As Owen Smith has observed if Corbyn did everything right and he lost then there is no hope the Left can do better. If you don't buy the argument that the claim that his policies were wrong (I don't) then you're either claiming that the right are too strong to be beaten ever, or you've got to allow that Corbyn et al were not as strategically competent as they needed to be.
Policies don’t sell themselves. In modern election they may even be less important than selling impressions. I don’t have to like that but it is strategically incompetent to ignore it as a fact of life.
You have to win first to do anything. And I remain a democratic socialist. How do we get the votes?
But the retraction back to the right is not drawn by a consideration of policy, but a reactionary fear of change. Humans in general are cautious of change, it gets worse as people age.
"Retraction back to the right"? That may be true of Labour, but it isn't true of the Democrats; their 2020 platform is distinctly to the left of the one in 2016 (as noted in this Vox article.) And it's lazy to condemn all opposition to your preferred policies as simply reactionary.
Biden's platform is progressive. BIden's history isn't. And it remains to be seen if Biden keeps, or tries to keep, the platform intact beyond the election.
So your fear is that he might do what - cast the US all the way back into the Dark Ages of the Obama administration? Would that be your “retraction back to the right”?
The fear is that less will happen to combat climate change and we really do not have time to wait. My fear is that true social change will not progress like it should. That a true universal health care won't progress. etc.
I understand your fear, but Biden not being as progressive as you'd like isn't the same thing as a "retraction back to the right."
Biden isn't seen as talking a smaller step to the left, but as being a person who represents what was, which is closer to the right. Republicans are not the only ones afraid of the push towards the left from the progressive side of the Democratic Party. Plenty of Democrats, and not just the DINOs, are fearful of leftward movement.
But the retraction back to the right is not drawn by a consideration of policy, but a reactionary fear of change. Humans in general are cautious of change, it gets worse as people age.
"Retraction back to the right"? That may be true of Labour, but it isn't true of the Democrats; their 2020 platform is distinctly to the left of the one in 2016 (as noted in this Vox article.) And it's lazy to condemn all opposition to your preferred policies as simply reactionary.
Biden's platform is progressive. BIden's history isn't. And it remains to be seen if Biden keeps, or tries to keep, the platform intact beyond the election.
So your fear is that he might do what - cast the US all the way back into the Dark Ages of the Obama administration? Would that be your “retraction back to the right”?
The fear is that less will happen to combat climate change and we really do not have time to wait. My fear is that true social change will not progress like it should. That a true universal health care won't progress. etc.
I understand your fear, but Biden not being as progressive as you'd like isn't the same thing as a "retraction back to the right."
Biden isn't seen as talking a smaller step to the left, but as being a person who represents what was, which is closer to the right. Republicans are not the only ones afraid of the push towards the left from the progressive side of the Democratic Party. Plenty of Democrats, and not just the DINOs, are fearful of leftward movement.
I think it’s highly implausible that he’s going to completely abandon everything in the platform and everything he’s campaigned on. He made quite an effort to reach an agreement with Sanders and Warren, who are now both campaigning for him; I doubt he’s secretly planning on betraying them if he’s elected.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
In the UK, memories of left-right divides go back to Kinnock and Gaitskill so any move to censure a left wing idol will produce a gut response in many. Tories are enemies but right wing socialists are traitors to the cause. Therefore in some ways even worse. At least in the minds of some.
I think the historical factors and the rumbling emnity get in the way of more objective considerations of what has actually happened. They are also a major factor in the way of a major Labour election victory. Those of us like me who have supported and voted all our lives have a lot more to gain from the end of these factional attitudes, or at least some kind of truce. Wittingly or unwittingly, JC really did not help that.
I hope someone is looking for a ladder that Keir Starmer and Jeremy Corbyn can climb down together. But I wouldn't put money on it bearing the weight of the differences.
As Owen Smith has observed if Corbyn did everything right and he lost then there is no hope the Left can do better. If you don't buy the argument that the claim that his policies were wrong (I don't) then you're either claiming that the right are too strong to be beaten ever, or you've got to allow that Corbyn et al were not as strategically competent as they needed to be.
