Corbynism: The Post-Mortem

A most interesting and engaging study of an important act in current political history, with a superb selection of commentators, the involved and the interested as guest voices. Appreciated the effort made to cover as much ground as possible and the different implications raised. I approach this very much more as an historian than a politico. I would have liked to have heard an additional episode I think covering the personalities other than Jeremy Corbyn’s own that went into developing “Corbynism”, as the emphasis seemed to rely mostly on one man’s centrality, to the exclusion of an interesting cast of front and back bench, and backstairs, supporters. But very much enjoyed the narrative and the further questions it raised. Would recommend.

He’s not dead lol

Utterly ridiculous bias might as well be produced by the daily mail.

As someone who has voted Labour in the past 3 general elections (2x under Corbyn), and voted for Corbyn in the leadership elections, I approached this podcast cautiously, fearing it might simply regurgitate empty talking points popular amongst many of the Commentariat right. I was, then, pleasantly surprised to find the content of most episodes offered a much more nuanced discussion than the headlines may suggest. To his credit, Oz tends to give his guests ample airtime and they very much drive the discussion, with his occassional guidance. Occasionally, the guiding narration lacks some of that nuance (like, for example, his insistence the 2017 and 2019 election results were "rejections" of the manifestos, despite acknowledging immediately after that polls show their broad public support), but that is minor faultfinding when viewed in totality. He deserves credit for giving the floor over to the various panelists, representing a range of opinions from the Labour left to the Labour right, and for resisting the zero-sum antics that have plagued this topic from the beginning. Many of the remaning hardcore pro-Corbyn supporters left within (and without) Labour may be irked by the podcast, but I have yet to see a review that actually offers substantive criticism instead of simple fallacies.