George Eaton contends that Labour MPs acknowledge many of Corbyn`s "individual policies are popular" but fear the "collective offer is no longer credible", so why doesn`t he criticise them for their obvious cowardice (Politics,20 November)? Not only is their support for the "popular" proposals, like nationalisation of railways, at best half-hearted, and more often minimalist, their refusal to accept that the so-called less "credible" policies actually could become electorally acceptable, given a fair hearing and public debate, smacks of gutlessness and selfish careerism. How can they possibly think that getting rid of Corbyn, and replacing him with a neo-Blairite, will lead to anything but disaster in 2020?
It`s no good excusing Labour MPs` behaviour by quoting Corbyn`s "record of rebellion", when their disloyalty threatens the very future of the party. Is Corbyn wrong in saying that our recent record of intervention in the Middle East, not to mention our historical one, has "increased the threat to the UK"? Isn`t his anti-austerity stance being proved correct by the obvious failure of the Tories` "long-term economic plan", and Britain now owing the equivalent of 80.5% of a year`s GDP, compared with 69% when Osborne first became chancellor? Isn`t the government`s claim to be representing the working people, when their action and legislation suggest the exact opposite, more worthy of Labour MPs` criticism amd concern?
With the government gifting the opposition such wonderful propaganda-fodder, it`s obvious what Labour`s priorities should be.