We very nearly won the general election after he became leader, and what frustrates me so much about where we have ended up - is that the infighting that happened after his election, the so called “chicken coup” and the subsequent obstructions, played a role in that loss.
I am willing to accept that JC may have a blind spot in identifying anti-semitism on the left, but I don’t think it was helped by the relentless internal attacks on his leadership. You get a sort of diagnostic overshadowing effect whereby all accusations become attributed to political hostility.
I also think Starmer suspending Corbyn on the basis he publicly disagreed with the report was also a political own goal. I can see why he did it, but it just kicks off another round of recriminations - and Corbyn will probably end up reinstated because there is no way that saying, “I think problem x is overstated and I don’t agree with the conclusions of report y” is a breach of party rules. He should have just responded like Angela Rayner did, he’s a decent guy but he’s got a blind spot about this issue and we will be dealing with it differently.
As Owen Smith has observed if Corbyn did everything right and he lost then there is no hope the Left can do better. If you don't buy the argument that the claim that his policies were wrong (I don't) then you're either claiming that the right are too strong to be beaten ever, or you've got to allow that Corbyn et al were not as strategically competent as they needed to be.
I don't think anyone claims Corbyn did everything right. He was often too conciliatory to the right and gained nothing other than appearing weak. He thought that talking about policy was enough when that only works when both sides are honest and reasonably capable. He should have been laying into Johnson's character. Corbyn also wasn't much good at handling hostile interviews, and could have done with some coaching from someone less ideologically committed. But the siege mentality that led to this situation was attributable to the utter untrustworthiness of the bulk of the PLP.
For all Corbyn's flaws he's a good man who didn't deserve the treatment he got. It's very hard to listen to the right delivering their pious cant about unity after the last 5 years without telling them to go fuck themselves. Ultimately though, the vast bulk of the Labour left will fight for a Starmer victory, because unlike the right there are no circumstances under which we prefer a tory government.
More than anything, though, I'd like to go back in time to the meeting of the Socialist Campaign Group that decided Corbyn should stand and get them to push John McDonnell instead. If someone on the left is going to win it's going to be someone who's a bit of a vicious bastard. Corbyn was ultimately too nice to do the job the way it needed to be done.
I recall going to large Trade Union events in London and being surprised by the prominence of the Socialist Worker Party. They seemed to be fixated on two things:
1. The state of Israel; and
2. A general strike.
The SWP are mad and intimidating. Their anti-zionism was so staunch and unswerving that I have no doubt that it occasionally crossed the line to anti-semitism. Certainly many Jewish Labour MPs and members felt intimidated when they tried to debate certain issues. As did many non-Jewish people who felt that the Party should be more aligned to the centre-left.
This is the point that I think is being missed. Jeremy Corbyn's wing of the Labour Party was influenced by the SWP and was unpopular because it is perceived to be intimidating and radical. The reason that Boris Johnson's comments about the hijab being like a letter-box is not characterised in the same way is that he was not intimidating anyone. he was actually arguing for the hijab to remain legal as an argument for freedom of expression (i.e. the opposite of intimidation).
The emotions surrounding this whole issue do not really relate to racism per se but rather to freedom of expression, which is a core British value that has been undermined in recent years by radicals who cannot conceive of any moral view other than their own having the legitimacy to be expressed in a public forum.
The SWP have a habit of showing up for demos organised by other people with van loads of placards, way more than they have members, and handing them out to all and sundry making them appear far larger than they are. Corbyn has obviously worked with them in the past, as part of Stop The War Coalition, but there is no love lost between the Labour left and that misogynist, rape-apologist gang of renta-mob trots. If you're looking for Corbyn's allies on the far left you should be looking at the Morning Star newspaper and the penumbra of communists around it (not that there isn't plenty to take issue with there).
The claims of intimidation made against the left don't really stack up, given that it appears having an opinion about the prevalence of anti-semitism in the Labour Party that differs from the leadership is now grounds for suspension. Can you imagine the outraged howls and revolt from the right had Corbyn behaved that way.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
The Momentum dimension may be more important, I guess. Whatever, somebody needs to find a climb down ladder otherwise this will fester.
The Momentum dimension may be more important, I guess. Whatever, somebody needs to find a climb down ladder otherwise this will fester.
