+In one of the more absurd stories this week, Labour MP Chris Bryant complained in a radio interview that Tory MPs had invaded his space and were more likely to break social distancing rules than Labour MPs. I’m not sure that Bryant has asked himself why it is that Tory ministers are so keen to ‘slap him on the back?’ Is this something his constituents want to hear?
+The decision of the Labour Party’s leadership to roll-over and make a settlement with those who were involved in the defaming Panorama programme on Labour being a nest of anti-Semites surely brings shame on all those who laughingly consider ‘fair play’ an aspiration of any progressive movement. It suggests that under its new administration, Labour’s ambition to be welcomed back into the establishment is utterly untrammelled, as if that is the only route to power. You can only behave as if you look like part of the establishment to be considered a candidate to be part of it. But for the most part, as we’ve seen in the Bryant case above, a slap on the back will be the most you can hope for.
+I received a letter (by email) from the Guardian today. It began
Occasionally, supporters write in asking what they get for their money. There are two answers here. The first is Pythonesque. "What has the Guardian ever done for us... apart from the award-winning journalism, a slick ever-updating website, the holding of power to account, the investigations of crooks and incompetents, the pledge to raise our voice on the environment, the commitment to publish our work free to all regardless of wealth, rank and possession?’
The second answer is simpler: newsletters.’
This came from the ‘Membership Editor’ (a sinister role, surely?) and I am left wondering if this post holder will be in place for much longer. This opening paragraph I guess is meant to be humorous (why else ‘Pythonesque?’) but surely suggesting that there may be something funny about the Guardian’s mission is to undermine its serious intent? I know I regularly bang on about the Guardian’s failures, but it simply lacks the political fervour of say (chosen at random) the Daily Mail. Mail readers can be left in no doubt about what are the proper solutions for society’s ills - and more importantly, who will deliver them. The Guardian never stops fretting. So when a Labour leader comes along with the policies which generally fit the bill, it wets its pants and finds all sorts of reasons to distance itself from the revolutionary idea that the changes it claims it wants to see happen are actually within grasp. Consequently, we are fed the kind of lies about Corbyn which occupied so many of its column inches. Why can’t the so-called left be as clearly ambitious as the right? Is it lack of moral fibre? What exactly? Too much cosying up at dinner parties?