It's a house journal for the "New Labour" type left. Consequently it does have institutional anti-Labour bias because their perspective is no longer the dominant one in the Labour party. Similarly with the Guardian. Although they both run supportive pieces from regular columnists, their general editorial slant is effectively anti-Labour.Yeah but the idea that the New Statesman carries some institutional anti Lab bias is crazy. It's a bloody house journal for the Left.
From all the Labour meetings, forums, groups, etc, I'm part of. There's never anyone who thinks Tom is doing a good job. The ubiquitous story among the membership - which also applies to me - runs as : "I voted for Tom as deputy leader in 2015, and now I want the chance to vote him out again." But it's really difficult under current party rules to trigger a deputy leadership election unless Tom puts himself up for it, which he is definitely not going to do because he'd get absolutely trounced.On what basis do you make this judgement?
Sounds a lot like the classic "People think..." to mean "I think...".
I'm not sure about this. Personally I like a lot of the domestic policy, what I know of it (and obvs not going to hear about it now, 'cos the news will be dominated by internal ructions - nice one, Momentum). For me, its foreign policy stuff (and Brexit obvs but let's not go there). For a lot of "the establishment" I think it would be security concerns also (probably best illustrated by his response to the Skirpal posioning). If he were to resign and take his top advisors with him, I'd feel happy about voting Labour again.That dynamic goes way beyond Corbyn, and it's frustrating that everything is couched in terms of a single personality. If he resigned tomorrow, that struggle/tension would still be the central theme within Labour.
...endless bullshit. For example:I'm not sure about this. Personally I like a lot of the domestic policy, what I know of it (and obvs not going to hear about it now, 'cos the news will be dominated by
I note the words "from today's times" there. And all the anonymous sources. In other words, it's basically propaganda ffs. Seamus Milne isn't some machiavellian mastermind running Corbyn. He's just some guy trying to do his job.I think this is from today's times
Labour has already committed to a massive green overhaul to combat climate change. But if you meant Brexit... given that the referendum was virtually 50/50, what's more moral than trying to reach common ground between two increasingly polarized positions? Anything else is amoral half-the-country can fuck off politics.How terrible would it be if if Labour were to take a moral position on the world's biggest ongoing tragedy? Far too much to ask.
Yes, the 500,000 of us desiring a fundamental once in a generation change in UK economics and politics are all just cranks. But okay it's a fair enough opinion, seeing as you're getting your perspective from the Times.Corbyn has opened up Labour to a load of cranks IMO.