Doom, and yet more doom, and all because Labour supporters voted against having as their leader a centrist politician, speaking in soundbites and platitudes, with Tory-lite policies which would change our society of gross unfairness not a jot! Article after article warning of the party being, in John Gray`s words, "on a course of collapse akin to the Liberal party" nearly a century ago, without a word of praise for policies which would actually reduce inequality (The politics of catastrophe,18 September,2015). Even the piece by Owen Jones failed to redress the imbalance.
Neither could your Leader balk the trend, with criticism of the shadow cabinet`s gender balance, and the appointment of John McDonnell "from the ultra left of the party"(The duties of an opposition leader cannot be wished away,18 September). Corbyn has shown he is willing to work with those on the right, so why no mention of the fact that of those so-called "most distinguished MPs", who flounced off in a huff, at least five of them were women, who could have expected to be in Cobyn`s broadly-based shadow cabinet, the two leadership candidates plus Caroline Flint, Rachel Reeves and Mary Creagh. In such circumstances, sixteen posts for women sound pretty good. Anyway, does anyone in the 21st century, apart from writers in the "Westminster bubble", really think "the great offices of state" do not include health and education?
As for the appointment of John McDonnell as shadow chancellor, was Corbyn expected to repeat the mistake made by Ed Miliband, and appoint someone who could easily be described as being in cahoots with the City? The lack of a single consistent message, because of disagreements between Miliband and Balls, caused considerable electoral damage back in May, and contributed to the electorate`s gullibility over both the causes of the economic crash, and Labour`s economic credibility.
The end of the Labour party is not nigh, and many of Corbyn`s policies deserve wholehearted support. Just because some Labour MPs appear to have lost touch with their constituencies should not mean the New Statesman should follow suit!