a better and fairer society has been embraced by the majority of Labour members. I cannot see any other politician in the PLP who can do that at the moment and I would not even mention Owen Smith!
In this latest blog you described JC as unelectable and you later said that he can’t deliver.
First ‘JC is unelectable’: a widely circulated view by anti Corbyn MPs and main stream media. It is not clear what this assumption is based on? Members take it as negative propaganda to discredit JC so Corbyn supporters don’t take any notice of this assumption any more. I am not clear about your own reasons for saying that JC is unelectable. You can argue that if JC was given a fair representation by the media and a supportive united party behind him he can be electable.
Second ‘JC can’t deliver’: undoubtedly you are talking about economic policy here and I would like to know from you why do you think that? My understanding is that Labour is currently in the process of formulating its policy so things can still be adjusted, it is not a manifesto yet!
I am sure the Labour party can benefit immensely from expert economists like yourself and others in formulating a credible coherent economic policy for the future.
Now, I don’t know what is happening between you and the leadership but I certainly hope that there will be more cooperation in the future for the good of our country
You confuse your enthusiasm with a belief that makes JC electable. It does not. When I say JC cannot deliver I mean politically – economically is beyond consideration right now
I think the majority realises he neither believes in parliamentary democracy or even in social movements. As trident proves he will just do what he likes
That makes him completely unelectable
Wake up to it
Trident was a difficult issue. JC would have been slaughtered by the media, some members and everybody else if he stood in parliament and defended Trident just because it’s Labour party policy. I don’t know how else it could have been done! May be another member of the shadow cabinet who is pro Trident should have done that. But it was open debate in the commons and everybody knew JC’s views on Trident!
Tony Blair judging by his actions also did not believe much in Parliamentary democracy but he still won 3 general elections!
Corbyn had a duty to do what his party wanted
Anyone who trusts him now to follow his social movement is a fool – he won’t
And like it or not Blair knew how to use parliament to great effect, even of sometimes for very wrong reasons
AA criticiseses Corbyn for not supporting Trident (he says the membership do – though I am not sure that a vote of the current members would). On the grounds that politics does not concern itself solely about economics what is your view of Corbyn’s views on Trident?
I am personally opposed to trident
But JC shows his contempt for the membership by refusing to follies their vote passed last September on the issue
That is not an option that should have been available to him
Sorry I do not understand your last two sentences.
Because of the way WordPress works I cannot now see what you are referring to
There was no vote on Trident last year.
So why do the press say there was?
As I noted, and as was widely reported at the time, there was no vote on Trident at last conference. If press say there was I have no idea why
Without a vote then policy remained as it was
I tried to read but wearied of it. Labour insiders little imagine how dreary and futile their internal theological struggles appear to non-Labour voters.
The bottom line for most is that Corbyn is simply not prime ministerial timber. Scotland is gone and it’s likely only a matter of timing before it’s independent. Labour will not succeed in putting the clock back under either Corbyn or Smith. Only an anti-Conservative alliance and big picture thinking on the constitution will persuade people not to tune out.
There is, of course, a chance that the musketeers will blow up. In the meantime the poor, the old and the vulnerable will suffer what they must because of Corbin’s failure to see off the Brexiteers for the shameless liars and opportunists they are.
That argument also has merit
Spot on Paul. Well said. Simple really. But why don’t the Corbynistas get it? As Richard continually reminds them the only way to power in the UK is via our existing parliamentary system of ‘representative democracy’, however flawed it may be. Without the power you’re just another pressure group – admirable in its own way but you’re not a lawmaker. Bernie Sanders has figured that out which is why he’s thrown in his lot with HC, of whom I’m pretty sure he’s not an ardent admirer.
In a previous comment I mentioned that even Marx & Engels understood how the power structure worked back in the 19th century, advocating cooperation with other socialist parties in order to create what we’d today call ‘a critical mass’. (This is explained in more detail by Arthur Bough – https://boffyblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/us-socialists-should-campaign-for-vote.html).
The current behaviour of the Labour Party is verging on that of a Cargo Cult. If the Musketeers fail to self-destruct then I’m afraid future generations will not forgive Corbyn & Smith for the ensuing destruction of the State as a positive force in UK society.
I don’t know if you’ve read this from The New Yorker magazine Richard. “When things are going badly enough that failure is likely for an average leader, an unfiltered leader–“a man or woman who hasn’t been watered down, someone who hasn’t been vetted and made the same”–may have a better chance of success.” http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/our-dangerous-leadership-obsession
The omens are good for Owen Smith then
Except that JC is not average – I could only wish he was
I see you’ve taken to blocking comments that demolish your narcissistic rantings again. What a big man 🙂 Funnily enough, people that knew your better in the Tax Justice movement always said this about you. By the time the Labour leadership election is over, the whole world would have seen you for what you really are.
