Blair should just go away and hang his head in shame instead of interfering. He's had his time in the limelight. It's unfortunate that his influence still lingers.

I'm groping towards something here; the most important attribute of a leader, I would say, is that (s)he is going in the right direction. That surely has priority over charisma, or the tally of followers. Otherwise one might have to acclaim Hitler or the Pied Piper as a great leader. And goodness and decency seem pretty much definitive of the right direction.

It seems to me that we are still struggling with images of manhood and notions of leadership and loyalty thereto that should have been replaced in the wake of WW1. The image of the virtuous foot soldier following his leader into the path of the machine-guns day after dreadful day should have vanished, but has not. It was characterised with great sympathy in The Remains of the Day surviving to the outbreak of WW2.

A good and decent man cannot nowadays be an uncritical follower. He must only follow another good and decent man, and only so far as he is deemed to be holding to the path of righteousness. But this is not to be a follower at all, it is simply to be moving together. Leadership and follower-ship are overdue to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Leadership and follower-ship are overdue to be consigned to the dustbin of history. — unenlightened

I just want to note that I'm sympathetic to this line of thinking.

Leadership and follower-ship are overdue to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
— unenlightened

I just want to note that I'm sympathetic to this line of thinking. — Moliere

Nice idea, but...

The emotive aspects of human thinking and behavior don't allow for the abolition of either "follow the leader" or "lead the following". It isn't that individuals can't be dispassionate, it's that they can't be dispassionate enough to still be dispassionate in groups. We're stuck with leadership and followership, like it or not.

There are different kinds of Ls and Fs, though. At one end of the spectrum there are "top gestapo leaders" who maintain their position through violence. There is also the slavish follower who gravitates to this kind of thug rule. At the other end of the spectrum are the leaders who inspire by examples of the good, the just, and the true, and whose followers are finely transformed. Hitler, or Stalin, serves pretty well as anchors for the worst negative extreme. Jesus does well as the anchor at the opposite end.

Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich are first and second echelon followers of Hitler. The Nazi hierarchy was a branching pyramid of leaders and followers, from Hitler on down to party members. Jesus didn't establish any sort of hierarchy. Jesus, the Apostles, Paul, and the string of followers was initially flat, in terms of structure. "Flatness" took on a third dimension fairly soon, as the the early church grew.

Most of the world's leaders and followers are in the middle, well away from the extremes. Leaders generally climb well established structures (party, corporation, civil service, hierarchies of various kinds) and at each level there are followers who owe a given leader quite limited fealty. Followers, in most cases, understand they are largely responsible for themselves and for what they do.

A chair of a state, county, or provincial political party likely owes his position to both higher party officials and lower party members. Given competition from below for leadership roles, and controls from above, leaders are insecure enough to keep them from becoming minor despots. Followers have lots of interests besides those of the party,

When 10, or 100, or 1000 unaffiliated people get together for a novel purpose without an established hierarchy or structure of any kind, we find a lot of jockeying of individuals into position -- some climbing, others shoved into the position. Most of us are not emotionally or intellectually equipped to operate effectively in a consensus circle of decision making. a few people who can serve as group catalysts might get the group to make consensus decisions, but the approach is usually too unwieldy to allow for quick responsiveness.

So, to make a long story short, we're stuck with leaders and followers. We can do better and worse, depending.

I don't disagree that there are difficulties with the notion @BitterCrank, but I would disagree that we are stuck. I don't think that leaders and followers are ingrained into human nature. I would rather say that our social structures work on human nature to create people who are ingrained to it.

I'd even paint a grimmer picture than the one you do :). But what's the point of doing so? In the end I agree with the ideal. And I even see possible routes if more people agreed that leadership and follower-ship were best left behind, such as introducing school curricula and beginning spoke-wheel democratic reforms, as opposed to strictly representative, at the municipal level.

The emotive aspects of human thinking and behavior don't allow for the abolition of either "follow the leader" or "lead the following". It isn't that individuals can't be dispassionate, it's that they can't be dispassionate enough to still be dispassionate in groups. We're stuck with leadership and followership, like it or not. — Bitter Crank

Well let's start by not liking it. Even the most tyrannical despot is a follower of an idea. This I think, is what Benn meant when he said that Corbyn is not a leader - that he is not a follower.

This being so, it is possible not to be a follower, and if everyone stops being a follower, there will be no leaders. This does not mean that one cannot make a decision in a timely manner, or that one must arrive at a consensus about every damn thing.

When I want to install a new boiler, I take the advice of a heating engineer; I do not become his follower though. In the same way, it seems to me that I can take Corbyn's advice on political decisions, on the understanding that he has experience and expertise that has been demonstrated over years, without becoming a follower.

There is so much bunkum in the media about the decline of Labour. Labour has never been stronger. Party membership is at an all time high. The media want you to think that there is a fault-line between the leadership and the Parliamentary Labour Party; this is not the case the fault-line is between the PLP and the membership who massively support the values of the leadership.

I'm just returned from the Brighton Labour Party AGM. And I am pleased to report that Brighton City college's hall was far too small to pack in the massive turnout, so the elections for the local party officers had to be done in three separate sittings. Momentum was well organised and their recommended candidates were warmly greeted as were the old school officers who were hoping for reelection. I have to say that each mention of Jeremy Corbyn was most warmly received. So to each of you whose support might be wavering, please take heart that their are many of us in the Labour party who want JC's values to succeed. I get back to you all when I know the results, but I have no doubt that for Brighton Labour the momentum supported candidates have just won a landslide over the old guard.

