What is the point of the Observer, year after year, brilliantly exposing huge profiteering and exploitation, massive tax avoidance and evasion, and untold suffering endured by the millions of less fortunate people here and worldwide, when it greets the election of a politician, with proposals to transform society, with derision? For months, Rawnsley and his ilk have encouraged the Blairite faction, and others with similar Tory-lite policies, to distance themselves from Corbyn and those with a similar "ideological complexion", and now wonders why "his own shadow cabinet" cannot be persuaded by his "unconvincing argument", even though it happens to be the same argument supported by your editorial (The PM failed to make a convincing case for Syria strikes.MPs should say no,29/11/15)!
Wouldn`t it have been more sensible, especially for a newspaper with such a reputation as yours, to have welcomed Corbyn`s election as an opportunity to present the country with a realistic, alternative government to that of the Tories? Of course, inexperience of leadership would cause problems and, at times, embarrassment, but instead of providing encouragement for MPs to unite, and make the most of Corbyn`s huge popularity in the party, political writers urged rebellion. The fact that the same rebellion could lead us into another disastrous and unnecessary military engagement presumably escaped them!
How will change and transformation ever come without someone like Corbyn leading the charge? Do the rebels in the shadow cabinet, and their supporters in the media, really believe a moderate Labour can win elections? If Corbyn is forced out, History will most certainly judge 2015 as a year of missed opportunity for Labour, and it won`t be the politicians who are solely to blame.