Momentum is largely a bunch of young, earnest idealists seeking a better world. The myth of the army of swivel-eyed commie ideologues is a media fantasy.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
It wasn’t a criticism, just a recognition of a faction. Young idealists can have problems with ancient Labour pragmatists. Like me.
Trouble is I’ve seen this territory before. Far too often. Only the Tories benefit. We have a talent for shooting ourselves in the foot. I don’t mind the rows, they are to be expected. But I detest the self-wounding polarising.
The claims of intimidation made against the left don't really stack up, given that it appears having an opinion about the prevalence of anti-semitism in the Labour Party that differs from the leadership is now grounds for suspension. Can you imagine the outraged howls and revolt from the right had Corbyn behaved that way.
I'm not suggesting that intimidation is exclusively the preserve of the left. I would rather argue that intimidation is often viewed as an expedient tactic by anyone who desires radical change regardless of their ideological stance. It is short-sighted however, and is usually counter-productive. It is clear to me that Starmer desires radical change, and personally I disagree with the decision to suspend Corbyn. I think that Lisa Nandy would have been a wiser leader of the Labour Party than Starmer.
More than anything, though, I'd like to go back in time to the meeting of the Socialist Campaign Group that decided Corbyn should stand and get them to push John McDonnell instead. If someone on the left is going to win it's going to be someone who's a bit of a vicious bastard. Corbyn was ultimately too nice to do the job the way it needed to be done.
I'd agree, but for almost the opposite reason: McDonnell looked at least willing to communicate with people outside the left-wing echo chamber and convince them he didn't have horns and a tail. That is, he seems to appreciate that you have to start from where the other people are and not from where you think they ought to be.
(It really did not help Corbyn that so many of his supporters were talking about purging or burying the Blairists immediately on his election.)
But I agree that making it known that as well as speaking softly you have a big stick is a good trait in a leader.
There is such a thing as realpolitik. There is a much better chance of international progress over climate change with Biden in the White House than with a re-elected Trump. The world definitely can’t afford four more years of Trump.
I think America would struggle through another four years of Trump. As for the rest of the world - I suspect it would depend on whether we were in for more of the same or whether he was likely to invade somewhere or otherwise act out.
In terms of progress on climate change, Clinton had all the facts in his first term and chose to pursue financial deregulation and trade liberalisation which arguably made things worse (and more difficult to solve), and we've had 3 terms of democratic presidents since, and yet here we are.
More than anything, though, I'd like to go back in time to the meeting of the Socialist Campaign Group that decided Corbyn should stand and get them to push John McDonnell instead. If someone on the left is going to win it's going to be someone who's a bit of a vicious bastard. Corbyn was ultimately too nice to do the job the way it needed to be done.
I'd agree, but for almost the opposite reason: McDonnell looked at least willing to communicate with people outside the left-wing echo chamber and convince them he didn't have horns and a tail. That is, he seems to appreciate that you have to start from where the other people are and not from where you think they ought to be.
(It really did not help Corbyn that so many of his supporters were talking about purging or burying the Blairists immediately on his election.)
Yes, the flipside of McDonnell is that he's much more wily than Corbyn.
The calls for purging the Blairites were very much on the fringe, and didn't include MPs. Unlike, say, the demands to purge the left that we've heard from the right of the PLP and their cheerleaders in the press over the last 6 months. Plus Corbyn and his allies stomped on such suggestions, whereas Starmer is abetting them. It's always one rule for the right and another for the left.
But the retraction back to the right is not drawn by a consideration of policy, but a reactionary fear of change. Humans in general are cautious of change, it gets worse as people age.
"Retraction back to the right"? That may be true of Labour, but it isn't true of the Democrats; their 2020 platform is distinctly to the left of the one in 2016 (as noted in this Vox article.) And it's lazy to condemn all opposition to your preferred policies as simply reactionary.
Biden's platform is progressive. BIden's history isn't. And it remains to be seen if Biden keeps, or tries to keep, the platform intact beyond the election.
So your fear is that he might do what - cast the US all the way back into the Dark Ages of the Obama administration? Would that be your “retraction back to the right”?
The fear is that less will happen to combat climate change and we really do not have time to wait. My fear is that true social change will not progress like it should. That a true universal health care won't progress. etc.
