ext_167279 ([identity profile] dorispossum.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] la_marquise 2016-06-30 05:31 pm (UTC)

I'm sure that all sides believe they ARE putting the country first, whilst being equally convinced that the others are playing at party politics. Corbyn himself was a rebel - and would have had no truck with the 'stand together' argument when it was used by leaders he didn't approve of.

I don't think it's been possible for Labour to stand together for a long time - we're basically watching an ugly custody battle. LP members with strong loyalties to a specific cadre are filled with passionate intensity about the unfitness of the other parent.

Personally, I think the party 'belongs' to the millions of people with various attitudes and values, who nonetheless find enough common ground to place their cross in a box for a Labour MP. Sadly, they don't get a voice on who leads the party - but they do get to choose who runs the country. I hope both MPs and party members will listen to them.

Better to get the mess over and done with, I think. For the next couple of months, at least the Tories will be too busy with their own post-Brexit meltdown to point and laugh at Labour's woes. (Eg today's developments - black humour essential!)

After decision is made, if compromise with Evil Party is too horrible to stomach, the aggrieved members can leave and create their own party, and put their case to voters. Who can decide which is more attractive. If offered a choice as crude as Blairites v Corbynites, I think voters will rightly declare a plague on both their houses. I know I will.

I just hope we don't have to re-run EVERY battle of the 1980s. I didn't enjoy it the first time.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting