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.
No comments:
Post a Comment