What is Labour For? (2)

Further to my posting yesterday (What is Labour For?) I had a glimpse of the first candidate hustings yesterday. I couldn’t face the whole thing. It confirmed everything I said. One additional thing did occur to me, however. There was a distinct feeling I got that three of the candidates – all bar Corbyn that is – were really more interested in how Labour can win back power than how they can improve the state of Britain. Other than tribal Labour supporters, people don’t care who wins really, they just want things that distress or annoy or worry them put right or they want politicians to improve their own life circumstances. Burnham’s slip about putting the party first, corrected by Kendall, was a case in point. To put this another way, the Conservative party CAN be elected for its own sake because it stands for stability and continuity. Labour cannot make such a claim because Labour invariably stands for change. There is no point voting for Labour if it stands for the same as the Conservative Party (other than to teach an incompetent Conservative administration a lesson, i.e. make it accountable, rather like changing gas supplier. The gas is the same but have they sent you the correct bill?). Voting Labour is voting for some kind of change. None of the candidates, other than the unelectable Jeremy Corbyn, explained last night what they stood for in terms of change. As for passion, I have some sympathy. You can only be genuinely passionate about something you believe in but I do not know what the three electable candidates believe in, other than getting Labour elected.