Read on Twitter
Take two on what I was trying to say yesterday: Corbyn has always been a politician with a dim view of parliament's ability to convert Britain to socialism. See this Vice interview with him and John McDonnell before the 2015 election: https://www.vice.com/en/article/dp9w3w/jeremy-corbyn-john-mcdonnell-interview-election-2015-labour-party-674
That attitude persisted throughout his leadership (no doubt fuelled by the hostility of the PLP). Though Corbyn's Labour *did* use parliamentary procedures - like the humble address and opposition day motions - its rhetoric prioritised the need to build a "movement".
No surprise there: Corbyn won the leadership as an anti-system candidate. His movement-building was undoubtedly successful: Labour's membership hit 500,000 by 2016. (By last summer it was 485,000, compared with 180,000 for the Conservatives.) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05125/
However, I think Corbyn was wrong to disdain the power of parliament to change minds and make the case for the left. This week's opposition day motion on Free School Meals forced Tory MPs who obeyed the whip to put their name to an unpopular (and probably doomed) position.
It provided the impetus for Marcus Rashford to revisit his summer campaign on the issue, and led to several days of bad headlines for the government. Another opposition day debate - something mooted by Starmer - would reopen the wound.
tl; dr John McDonnell is an astute politician, but the last week shows (in my opinion) he was wrong to be so down on the possibility of parliament effecting change.
What I didn't phrase well yesterday was the idea that Corbyn-era Labour "disdained" opposition day motion. That read to some people like "didn't do them". What I meant was "didn't champion parliamentary procedures as a way of winning political arguments". /ends