I understand your fear, but Biden not being as progressive as you'd like isn't the same thing as a "retraction back to the right."
Biden isn't seen as talking a smaller step to the left, but as being a person who represents what was, which is closer to the right. Republicans are not the only ones afraid of the push towards the left from the progressive side of the Democratic Party. Plenty of Democrats, and not just the DINOs, are fearful of leftward movement.
I think it’s highly implausible that he’s going to completely abandon everything in the platform and everything he’s campaigned on. He made quite an effort to reach an agreement with Sanders and Warren, who are now both campaigning for him; I doubt he’s secretly planning on betraying them if he’s elected.
Failures in keeping platform promises are not always betrayals. Platforms are often the victims of compromise politics. Regardless it is not about platform promises. Biden is a security blanket for those who fear the Progressives.
Trouble is I’ve seen this territory before. Far too often. Only the Tories benefit. We have a talent for shooting ourselves in the foot. I don’t mind the rows, they are to be expected. But I detest the self-wounding polarising.
Yes, the Left needs to be more unified. This does mean more progressive voters aligning with the status quo. But if the quo don't realise that their status needs to change, then factious will be the result.
JC made the left mainstream, contendable. But under him my party did not handle allegations of antisemitism openly with due diligence. Furthermore championing Palestinian rights has to go alongside championing Israel's rights. For the many AND for the Jew. Rolling back Israel's rights for the benefit of the Palestinians to within the '67 borders would be an unimaginably morally courageous thing to do that no other state would ever consider. And it wouldn't be enough to stop conflict; it wouldn't last a generation. Until Israel's rights are guaranteed, Palestinian rights cannot be advanced. I expect my party to work for that, as a minor foreign policy.
We very nearly won the general election after he became leader, and what frustrates me so much about where we have ended up - is that the infighting that happened after his election, the so called “chicken coup” and the subsequent obstructions, played a role in that loss.
If it hadn't been for the infighting, May would probably not have called the election at all. And some of the credit for Corbyn's performance has to go to the outstanding qualities of May's campaign, surely one of the most remarkable by a sitting Prime Minister in modern times.
JC made the left mainstream, contendable. But under him my party did not handle allegations of antisemitism openly with due diligence.
As Peter Oborne (no leftist) writes, the disciplinary processes of the Labour party were long broken, Corbyn didn't get on top of the situation quickly enough, but equally the structure of the party made it difficult to enact changes anyway. (It also accords with the version of events in the Pogrund/Mcguire book).
I think Arethosemyfeet is correct; the issue with Corbyn was that he is by temperament a Christian socialist, and thought that explaining how things could be better would be enough to get people on board.
JC made the left mainstream, contendable. But under him my party did not handle allegations of antisemitism openly with due diligence.
As Peter Oborne (no leftist) writes, the disciplinary processes of the Labour party were long broken, Corbyn didn't get on top of the situation quickly enough, but equally the structure of the party made it difficult to enact changes anyway. (It also accords with the version of events in the Pogrund/Mcguire book).
I think Arethosemyfeet is correct; the issue with Corbyn was that he is by temperament a Christian socialist, and thought that explaining how things could be better would be enough to get people on board.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. The only "incompetence" was attributing more rationality to the process than exists.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
lilbuddha
Pragmatism often means no progression?
Actually, pragmatism is about being satisfied for the time being with what progress you can get.
By contrast, idealism can frustrate that level of progress. Think Freddy Mercury.
“I want it all, I want it all! I want it all!!! I want it NOW”.
Half a loaf is better than no bread. Idealism leads far too easily to counsels of perfection.
Of course I may be being a perfect donkey about this. But this donkey has lived a long time, has successfully promoted progress on a number of fronts.
Being satisfied for the time being is what allowed the events that sparked the BLM protests.
We cannot have everything now, but it is far past time when we should have had better.
As Owen Smith has observed if Corbyn did everything right and he lost then there is no hope the Left can do better. If you don't buy the argument that the claim that his policies were wrong (I don't) then you're either claiming that the right are too strong to be beaten ever, or you've got to allow that Corbyn et al were not as strategically competent as they needed to be.