Tom
I delete you for reasons I have stated several times
It is our narcissm that makes you think you’re important enough to still comment when an editor has decided otherwise
Now go away and play with your fantasies amongst those who want to hear them
Richard
PS And yes I have upset people in tax justice in my time. But I do not apologise for that. The ideas that I wrote in 2005 have remained at its core and are being delivered. Some wanted to water them down. I did not compromise with them. So be it. I would contend I was right and am entirely happy if some want to disagree
I wrote this morning that I think you can have very grave doubts about Corbyn’s leadership AND not be at all impressed with the alternative. The problem then is which do you fear most?
A re-run of 2010-2015, being shunned, ignored, used and discarded as the Party Elite (PLP is the wrong definition, hence a lot of anger I feel) Knocking on natural Labour voters doors and being told we “sold out” ad infinitum, that we have no heart and no soul by people we come into politics to serve. A Party Elite who thinks it still knows how to win elections with no discernible evidence for 11 years. Destined to repeat the same mistake forever?
Or a claimed bumbling leader with traits one can see as awful or welcome, depending on your stance? The intransigence, unshifting, unspun, stubbornness of Corbyn may be a curse to some, but currently appears to be a blessing with at least as many as it alienates.
His refusal to back policy briefs of his ministers, may be because he sees too much compromise of power still. The lack of planning, polish and communication, are at least in large part due to a Party in utter chaos surely? And it is these very traits his supporters see as fresh and honest and different. So almost any criticism turns into a plus through that spectrum.
But the line that made me have to reject an article I otherwise had some sympathy with – more than MSM tropes that’s for sure – was that we could get rid of Corbyn “and worry about the rest later.
That’s something I don’t think any socialist can do at this peculiarly unexpected time in UK politics. Trust, that Smith et al will do what Jeremy would do. Trust that this true reckoning of Labour happens and doesn’t stall.
We could equally reject the false, shocking leadership bid, re-elect Corbyn – because if nothing else, he IS a socialist – and “worry about everything else later”.
Those are my choices for now. Labour can’t win like this anyway. So I trust Smith not to swim back to the right the minute he gets the keys to Corbyn’s office, or I trust Corbyn to stand firm (love him or hate him, it’s clearly one thing he’s excellent at) and call the right out once and for all. And “worry about everything else later.
Given a didactic choice that makes didacticism look pluralist, I must choose “socialist” over “?????”. So pretty much whatever they throw at him now, I have no choice but to give socialism a chance and “worry about everything else later.
I have done the worrying already
Later will never come
Because I want it to I could never vote Corbyn
But I won’t be voting at all
Big admirer Richard. I am disappointed about PQE. There are some excellent comments above that say why Corbyn should stay leader. I agree. I want to answer the electability point. Labour faces a mountain whoever is leader because of lost Scotland & new boundaries. Even a 1997 win in England might not be enough to win a majority of seats. I don’t see that Owen Smith is electable. He couldn’t even win a safe Labour seat in 2006. So this is about the party and only Corbyn convinces when it comes to restoring power to members. Loved your book by the way. Take care. Neil
Agree with your support of A.A. article..please can you change colour of font on tabs as us colour blind people cannot see black on red!! We are the last minority that publishers do not consider and I am a mild red/green case 🙂 cheers
I will discuss with my IT guy
I share a great deal of what Andreou has written. It rang a number of bells with me and I’ve come on a similar journey, from being an enthusiastic supporter to someone who sees him as being unfit to lead a major political party.
This sums up where I am pretty much to a tee – “I still admire Corbyn’s politics on the whole, although I never invested him with the ludicrously messianic qualities I see so many project onto him. But there is a problem. And it is insurmountable. Jeremy Corbyn is not very good. Actually, he is quite hopeless”
Richard I am sorry that you have given up on Corbyn, as you seem to have some good ideas. Please come back and help, he is very inexperienced at what he is doing, but is someone we can get behind, and trust to at least try to act in ourr best interests. He does need a lot of input from others that can work the detail much better, and needs to be made to realise that to go with others ideas is not necessarily to capitulate. He may not be easy but give him a chance.
I did not like Andreo’s article, as it generalised about Corbyn supporters as if they were all ignorant trolls. He also deliberately distorted facts and used misleading ‘evidence’ to add weight to his arguments. You will see this if you look carefully at everything. He also tried to suggest that he was once an ardent Corbyn supporter, then goes on to provide information about this which shows him to have been quite uncommited and had taken a lesser of evils approach. He does winge on a bit too.
Please do be put off speaking your mind, and I am sorry that there are so many idiots on Twitter, but unfortunately the post length just invites that sort of thing. If you look at facebook conversations, whilst not all clean there is a much better discourse.
The problem with Jeremy us he is hopeless at being l adder, it maybe worse
And that is no cause for hope at any level