- Re: And if it negatively impacts on the greater good? nm Archived Message
Posted by Jamie
on December 14, 2019, 6:28 pm, in reply to "Re: And if it negatively impacts on the greater good? nm"
|
"It just means that the gerrymandering has done its job, alongside a lot of disaffected voters who couldn't in good conscience vote for labour when labour doesn't mean corbyn the man but blairite the party." Yes, for sure this (plus the E.U. nationalisation issues), but it's hard to hold Corbyn accountable for it and had Labour got in, there would have been concessions, I am sure and let's not forget the alternative which we now have. Incidentally, on your point, I contacted my local Labour party and asked a very simple question; if the Labour candidate was successful, would they support Corbyn? The way in which they 'non-answered' would have made Campbell proud. From what I can see, the central criticisms seems to be: 1) Corbyn reneged on manifesto promise. And if he hadn't? That didn't work out well enough in 2017, even before the establishment doubled down on him. Plus it would have required his ignoring the democratic will of the party; something that I cannot imagine him doing. It doesn't take much to imagine the response of the media had he done so - Stalinist! 2) Corbyn didn't take on the charge on being an anti-semite forthrightly enough. Chris Williamson tried that and we know how that ended. Anyway, trapping Corbyn had been preempted with a variation of the loaded question, 'have you stopped beating your wife?' with the charge that denying there was a problem proved here was a problem. Bad enough as they attacks were, they would have been significantly worse had he taken them on. Where would that have ended? There's no need to revisit all the ways the entire establishment, including the military for ####s sake, jackbooted him and what that suggests. He was damned whatever in a way that was probably insurmountable; as was, I still maintain, reconciling the huge problem of needing both the leave and remain votes. To argue that he didn't show backbone is to trivialise a highly-charged, highly-complex problem. Personally, unless one wants to argue that he was a foil, I think he showed great dignity and strength in the face of unbelievable viciousness. |