I was struck by your assertion that the current Labour leadership is “relentlessly on the right…
Mike Willcox
1

Quite a lot to unpick there Mike: If by success you mean a majority at the next GE, sadly I think this unlikely under Corbyn — I’d have preferred it if the PLP had simply spent time after his election as leader supporting him (certainly in getting his more traditional ‘leadership skills’ up to speed), collectively formulating a coherent direction for Labour (and associated policies) and generally getting behind him — Labour’s fortunes would certainly have been more favourable with a supportive PLP. We could have seen how it was going a year or two down the line then had a leadership contest if necessary. But I digress. History is philosophical in that ‘truth’ becomes a slippery concept retrospectively. Any historical account is always already partial and told from a particular perspective, especially when it comes to causality. There is no ‘objective’ history — which is not the same as saying some things did or did not happen — demonstrably, lots of things actually happen in the real world. Anyway, the phrase ‘right side of history’ is certainly a rhetorical device for supporting an argument, but despite this, I believe most people think peace & equality, for example, are concepts that fall ‘on the right side of history’ and I know these are principles that Corbyn subscribes to. So please excuse the rhetorical flourish and to answer your question directly: ‘no’ I don’t think history has a (simplistic) right or wrong side, though it sometimes does!

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.