I was glad to see that you offered a definition of what you CALL "Corbynism"-it is clear that about 70% of what you define as that "ism" is simply the state of not despising Jeremy Corbyn and not believing that he was obligated to resign when the bogus and totally outside of party rules "no-confidence motion" was held.
My questions on that are: why was it not enough that he submitted to a second leadership contest? And can you tell me how it would have been in any way democratic for Corbyn to agree to simply stand down when the PLP would have made sure that no one but "moderates" were on the ballot to replace him? How could that have been democratic when the overwhelming majority of the party didn't want him to agree to that and didn't want everything the Corbyn movement stood for simply erased from the party?
Why didn't they offer him a guarantee that a socialist-there was no such thing as an anti-Corbyn socialist in the PLP; the only ones who wanted him to stand down and not even be on the next leadership ballot were on the right wing of the party-would be on the ballot, and guarantee that his supporters would not be purged?
Those would have been personally legitimate things to agree to.
And looking back, you can't seriously argue that Owen Smith, the man who never drew crowds at any of his hustings during the leadership campaign, would have been an improvement? Owen Smith has no personality, no charisma, and was a lobbyist for Pfizer. What would anybody like that have had to offer? For that matter, what would right-wingers like Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham or Liz Kendall have had to offer?
the disaster in 2015 proved Labour had gone as far to the right as it could go, and that it's only chance for relevance was to reconnect with socialism. There were no policies to the right of Ed Miliband's that even you would have been able to call "Labour policies" with a clear conscience.
Basically, you're saying that Labour should have been turned back over in 2016 to the people who had just lost the previous two elections. What did any of them have to offer? What chance was there that the people who had blown the 2010 and 2015 elections could ever win another election after that?
And why should Labour have listened to their policy ideas, when all they were saying was to go further and further and further to the right, like the mainland European "social democratic" parties that no longer support social democracy and are in permanent, irreversible electoral decline?
Are you really going to argue that Labour should be more like the German SPD? As in, the German SPD which now barely gets 20% of the vote and will never win another federal election in that country?