Registered On: September 7, 2015
Personally, I feel Bucks is misunderstanding the Corbyn support on here somewhat, which maybe isn’t a surprise given that he’s not of the left so doesn’t have the awareness of the differences between factions.
Corbyn support included the ‘hard left’ who are die hard cultists and old wisened socialists who have spent years engaging in the kind of socialist activism Corbyn has been involved with for years. You have the ‘soft left’ who will support Labour no matter what, are impressed by Corbyn’s socialist credentials even though they don’t fully engage in methods themselves. Then you have the hopeful young who think Corbyn is a vehicle for the progressive change they want to bring and think it fully aligns with their idealised hopes for the world, be it on social justice, climate change or issues they face (i.e. rental issues).
These are broad brushes, and they can only be used as general definitions for where people’s politics lay. However, I get the feeling that many on here lie within the ‘soft left’ category, though I’m sure there’d be differences between views. The ‘soft left’ have been the most willing of Corbyn supporters, alongside many of the young too, in accepting Starmer as leader because they were never fully committed to the idea that Corbyn is the sole representative of Labour values. Bringing up Starmer’s change of course does nothing to shock them, because they’re not that bothered about it.
Hence we don’t have grumblings of Starmer betraying the ‘true Labour’ values of Corbyn. Their view of the world is that a right wing press is vilifying of Labour and they will defend the leader no matter what, which is what we have seen here. I admit to being frustrated in the past at the dismissal of concerns over Corbyn, because while right wing vilification of Labour leaders is ever present (Blair, Miliband and Starmer have all been victims of it; even Corbyn got some when the press obsessed over the non-stories like him being a Czech spy), it cannot be argued that Corbyn was unfairly smeared over what have been shown to be institutional problems taking root over anti-Semitism and his pathetic excuses for Russian excesses in Syria or the Skripal case.
Would I like to have seen more push back on here? Yes. However, none of this changes the sheer inadequacy of “what about Labour?” when Tory problems are brought up on here by the same people. There are sometimes points to be made about perceived hypocrisy, but hypocrisy never changes the rights or wrongs of what the hypocrite is highlighting. In refusing to engage with the issue at hand the claimant of hypocrisy becomes hypocritical themselves, because they continuously claim the other side is only highlighting problems of the opposite side, which is exactly what they’re doing too.
Anyway, back on topic now, here is an article on worries about Tory conduct over election suppression:
And no “what about Labour?” arguments are available to rationally dismiss it.