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!
No comments:
Post a Comment