We very nearly won the general election after he became leader, and what frustrates me so much about where we have ended up - is that the infighting that happened after his election, the so called “chicken coup” and the subsequent obstructions, played a role in that loss.
Let's not forget that the casus belli for the chickencoup was the fact that immediately after the referendum, Mr Corbyn said that the government should trigger Article 50 right away. In the light of subsequent events, do you think that was the right thing for him to say?
I also think Starmer suspending Corbyn on the basis he publicly disagreed with the report was also a political own goal. I can see why he did it, but it just kicks off another round of recriminations - and Corbyn will probably end up reinstated because there is no way that saying, “I think problem x is overstated and I don’t agree with the conclusions of report y” is a breach of party rules.
It's not just 'report y' though is it? What he said was an implicit attack on the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, a statutory body for upholding anti-discrimination law.
I'd say there is a difference between:
a.) Defying the leadership to support a position that isn't itself politically toxic, but which isn't the party policy;
b.) Defying the leadership to support a politically toxic position.
And an attack on the EHRC is closer to (b) than (a).
I think Arethosemyfeet is correct; the issue with Corbyn was that he is by temperament a Christian socialist, and thought that explaining how things could be better would be enough to get people on board.
Fairly fundamental to Mr Corbyn's worldview is the idea that large parts of British public life, such as utilities, the media, and the outsourced bits of the NHS, are in the hands of people who don't act in good faith. Relying on one's opponents acting in good faith therefore seems somewhat self-defeating as a strategy.
I think Arethosemyfeet is correct; the issue with Corbyn was that he is by temperament a Christian socialist, and thought that explaining how things could be better would be enough to get people on board.
Fairly fundamental to Mr Corbyn's worldview is the idea that large parts of British public life, such as utilities, the media, and the outsourced bits of the NHS, are in the hands of people who don't act in good faith. Relying on one's opponents acting in good faith therefore seems somewhat self-defeating as a strategy.
I suspect he’s a winkian in the sense of attributing these things to corrupt systems over and above individuals.
In some ways he isn’t wrong, and I’m not sure that having a higher view of humanity than I would is particularly huge flaw.
I think Arethosemyfeet is correct; the issue with Corbyn was that he is by temperament a Christian socialist, and thought that explaining how things could be better would be enough to get people on board.
Fairly fundamental to Mr Corbyn's worldview is the idea that large parts of British public life, such as utilities, the media, and the outsourced bits of the NHS, are in the hands of people who don't act in good faith. Relying on one's opponents acting in good faith therefore seems somewhat self-defeating as a strategy.
I suspect he’s a winkian in the sense of attributing these things to corrupt systems over and above individuals.
In some ways he isn’t wrong,
The systems are fucked up and not truly designed to be of best benefit to the country as a whole.
How are the systems to be addressed? They are human made so can be human modified if necessary.
I suspect you and I might agree about a lot of imperfections. The real issue is getting from A to B. Politics is largely about means.
Just pick one systemic fault to start with.
I do think it is a difficult tasks. One of the problems is that systems as large as we a talking are difficult to change or design efficiently. And efficiency is not always a good thing.
Plenty of Democrats, and not just the DINOs, are fearful of leftward movement.
Is it possible that you could manage to distinguish between "I don't want that" and "I am afraid of that"? I think you massively misrepresent much of the centrist wing of the Democratic Party here.
So I'm not sure what that pragmatism was actually in service of, apart from staying in power. At some point you need to bite the bullet and actually make the kinds of institutional changes that can perpetuate and grow the kind of society you might actually want to flourish.
Plenty of Democrats, and not just the DINOs, are fearful of leftward movement.
Is it possible that you could manage to distinguish between "I don't want that" and "I am afraid of that"? I think you massively misrepresent much of the centrist wing of the Democratic Party here.
It is possible. What I am basing this on is the slow progree of issues like racism, sexism and climate change as well as listening to how people say things as well as what they say.
Weirdly one of the two cases the EHRC states were political interference and amounted to targeted harassment - was the leadership pushing for a firmer faster response to Ken Livingstone. Holding that up as an example of anti-semitism seems rather bizarre.
