It’s not credible for McCluskey to step out of the tent now

In the hum and hubbub of analysis of Labour’s electoral disaster, perhaps the most surprising voice has been

Len McCluskey’s.

His description of the defeat being due to an “incontinent rush of policies” is surprising as many people will feel he was the one supplying the diuretics.

The reason for Labour’s defeat clearly lies with the leadership. Even those people voting for us told us time and time again that they were voting for us despite of Corbyn, not because of him.

But leadership is more than one person. The leader’s office has numerous people who were placed there by McCluskey. Policy was shaped, and in some cases vetoed, by him.

Above all, his voice has been prominent and pivotal in terms of shaping and supporting Corbyn’s time as leader.

It is therefore not credible for McCluskey to decide to step out of the tent – this is as much his defeat as Corbyn’s and he needs to own it.

But his intervention raises an important aspect that the Labour Party needs to consider as it rakes over the embers of this latest defeat.

The Corbyn project has been synthesised and supported by a cast of outriders, commentators and cheerleaders.

At its core, Jon Lansman’s construction of Momentum coupled with McCluskey’s grip of Unite thee union both delivered Corbyn’s victories ries in the leadership p elections and marshalled support pport through his tenure. ure.

Sophisticatedd use of social mediaa and promotion of social ocial media commentators ntators such as Aaron Bastani and Ash Sarkar, r, through self-perpetuated fronts like “Novara Media”, created a screen of supportive opinion insulating the project from critique from within and outside the party. They also insulated Corbyn from reality.

The problem with our manifesto was not simply the number of policies or the credibility of the spending commitments. The problem was that it was not clear how any of the policies would change day-to-day lives.

We took it as read that people think nationalising things is good, that the Green New Deal would benefit them and that placing schools under Whitehall control would improve things. Our manifesto was full of things that Labour people like talking about but no one bothered to check what anyone thought outside the bubble.

The Labour Party has long had an issue of assuming people know that we are the good guys. We have a bad habit of not explaining why we argue for certain things or how they will make a difference.

The introspective bubble created by Momentum, Novara and McCluskey turbochargedcharged this t tendency.

Failure of le leadership is why Labo Labour lost.

The cosy e echo chamber thathat was created around arou Corbyn’s leadership lead must be swept swep aside. Those who con constructed it need to accept acc they are part of o the problem, proble not part pa of the solution. so