The value of having principles

One of the revealing things about the discontent in the Labour Party, where a majority of MPs are in open revolt with their leader Jeremy Corbyn is, back in 1994, when Tony Blair assumed leadership of the Party he set about changing it into New Labour  but he didn't carry all of his parliamentarian colleagues with him. The reversal of Clause 4 and many other alterations to the image and substance of the party, an attempt to make it more acceptable to the middle ground voter, went against the principles of many socialists, in fact the very description of socialist for New Labour was rejected for something more akin to a Centrist party which at that time was in vogue in Europe, such as a Social Democrat.  

Blair who has been described as "son of Thatcher" was a career politician who ideologically could float to where the votes were rather than have a set of principles by which he stood and argued for.

Watching Corbyn defend unilateral disarmament to a house of baying Tories was one thing but when the loudest critics came from his own party supporters one knew that the schism Blair created in 1994 was deep and lasting. These MPs were of a time when political principles were a work in progress and meant little so long as one gained power
Now rationally speaking, it make sense since without the voters behind you are impotent to make those changes to the daily life of the people you purport  to serve.

But there is more to politics than the mechanics of wresting power.

People become members of a political organisation because they believe in the founding aims and the ideological tenants of a belief system. They hold these beliefs throughout their lives irrespective of whether it has popular support or whether the party has a chance of government, being in the party and being seen to belong with other people who belong to the party, is enough. A little like a club but with a serious agenda to represent a point of view which, whilst not popular, has for them a logical message. They propound that same message throughout their lives and like Corbyn will not sell their principles for anything. 

In the nature of things at large we should value these sort of people, not necessarily for what they support but for their faith in their commitment. The general trend amongst people today is to have few fixed principles, to go with the flow, to exchange yesterday's commitment for another one if today I can gain some sort of advantage. Few people today will stand up in a crowd and say something they believe in if they know that the majority will shout them down. 

How easy for Corbyn to modulate his principles for party advantage over Trident. How easy to make a speech along the lines of the tub beaters and jingoistic to say we need the nuclear sub to maintain our image amongst nations whilst the real image amongst our peers is of an under educated, under provisioned, under invested nation, all of which could be addressed by reallocating the estimated £200 billion into education and reinvestment to grow our economy. We are enormously over borrowed as a state, borrowing madly to sustain our payments to our lenders on the current account. We are to all intents and purposes bankrupt, if it were an individual the bank would withdraw our facility. And yet we propose to spend this colossal amount to support the Americans who wish to place us at the back of the trade negotiating queue.

Of course to Jeremy Corbyn it is much more than the money. The ethical consequences of wiping out tens of millions of people by pressing the button is too great. His humanity is too profound, unlike Mrs May who with glee answered the SNP member when asked if she was prepared to press the button said with a glare across the chamber "yes".

Perhaps only woman can be so clear minded so ideologically profound that their instincts can contemplate wiping out mankind perhaps she doesn't understand that it includes womankind as well.