Comments
Policies don’t sell themselves. In modern election they may even be less important than selling impressions. I don’t have to like that but it is strategically incompetent to ignore it as a fact of life.
You have to win first to do anything. And I remain a democratic socialist. How do we get the votes?
I think the historical factors and the rumbling emnity get in the way of more objective considerations of what has actually happened. They are also a major factor in the way of a major Labour election victory. Those of us like me who have supported and voted all our lives have a lot more to gain from the end of these factional attitudes, or at least some kind of truce. Wittingly or unwittingly, JC really did not help that.
I hope someone is looking for a ladder that Keir Starmer and Jeremy Corbyn can climb down together. But I wouldn't put money on it bearing the weight of the differences.
We very nearly won the general election after he became leader, and what frustrates me so much about where we have ended up - is that the infighting that happened after his election, the so called “chicken coup” and the subsequent obstructions, played a role in that loss.
I am willing to accept that JC may have a blind spot in identifying anti-semitism on the left, but I don’t think it was helped by the relentless internal attacks on his leadership. You get a sort of diagnostic overshadowing effect whereby all accusations become attributed to political hostility.
I also think Starmer suspending Corbyn on the basis he publicly disagreed with the report was also a political own goal. I can see why he did it, but it just kicks off another round of recriminations - and Corbyn will probably end up reinstated because there is no way that saying, “I think problem x is overstated and I don’t agree with the conclusions of report y” is a breach of party rules. He should have just responded like Angela Rayner did, he’s a decent guy but he’s got a blind spot about this issue and we will be dealing with it differently.
I don't think anyone claims Corbyn did everything right. He was often too conciliatory to the right and gained nothing other than appearing weak. He thought that talking about policy was enough when that only works when both sides are honest and reasonably capable. He should have been laying into Johnson's character. Corbyn also wasn't much good at handling hostile interviews, and could have done with some coaching from someone less ideologically committed. But the siege mentality that led to this situation was attributable to the utter untrustworthiness of the bulk of the PLP.
For all Corbyn's flaws he's a good man who didn't deserve the treatment he got. It's very hard to listen to the right delivering their pious cant about unity after the last 5 years without telling them to go fuck themselves. Ultimately though, the vast bulk of the Labour left will fight for a Starmer victory, because unlike the right there are no circumstances under which we prefer a tory government.
More than anything, though, I'd like to go back in time to the meeting of the Socialist Campaign Group that decided Corbyn should stand and get them to push John McDonnell instead. If someone on the left is going to win it's going to be someone who's a bit of a vicious bastard. Corbyn was ultimately too nice to do the job the way it needed to be done.
1. The state of Israel; and
2. A general strike.
The SWP are mad and intimidating. Their anti-zionism was so staunch and unswerving that I have no doubt that it occasionally crossed the line to anti-semitism. Certainly many Jewish Labour MPs and members felt intimidated when they tried to debate certain issues. As did many non-Jewish people who felt that the Party should be more aligned to the centre-left.
This is the point that I think is being missed. Jeremy Corbyn's wing of the Labour Party was influenced by the SWP and was unpopular because it is perceived to be intimidating and radical. The reason that Boris Johnson's comments about the hijab being like a letter-box is not characterised in the same way is that he was not intimidating anyone. he was actually arguing for the hijab to remain legal as an argument for freedom of expression (i.e. the opposite of intimidation).
The emotions surrounding this whole issue do not really relate to racism per se but rather to freedom of expression, which is a core British value that has been undermined in recent years by radicals who cannot conceive of any moral view other than their own having the legitimacy to be expressed in a public forum.
The claims of intimidation made against the left don't really stack up, given that it appears having an opinion about the prevalence of anti-semitism in the Labour Party that differs from the leadership is now grounds for suspension. Can you imagine the outraged howls and revolt from the right had Corbyn behaved that way.
Momentum is largely a bunch of young, earnest idealists seeking a better world. The myth of the army of swivel-eyed commie ideologues is a media fantasy.
Trouble is I’ve seen this territory before. Far too often. Only the Tories benefit. We have a talent for shooting ourselves in the foot. I don’t mind the rows, they are to be expected. But I detest the self-wounding polarising.
