The battle for the Labour leadership is not really about who leads. It is about what is led and for what purpose. And it is about public disaffection with the whole of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
Globalization is tottering because most people are worse off because of it. In our national context the interests of the working classes, the lack of decent skills based jobs, relevant education, prospects for young people, housing, healthcare, work life balance, childcare or a host of other details which affect everyday life, have left them struggling and feeling politically abandoned. Then along came a sprightly grandfatherly figure with a grey beard who listened to them, spoke their language, argued their cases and changed the political conversation.
They joined his party in unprecedented numbers, elected him their leader by an landslide and watched in dismay as an angry and spiteful Labour party in Parliament, for the most part with blood on its hands for being a co-architect of the most unbalanced and unfair economic settlement since WWII, did everything it could to get rid of him. When its many strategies failed, it forced a re-run election, which it plans to win. Well it may not work out quite like that.
The cry from this pool of selfish mediocrity which loves the game of politics and the endless brawling as a way of life, is that Corbyn is not a leader. Oh? He is certainly the best leader of the Labour Movement since Clement Attlee. That he falls short in the eyes of the PLP may be something to do with the fact that most of them are not worth leading.