So - I thought my comment about Starmer being more effective than Corbyn would probably get some reaction. What did I mean by that?

Politics is done in various ways. There's grassroots politics and high politics. There's activism and legislation. Campaigning and governing.

Corbyn - and his supporters - are activists and campaigners. Spreading awareness of hugely important issues; standing against injustice. And, on a national level, ultimately achieving... nothing.

And no: massively increasing the Labour membership doesn't count.

Because massively increasing the Labour membership is irrelevant to all those who need our help and need us in government.

The poor. The homeless. The disabled. The sick. Immigrants. Refugees. Public servants. The NHS. What did Corbyn actually achieve for them? Nothing.

They're still in the same situation now - in fact, a worse situation - as when he became Labour leader. On a national level, he failed. Like Miliband failed and Kinnock failed and Foot failed. And Brown too: albeit, at least he was in government making a difference for 13 years.

Unlike even Tony Benn - another much loved, inspirational man who achieved nothing - Corbyn was never in government. He wasn't even on the front bench until he became leader.

"But Shaun - that's because New Labour had lost its principles and its soul!"

Well, no. Corbyn never had any interest in being a front bench spokesperson. What was it Tony Benn said when he left the Commons? "I am leaving Parliament to spend more time in politics". To spend more time, in other words, doing politics his way. And that was Corbyn's way too.

So Benn toured up and down the land and became, late in his life, a national treasure: adored by the left, respected hugely by the right too. But in tangible terms, the difference he made was negligible. In fact, he caused all sorts of strife for Labour: in 1981 especially.

Then look across the pond to Bernie Sanders. Another lovely man. Another politician who's stuck to his principles for decades. Another politician who, in legislative terms (delivering actual change for people) has achieved... nothing. Decades in the Senate. Nothing achieved.

And you can admire people like Sanders and Corbyn for "sticking to their principles". But you can also scorn them for failing to compromise in pursuit of change. Of progress. Of improving people's lives.

You can find old videos of both and say "wow - they've always been right!"

But then you might like to ask yourself: "How come, all the time they've been in politics, things have just got worse and worse and worse - and they've done nothing tangible to stop it?"

The REALLY great activists? Martin Luther King. Nelson Mandela. Emmeline Pankhurst.

Incredible people who've gone down in history and, in that sense, are immortal. They're proof that you don't HAVE to be in Parliament or Prime Minister/President to achieve change - but people like them are rare. Very rare.

In practice, how does change mostly happen?

In practice, it's slow and hard and gradual and painstaking. Because you're constantly having to work with people who don't want change, and who themselves command substantial public support.

That's why the best democracies have proportional systems.

It's actually hilarious observing so many of those opposed to Starmer's way of doing things who then say they support electoral reform. Really?

Because under PR, you'll never get 100% of what you want. It's impossible. And that's a profoundly good thing.

Because good government governs for EVERYONE. Not just for one group or another group; but everyone. The alternative is division, polarisation and increasingly, poison: with the worst poison of all reserved for those in the same party, but who differ in their views or approach.

In order to win, Labour's last electorally successful leader had to reach out to all sorts of people who seem like anathema to many on here. But if you don't win, you can't do anything. Anything at all.

And yes, New Labour got a whole ton of things very wrong.

Yet along with that was also:

- Peace in Northern Ireland
- Minimum wage
- Massive funding for schools and hospitals
- Maternity and paternity leave
- Civil partnerships
- Huge reductions in child poverty
- A decade of economic growth
- Huge reductions in homelessness

So New Labour "did nothing and stood for nothing" - while also doing all the above? Really?

Right now, there are companies I work with in Uruguay who are laying off staff because of the awful changes to the UK Department of International Development. Cuts. Cuts. Cuts.

DfID had been a world leader until pretty recently: making a huge difference in many different issues. Under which government did it take such a role? Oh yes: the Labour government.

