To be a fly-on-the-wall at the Observer’s editorial meetings last week must have been a treat. Today, long-serving writer Ed Vulliamy is given space to say why he disagrees with the paper’s stance on Jeremy Corbyn. He writes:
I felt we let down many readers and others by not embracing at least the spirit of the result, propelled as it was by moral principles of equality, peace and justice. These are no longer tap-room dreams but belong to a mass movement in Britain, as elsewhere in Europe.
And on the business pages, William Keegan the veteran economics editor, writes, under the headline Modern capitalism needs an opponent. It needs Jeremy Corbyn:
But there is little doubt that Corbyn is there because his rivals in the leadership race failed to distinguish themselves sufficiently from the Tories: suddenly there has been a grassroots revolt against austerity, especially among the young. As Corbyn says, austerity was not inevitable: it was a political decision.
Andrew Rawnsley, the political editor, sticks by his anti-Corbyn line:
Jeremy Corbyn’s first week as Labour leader hasn’t gone as planned, because it wasn’t planned. It has been authentic, all right; authentically amateurish. For sure, even if his debut had been sparkling, he would never have got warm reviews from his many enemies at Westminster and in the media. What’s more interesting is that even sympathisers have been taken aback by the absence of preparation for the transition and the shambles that has ensued
He predicts there will a “crunch point between leader and parliamentary party”. It will certainly be interesting.
I could come as early as the party conference at the end of the month when we will see how much support the majority of the parliamentary party has among the wider party. On the evidence of the ballot it is limited.
As a diversion it is good to see a newspaper airing its policy differences as widely as the Labour party has done in the past week.