The Real Ravenhurst wrote: ↑5 years agohe represents a dated dogmatism that is way out of step with the more consensual and pluralist inclinations of the 21st-century membership (@Iris might well snort at that, but I stand by it).
I find these comments interesting (and yes, I know it's taken me quite a long time to get around to responding to them). Not because I disagree with them - absolutely, I don't. I can well believe that the membership is consensual and pluralist and believes that the party isn't a Jezocracy. But because the picture that the members themselves choose to paint is precisely the opposite.The Real Ravenhurst wrote: ↑5 years agoGenerally speaking I approve of the fact that the party is not the Jezocracy of the mainstream media imagination
The "mainstream" media (what those of us who aren't succumbing to the temptations of populism call "the media") actually does a pretty good job of painting quite a nuanced view of the party, pointing out the differences between the Momentumites and the unions, and between the unions, between Corbyn himself, Milne and McDonnell, between Formby and Lansmann, between Starmer and some of the backbenchers.
But if all you did was follow left-wing new media, whether the yellow press of the Canary and the other left-wing Breitbarts, or the social media accounts of otherwise honourable party members, or the comment threads underneath newspaper articles, or even online forums, you'd get a very different view. You'd see a party that was extremely dogmatic, that had absolutely no time for anyone with an opinion different from the approved party line, that treated consensus as so much dirt, and that thought St Jeremy was - quite literally - a saint whose every proclamation was the word of God and who could do no wrong because he was infallible.
21st century politics is not just about new policies - though those are desperately needed. It needs to be about finding solutions which stick. Which means accepting that those who have a slightly different view from your own are not traitors or Tory lapdogs or capitalist stooges who are doing everything they can to stop a labour government. It means publicly disagreeing with each other, while being polite about it. It means recognising that a Labour MP or a Labour party member who has some profound disagreements with the current party leadership is nevertheless a member of the same party, with the same overall goals and aims and should be respected.
I think Corbyn is a lousy leader. He was the wrong choice for the party when he was elected. He was the joke candidate. He's an ideological campaigner who is only interested in standing up for the oppressed overseas - except when they happen to be oppressed by people with whom he once agreed.
If the left of the party in parliament had bothered to put up a sensible candidate who was able to unite rather than divide the party* - or if Ed Miliband (who is himself a radical with some very good, leftwing ideas) hadn't stood down quite so quickly the whole country would be in a better position. Strong leaders persuade, and forgive. They don't bear grudges. They recognise when they're wrong, and change their mind proudly.
*If, that is, they could find one. I can't even name a member of the shadow cabinet other than Abbott (useless), McDonnell (showing signs that he recognises the need to compromise) and Starmer (his talents are being completely wasted by the shitshow that is Brexit). If there are any competent potential ministers on the Labour frontbenches, I'd love to know who they are.
[edit] Of course. Tom Watson. Whose treatment at the hands of party members rather proves my point.
