Showme regarding facts refuted, I meant regarding Momentum which is what you'd previously referred to, but that stuff's all upthread so I won't go back over it because in the end - as much as we disagreed - I think we both made our points.
Looking at the overall picture. The bigger picture gives a balanced view. Looking at one man and his 'virtues' doesn't I'm afraid. That won't protect the NHS or the poor or vulnerable - only having the power to change does that
I absolutely and entirely am in line with the notion of being in power to protect those who need it most. I believe that is at the heart of the Labour party, being the parliamentary representative of socialism, and that having the power to make real change is critical.
The reason I prefer Corbyn over Smith is this: you know 184 MPs ABSTAINED on the welfare bill. And the reason they did this? Research had been conducted showing there was a public apatite for reducing spending on welfare support. And they didn't want to be seen to not be "giving the people what they want" as, you know, people vote for people who give them what they want.
And I just cannot get on board with that. There is no way - NO WAY - anyone with Labour principles should be abstaining on that bill. It is important to listen to the needs of the population and to present them with a policy package that responds to their needs and enriches their lives in line with Labour values, and it is our job to promote that package and show voters how it responds to their needs. My fear and strong belief if that Owen Smith - and others - would say almost anything, even things that stretch the concept of "labour principles" to their limit, in the pursuit or being in charge. I appreciate why; many will say principles without power is useless, but power without principles is terrifying.
On a personal note, I'm fearful. I'm fearful because of the wave of anti-immigration rhetoric and the hijacking of nationalism after the Brexit vote. I fear the alternative to Corbyn is an opposition party who pursue governance on whatever terms will get them there - and given current mood in the country post-Brexit I genuinely fear what those compromises might be. The opposition should provide a choice; you should be able to choose between the visions of (at least) two main parties and they should convey those to the electorate in such a way that shows they have responded to their needs, and by that they would be voted in.
I worry we're at the point where there are two main parties both vying to be the mouth piece of the whims of the people - offering whatever they think will be popular (see Brexit referendum) - regardless of how damaging it might actually be. That offers no choice. That is not, in my view, the function of democracy.