I'm not suggesting that intimidation is exclusively the preserve of the left. I would rather argue that intimidation is often viewed as an expedient tactic by anyone who desires radical change regardless of their ideological stance. It is short-sighted however, and is usually counter-productive. It is clear to me that Starmer desires radical change, and personally I disagree with the decision to suspend Corbyn. I think that Lisa Nandy would have been a wiser leader of the Labour Party than Starmer.
When I went on a march protesting the prorogation of Parliament by Johnson the SWP were conspicuous by their absence. Brexit made odd allies.
(It really did not help Corbyn that so many of his supporters were talking about purging or burying the Blairists immediately on his election.)
But I agree that making it known that as well as speaking softly you have a big stick is a good trait in a leader.
I think America would struggle through another four years of Trump. As for the rest of the world - I suspect it would depend on whether we were in for more of the same or whether he was likely to invade somewhere or otherwise act out.
In terms of progress on climate change, Clinton had all the facts in his first term and chose to pursue financial deregulation and trade liberalisation which arguably made things worse (and more difficult to solve), and we've had 3 terms of democratic presidents since, and yet here we are.
Yes, the flipside of McDonnell is that he's much more wily than Corbyn.
The calls for purging the Blairites were very much on the fringe, and didn't include MPs. Unlike, say, the demands to purge the left that we've heard from the right of the PLP and their cheerleaders in the press over the last 6 months. Plus Corbyn and his allies stomped on such suggestions, whereas Starmer is abetting them. It's always one rule for the right and another for the left.
As Peter Oborne (no leftist) writes, the disciplinary processes of the Labour party were long broken, Corbyn didn't get on top of the situation quickly enough, but equally the structure of the party made it difficult to enact changes anyway. (It also accords with the version of events in the Pogrund/Mcguire book).
I think Arethosemyfeet is correct; the issue with Corbyn was that he is by temperament a Christian socialist, and thought that explaining how things could be better would be enough to get people on board.
Pragmatism often means no progression?
Actually, pragmatism is about being satisfied for the time being with what progress you can get.
By contrast, idealism can frustrate that level of progress. Think Freddy Mercury.
“I want it all, I want it all! I want it all!!! I want it NOW”.
Half a loaf is better than no bread. Idealism leads far too easily to counsels of perfection.
Of course I may be being a perfect donkey about this. But this donkey has lived a long time, has successfully promoted progress on a number of fronts.
We cannot have everything now, but it is far past time when we should have had better.
Let's not forget that the casus belli for the chickencoup was the fact that immediately after the referendum, Mr Corbyn said that the government should trigger Article 50 right away. In the light of subsequent events, do you think that was the right thing for him to say?
It's not just 'report y' though is it? What he said was an implicit attack on the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, a statutory body for upholding anti-discrimination law.
I'd say there is a difference between:
a.) Defying the leadership to support a position that isn't itself politically toxic, but which isn't the party policy;
b.) Defying the leadership to support a politically toxic position.
And an attack on the EHRC is closer to (b) than (a).
Fairly fundamental to Mr Corbyn's worldview is the idea that large parts of British public life, such as utilities, the media, and the outsourced bits of the NHS, are in the hands of people who don't act in good faith. Relying on one's opponents acting in good faith therefore seems somewhat self-defeating as a strategy.
I suspect he’s a winkian in the sense of attributing these things to corrupt systems over and above individuals.
In some ways he isn’t wrong, and I’m not sure that having a higher view of humanity than I would is particularly huge flaw.
Whatever the scale that is appropriate, it is a flaw. The systems need to be addressed or true reform cannot happen
I suspect you and I might agree about a lot of imperfections. The real issue is getting from A to B. Politics is largely about means.
Just pick one systemic fault to start with.
Is it possible that you could manage to distinguish between "I don't want that" and "I am afraid of that"? I think you massively misrepresent much of the centrist wing of the Democratic Party here.
The pragmatism of the Blair government were bought via the kind of pandering to the prejudices of the right wing tabloids, which eroded social solidarity and set the tone for the first coalition government to largely reverse any progress they made.
So I'm not sure what that pragmatism was actually in service of, apart from staying in power. At some point you need to bite the bullet and actually make the kinds of institutional changes that can perpetuate and grow the kind of society you might actually want to flourish.