That’s a good question! My feeling is that the Labour Party is finished as an electoral force in this country, so in that sense I don’t think it matters who now leads. Corbyn’s strategy (explicitly stated on several occasions by him and McDonall/Milne) is to build a ‘social movement’ – ie an extra-parliamentary force. I think that may be achieved in the longer run, but at the expense of power. Certainly as a sort of large lobby or pressure group, labour in some guise will be a useful thorn in any government’s side. In the meantime I genuinely believe labour has made itself irrelevant.
BTW – you ‘need the anger’ like a drowning person needs a deflated rubber ring! Anger will only take you so far – then it puts people off/turns them away; it also unhelpfully ‘hardens’ attitudes so that any consensus becomes impossible in the short/medium term. It never guarantees committed long-term support and is fickle by every measure, – as likely to go to UKIP or some other grouping. Electorally, for every member gained – I reckon labour have lost maybe 10–15 votes. ALL the evidence points that way.
Clearly – I’m not a Corbyn supporter; in fact I truly distrust him and the very small ‘cabal’ surrounding him. I also think he’s profoundly dishonest and not at all the sort of person his supporters believe him to be. What makes me angry though, is that he places himself above the party, it’s history and purpose, those members who do not support him and the needs of the predominantly dispossessed. That gives us in effect a one-party state. That’s criminal!