Though after the abysmal electoral performance of the party, analysts and senior Labour blamed Jeremy Corbyn, the fact remains that no serious effort was made to evaluate and analyse the reasons for the debacle. It was the arrogance and one-upmanship of Corbyn that were blamed for the disastrous result. Even the staunch supporters deserting the party blamed Corbyn for his unlike leadership approach.

If the Brexit failed to become the key issue so was the case with his socialist-left policy which could not reach to millions of people who are desperate for emergence of alternate politics.

Labour’s Brexit problem was its ambiguity, and no clear political approach to the domestic financial issues. Labour even could not evolve a transparent policy towards EU. The tragedy of Labour has been if Corbyn could not define his left policies in distinct manner, the party also did not acquire the character of a socialist party. The contradictions inflicting the party could be understood from the fact that most of the leaders even during election campaigning refused to promote and propagate his ideas.

The party was never a conglomeration of socialist democrats nor a party of centre-left. There is no doubt that to lead a left party requires extraordinary charisma. Corbyn not analysing the reasons for the party’s defeat in his New Year message clearly manifests that utter ideological confusion prevails in the party. It needs strong ideological efforts to make the rank and file agree to follow pro-people policies and programmes.

Search for a competent leader to lead the party is on. There are number of contestants. The new leader would have to tread between modernism, post liberalism and Blairism. In fact Corbyn had to indulge in inner struggle to establish his own authority.

It is not that Britain has not been a fit case for implementing the Marxist programme. It has been afflicted by growing inequality and poverty, insecure work, failing public services and unaffordable housing and health services available to the poor and working class people.

The situation prevailing inside the Labour is challenging. Any one replacing him would have not only to retain the socialist-left programmes, but would have to identify with the aspirations of the poor and working class. It ought to be not forgotten that the UK has changed. It is no longer the old imperial Britain. Today at least 30 per cent of the population is stricken with poverty. The number of homeless population is swelling.

Corbyn still enjoys support among many of Labour’s 550,000 members who will vote for a new leader and obviously they would try to assess whether the new leader imbibes his ideological-political line. The Labour leadership will have to deliberate that whether Corbyn’s policies and programmes are pragmatic and represent the aspirations of the common Britons.

The party has set up Labour Together co-led by Ed Miliband to study and report the reasons for the miserable electoral performance of the party. But already voices of dissent and suspicion have emerged inside the party whether the probe will follow right path and reach right conclusion. Apprehensions are expressed whether it would reach and listen to the people who refused to vote for the party. According to one of the potential leadership candidates Lisa Nandy it was adopting a misguided approach by being based too much in Westminster.

While the leaders opposed to Corbyn are determined to wipe out the imprint of his policies and programmes and leaders like Caroline Flint, who was voted out in Don Valley after 22 years as an MP, chastised Corbyn for not mentioning the election, Corbyn’s supporters hold that the party had built a strong movement and the new leadership would defend the NHS and fight against poverty. They are also hopeful that Corbyn “will live on” continue to fight for socialism and the next leader would match Corbyn’s integrity. Their commitment to Corbyn’s policies could be gauged from their assertion that they had never been prouder to support the party. (IPA Service)