Presuppose for a minute that Johnno is completely correct in his analysis. I don't agree with him, but his is not changing his mind, and we have been down that rabbit hole before. So for the sake of discussion I will concede, for the length of this post at least, that he is right.
How does Corbyn's leadership of the Labour party change a single thing? People are suffering from the Tory vandalism of social protections. The only way to protect those people is to remove the Tories from power. Now you may think that Corbyn has been dealt an impossible hand, and is being treated horribly unfairly. But until the Tories are removed, that is the way the deck is stacked and there is nothing that can be done about it without winning power first.
The simple question is "Is Corbyn capable of overcoming the hostile media environment and delivering an election win for Labour?"
Now you have repeatedly cited the suffering of the most vulnerable in the names of austerity. Your determination to keep someone obviously ill-equipped to lead a modern party at the helm of the only potential alternative government is going to guarantee another 5 year term of Tory rule. It is grossly offensive grandstanding on the moral high ground, when the price of your principles is going to be borne by those very vulnerable that you are using to justify Corbyn.
Without power the Labour party is nought, and at a time when the Tories should be being hammered, Corbyn's leadership are actually losing ground.
The only way to get want you want is to win. Corbyn cannot deliver that.
I cannot ignore this inaccurate post to go without giving this topic some degree of context so I will respond this final time - and it IS the final time.
The suffering scourge of austerity is a Tory reality and one which
their policies were deliberately and specifically formulated to achieve. I'd really like to believe that they expected it to be an interminably difficult one to impose and perhaps had other contingency
"policies" up their sleeve should that prove to be the case. Astonishingly, that anticipated level of outrage never materialised sufficient for them to introduce
their up-the-sleeve contingency policies. I can hear Central Office gloating now - "Good lord above! No anticipated major unrest on the streets, little interest from those slightly above the poverty line. How relatively simple THAT one was!! Perhaps we ought to have gone even further with our
policies d'yer think?"
The answer to such assaults on our people cannot ever be redressed by the adoption of watered-down, less punitive
policies i.e.
a bit less severe than the Tories before by any incoming opposition party - if you like, an outfit akin to a pseudo-appeasing party. A majority of you in this thread focus on your perceived shortcomings of the Leader - as an individual - yet you totally ignore the message of Labour's alternative
policies. If any Government policy is a bad policy and has been demonstrated to be so, why has there never been on here ANY reference to the alternative policies advanced by JC and JMcD?
Policies are the vehicle that gives the "industry" that politics has become its name! Policies first and foremost that bring the possibility of improvement in the lot of the people who are suffering the most must never be trivialised into the personality politicking a la US of A!
So all this focus on JC and not Labour's policies is a major detraction from focussing on the main event. If the majority of our people do not want to see more food banks, more street-sleepers, more of austerity or more of anything else the Tories might just have up their sleeve, then how about those same dissatisfied people start listening to and evaluating the alternative policies that Labour would introduce? If the majority of our people couldn't give a toss about those who are worse off than they are and can't be arsed ousting the Tories, then we all of us as a nation as well as our nation itself are fucked.
Ave Atque Vale.
