I don’t think it’s a case of ‘if you can’t beat them join them’ but if you want to see those social reforms you mention you ain’t gonna see em under the Party Corbyn was leading, regardless of the reasons, which are manifest. So, if you do want those reforms you’re gonna have to accept the Party shifts to the right somewhat to have any hope whatsoever of getting rid of the Tories. Or you don’t. You dig your heels in like 99% and all the other Corbynites and watch people suffer more than they ever would do under a Starmer led government. It really is that simple. Having said that, Labour has an extremely small chance of gaining more seats than the Tories for a very long time. Given the Scotland situation we’re going to have to win back those red wall lot and some traditional Tory voters before that happens. Hence the Party listening to those lot and appeasing them just to have a fighting chance of governing in the future. I’m too old and long in the tooth to be caring about the theoretical rhetoric armchair socialists, who are ‘quite comfortable themselves thank you very much’ spout while all the while ignoring people who have turned against them and those they need to win over. If you are unable to empathise, listen and take on board other opinions then you’re doomed. It’s a losing battle. But hey, hypothetically speaking, you won’t be destitute will you?
You raise some good points. It’s a shame the much maligned thanks button has gone, because I’d be thanking this post. A Labour government should stand for the poor and vulnerable. To do that it needs to be seen as understanding of their concerns and problems. To do this it needs to be sympathetic to concerns from the base.
It is a tough one though, because no-one wants Labour to imitate UKIP to appease some of the more disagreeable concerns, but more of a focus on community concerns and less on niche issues which suit the more ideologically driven wouldn’t be amiss.