AnatolyKasparov wrote:Tubby Isaacs wrote:Looks like a reasonable compromise done over the McDonnell amendment.
I'm impressed with the top table's ability to get stuff squared up with the minimum of fuss lately.
Though it can be argued it is more of a compromise for Corbyn's opponents.
With the PLP moving modestly but discernably to the left after this year's GE, and that process likely to continue in the near future, 10% shouldn't be that onerous now.
The Campaign Group (or whatever polite name is allowed) has won.
McDonnell asked for more than he thought he could get, so the compromise is what he wanted in the first place.
But there is no point anyone opposing what Corbyn now wants as he now has a large majority of members and a majority of delegates.
The old "soft" left is now just a rump, with the Blairites nowhere (those that haven't left).
I don't really get why people like Richard Angell bother. I can see if you're an MP with poor job prospects why you'd stay, but for unpaid foot soldiers of the old moderate left there is no party left to fight for. Why are they bothering even trying? It is over. Purges next.
The only worry for the Corbynites, in a clear blue sky, is what would happen if Corbyn died as they have no viable candidate. But he looks a very spry, healthy 68.
The other worry is what on earth happens if the party actually won. Surely Corbyn couldn't persist in his current policy of who merits a frontbench place? Does loyalty really trump everything else? It is embarrassing in opposition, but would be a disaster in government,