Left wing policies - right wing politics?

This evening I came home to see that Abby Tomlinson - the teenage founder of the #milifandom movement on Twitter, had written an article for The Guardian, explaining why she was backing Andy Burnham in the Labour leadership election. As a creator of a movement that gained momentum in a way no-one saw coming, grabbed many headlines and succeeded where many Labour spin doctors had failed, she has every right to have a voice in this election.

For myself, as someone who has voted Labour before, but is quite happy to float between the various left and liberal parties, I found reading Abby's arguments very interesting. She'd actually bothered to attend hustings, read up on policies and had gone out of her way to meet all of the four candidates. She was in a pretty strong position to argue her case. Sadly though, you wouldn't have thought that from the string of nasty comments that ensued. Some claiming that she had no right to a platform to air her views, others were spewing abuse simply because they disagreed with her choice of candidate, and the word 'naive' was thrown around a lot.

If this is what happens when a young person engages in politics, it's no wonder so many of them stay away. If Labour can get all those young people who wouldn't normally vote behind them, it'd be a huge boost, keep treating your future electorate like some (I hasten to add, not all), have treated Abby, and the party is in trouble. On a wider scale, if people could welcome and encourage young people's contribution to politics, they might actually develop a voice loud enough to change things. Anyone who can create a movement that so wonderfully throws the narrative of our media off course, is someone who should be nurtured and supported. A defence against relentless, baseless attacks from the right wing press surely is striking gold for any party?

So here I am. Wading into the Labour leadership debate. Many politicians wonder why so many people don't engage with politics, especially at a time where we have an increasingly right wing, austerity-happy party making cruel decisions that are so directly and clearly tearing apart people's lives. This leadership campaign is in mortal danger of being a prime example of why so many people are turning their back on politics regardless. Labour are supposed to be the alternative, but instead we have infighting, personal attacks and even threatened coups to bring down a democratically elected leader. Of course policies and people are important, but they are getting drowned out by certain voices in this leadership election. Nastiness is not going to help displace this government. You don't just win elections in the few months of campaigning beforehand. People are looking at the party right now. How many people like what they're seeing?

There are two stand out expressions, about two particular candidates that have been brandished about as if they were vote wining swords during this debate. They are:

• Unelectable (Corbyn). It's a bizarre choice of word for someone who has been elected to represent his constituency seven times, over a period of more than thirty years. What people actually mean when they use this term is 'very left wing' and 'doesn't come across like a politician'. Take a look at what happened in Scotland. Have a little glance through the history books at various party leader's attempts to look human, and, oh yeah - less like a politician. This man has confounded almost everyone with how much support he's garnered thus far. Instead of throwing around words that are going to come back to haunt you (seriously - calling someone in your own party unelectable has got to set some sort of alarm system off - the bells, the anti-theft system and the fire alarm for good measure), why not have a little look at what it is about him that inspires people?

• Tory-Lite (Kendall). Stray too far to the left, and you're unelectable, too far to the centre ground and you're a Tory. Can you really blame someone who has just seen her party defeated in the face of an unexpected Conservative majority for starting to examine why people voted that way ? Her message is all about being able to get back into power so that the party can start to implement policies for the good of the country. I happen to disagree that this is the way to do it, but she is forcing the party to examine why they lost against such an unpopular government, and as much as she wouldn't be my choice for leader, she's the needed, if somewhat uncomfortable voice in the debate. 

We cannot let the negative, baseless, and nasty terminology of the right, control left wing politics. The Conservatives and their media barons will always be there, playing their scare tactics and lies, and sometimes, sadly, they work. However, this is no excuse to constantly sink to their level. The Labour party need to offer something different. Something better. Not just in their policies, not just in the personalities, but in their politics and their behaviour.

Yes, there is justified anger at what is being done in government right now, the people doing it, and even those who are seen as failing to oppose it. Yes, ideas will clash. People will argue passionately. This is what democracy supposed to be. People who care deeply about the world around them, pitching their vision of how to improve it, and then letting the people decide. But that is no licence for the candidates or their supporters (as it largely has been) to turn on each other, to behave in (excuse the turn of phrase) - a 'Tory-Lite' manner and start slandering other people.

Come on Labour. I know deep down you're better than this. I know deep down the majority of your MPs, members and supporters want to see a fairer society for all, but until you start displaying fairness, reason and compassion amongst your own ranks, that vision is fading.