Perhaps the sorest aspect of Corbyn's downfall is that it came down to accusations of racism - the definition of which the left has expanded in recent years. A lot of the intersectional concepts introduced to political discourse or cosigned by the left became its ultimate undoing

You had a lot of people resisting antisemitism accusations in a manner they themselves would deem unsatisfactory in any other case of racism. That they themselves would insist was just evidence of 'internalised' something or other.

It wasn't a good look to have elevated 'lived experience' as the ultimate benchmark of what constitutes truth to then be seen dismissing the 'lived experiences' of many Jews.

The left regards itself as having a monopoly on anti-racism so is constitutionally incapable of confronting charges that it is, itself, capable of enabling racism. There is a greater distance to fall when you get caught out on something you have, yourself, moralised to no end.

By the lefts own analysis, people can exhibit tolerance in many other respects and still be guilty of racism, which is why the defence 'Corbyn is a lifelong anti-racist' doesn't resonate. The left itself has outlined that racism is not one thing . That not all racism is the same.

Do I think Corbyn is anti-Semitic? No. But, according to many on the left where every other kind of racism is concerned, the fact I do not see evidence of racism does not mean that it does not exist. And additionally, my refusal to see it may be more evidence of my prejudice.

Why, in the case of Corbyn, does this same precept not apply? This puzzles me. What puzzles me further is that only in cases of anti-Semitism does this occur on the left. I realise I am speaking in generalities here, that the analysis is low resolution, but so are everyone elses.