Steve Richards is absolutely correct to say that Corbyn`s popularity can be explained by the fact that his supporters "have ached for a voice that questions the stifling consensus in England about economics" (Independent, 11/08/15). Why should inequality continue to increase, why should private tenants have to pay 50-60% of their disposable income in rent to greedy landlords, why should the state subsidise private business to the tune of £93bn a year in "corporate welfare, why should tax avoidance and evasion go unpunished? The list appears endless!
As Richards also says, the Blairites emphasise Blair`s three election victories as if they "provide precise navigation towards the future", but fails to mention that this rider also applies to the 1983 election, which all anti-Corbynites use as so-called evidence to prove a left-wing Labour party cannot win elections. Past election results cannot be used in this way, especially when some important factors are ignored: a study of post Stresemann Germany`s elections would suggest coalition governments there would never be successful; elections in the States in the 1960s would never point to a black or female president. When history is used irresponsibly, it is little better than blatant propaganda!
That is why Richards is mistaken in his belief that Labour`s selectorate "must opt for another candidate" as Corbyn would inevitably "disappoint those cheering now". There is no need for a "schism" in Labour ranks, simply a requirement for Labour MPs to grasp what exactly the people are telling them, that centrist tinkering to ameliorate Tory policies is not enough, when transformation of a grossly unfair society is urgently needed.