Also in Uruguay, the UN has a unit focusing on sexual and reproductive health.

What is the model it uses in seeking to reduce teenage pregnancy? "The United Kingdom, 2000-2010". So New Labour did nothing and stood for nothing - as well as helping millions of people at home and abroad?

And no: this is NOT a call for New Labour Mk II. Been there, done that.

But it's certainly a call for people to at least try and understand how politics actually works. And has mostly always worked. Effective politics joins bottom-up and top-down together; it combines activism with legislation. And first of all, with winning power.

And when done well, it achieves... progress. Not the moon on a stick. Not everything you could ever want. But progress.

Did King personally eradicate racism in the US? Absolutely not. Did Mandela personally do the same in South Africa? Nope.

Did Pankhurst achieve true equality for women? Nope: she just helped achieve a vital step forward in the right direction. The struggle for that, as with so many other forms of injustice, continues today.

That's politics. That's life. And politics IS life.

Because in life, we all make compromises ALL THE DAMN TIME. Including compromises 'with the system'.

To those on some self-proclaimed moral high ground who say "I'm sticking to my principles so I'm leaving Labour", I have the following questions.

1. That mobile phone you're tweeting from about your 'principles' - how was it made? Do you even know?

2. Those clothes you're wearing - where and how were they made? Do you even know?

3. The food you buy and eat - how was it made? How were the animals treated?

4. Those illegal drugs you used as some rite of passage when you were a teenager - or maybe still use now - what do you think enables drug barons to maintain their power and terrorise horrific numbers of people?

It's Western consumption.

So you're 'principled' in politics - and you demand 'principle' of the Labour leader - while you're not principled in your daily lives at all?

And by the way, I'm no better. My ebook is on Amazon for God's sake.

We all make compromises all the time. More than that: someone can be a fundamentally decent human being and a force for good while making compromises all the time. Unless you think all those guilty of the things I've mentioned above are somehow bad human beings?

Another example of someone who compromised in the name of progress was, of course, Obama. Who also did some awful things. Who also "stood for nothing and did nothing", according to his critics. And who also:

- Bailed out the US economy via a massive stimulus
- Secured health insurance for tens of millions of Americans
- Normalised relations with Cuba
- Signed the Iran deal
- Sought a path to citizenship for DREAMers
- Signed the Paris Agreement and began implementing it

Sought, in vain I might add, at least a semblance of unity among Americans. Because he at least tried to govern for ALL Americans - and was met by unheard of levels of obstructionism. Which he couldn't resolve, because Democrat voters wouldn't turn out for Congressional elections

Obama did many bad things and achieved nothing like what he hoped to achieve. But he is a fundamentally good man and force for good - and he did LEAD.

Those who say "there's no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats/Starmer and the Tories" might like to ask themselves: what was homelessness like under New Labour? How many people were abandoned by the system and left to starve to death under New Labour?

What do you think life is like for Americans who have no access to health insurance? What do you think will happen to the planet if great powers leave the Paris Accords?

Of course there's a difference. But Starmer now, and Biden too, have to deal with an electoral map as it is.

An electoral map which, in both countries, wildly over-represents social and economic conservatives and penalises left/liberals. An electoral map in which, for example, Sanders had no chance whatsoever anywhere in the south (notably including the critical state of Florida).

An electoral map in which Corbyn was absolutely despised by working class voters, despite wanting to help them.

You can't just click your fingers and wish all of that away. It doesn't matter how loudly you shout, scream at or denounce others.

Of course, Starmer hasn't even fought a national election yet, so we've no idea how he'll ultimately do. When he does, he'll be subject to the same standards as apply to all leaders of all major parties.

If you win, you have a chance to change things. If you lose, you have none.

And you know what I think true betrayal is? Real lack of principle is? It's abandoning all the people who desperately need our help because "Labour/the Democrats aren't left wing enough".

That might make you feel good. It doesn't help anyone anywhere at all. /FIN