JC has doubled the membership and new members join the party every day to protect the core values against the Blairites. The facts of history show that Blair's leadership was toxic, and it's time to remove the MPs for a new set because there are thousands of talented individuals in the party waiting to take their place.

Has anyone heard/ read about this:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/new-labour-party-members-barred-8408288

My most recently favorite follow the leader story: Elizabeth Holmes. Endlessly entertaining to me for some reason. Recently banned by CMS from operating a lab for two years, under investigation by the Feds for fraud. The story includes the suicide of a Brit scientist named Ian Gibbons. There are hints of a svengali-type figure named Sunny Balwani. But the broad story is that Elizabeth was charismatic. Watch her TED-talk.

The latest:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/07/holmes-to-remain-at-theranos-despite-federal-ban-and-gross-negligence/

The attack on democracy in the Labour party goes on and on.
For my post above in which I reported a happy meeting of the Brighton DLP AGM, the follow up is that the entire party has been suspended by the NEC and the result of the election of an all pro-Corbyn executive has been overturned, despite the vote being 62% in favour of the new candidates.

The reason? False claims of 'spitting', and threats of violence. Even if these claims were true, what kind of a pretext is it to completely overturn an election on the grounds that unknown persons are misbehaving when hundreds of happy kindly people made the effort to support the party.

There is more. On dubious claims of brick throwing, every single branch membership of Labour the length and breadth of the country is now banned from holding meetings and prevented from holding leadership hustings. Why? Because several branch meetings have held votes of confidence in Jeremy Corbyn and Angela Eagle's own constituency has given her a vote of no confidence.

What about this brick? Eagle claimed that a brick had been thrown through her constituency window and had immediately claims Corbyn supporters. It turns out that Eagle's office is on the ground floor of a shared building; (Sherlock House, opposite a busy pub); with seven other offices of various sorts, and that the brick was placed in the window on the stairwell, well away from Eagle's office which was clearly identifiable due to its big Labour poster in the window.
Where is the press coverage for these outrages?

It seems the media is willing to listen to her anti-COrbyn ravings but slow to pick up ion the attack on democracy and the lies from which it is generated.

Labour has never been stronger. — charleton

I am a leftie Green. I believe Mr Corbyn agrees with more of my party's platform than he does of Labour's.

In my part of the world, decimated by industrial decline and neo-liberalism permeating the welfare system by turning former rights into hard-to-win benefits, Labour looks the weakest it has been for a long time. Indeed it resembles a coalition on the verge of imploding or dividing into two, both groups of which are tiresomely self-aggrandising. It certainly lacks strength either in power - it has none - or in ideas - it's not at all clear what these are.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, have recovered brilliantly from the referendum vote and look destined for power for a decade.

This has a melancholy look. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood at it all. I think I may focus more energies on the epistemology of epistemology for the time being.

Interesting. I note that the Guardian is running with the "Corbyn is a bully" line coming from the Owen Smith camp. There may be some genuine concerns there but I can't help suspecting it's desperate tactics to get some traction in a race that looks lost almost before its begun.

Edit: And today it's leading its Corbyn coverage with a story about his aides supposedly illegally entering an MPs office.

Owen smith seems to have grown left wing balls over night. If he wins, I think those balls will drop off, and he will return to type.
Copying everything JCs says in not a policy manifesto, and anyone voting for him is going to be disappointed.

That would be my analysis too. The whole point of the anti-Corbyn crowd is that they hate the left because they think it will cost them power. They know though that the membership is largely left so a bit of pandering is necessary.

Just because he talks bollocks doesn't mean he's grown them.

But the suggestion of this thread has been that testosterone fuelled politics is something we would do well to stop lauding. Testosterone never laid down a weapon, never went for consensus, conciliation, never spent its time looking after its demented granny.

What do you mean "talk bollocks"?
Most people I've talked to get their information about JC through the media. Hardly a reliable source.
When you actually hear him speak he talks sense. He might not be the greatest orator in the world, but a bit of coaching should tidy up his verbal redundancies and tailor his ideas to his audience more effectively.

He was talking about Owen Smith not JC.

He was talking about Owen Smith not JC. — Baden

That.

Actually, Corbyn clearly is the greatest orator around here at the moment, one who re-enchants a wide range of the disenchanted, my decrepit self amongst them. For god's sake don't try to turn him into a smooth talking evasive cliche-merchant like all the rest.

At his age no one is going to turn him into a smooth talker, but freshen him up a bit. You will admit he stumbles and allows his sentences to run on. He's going to have to face hardnuts and sneaky backstabbers.

Corbyn's charm relies on the fact that he has reinjected the quaint ideas of "principle" and "honesty" into mainstream politics. Sort of like Trump except the Don relies entirely on the latter novelty. Given that I'd be wary about "freshening him up" in any way. It may be an overly short ride from speech doctors to spin doctors.

I'd never compare him to Trump in any context, nor on any way shape or form. They are not only at the opposite ends of the political spectrum but at opposite ends of the spectra of decency, politeness, common sense, approachability, wealth, and honesty.

Yeah, by honesty I just meant he speaks his mind even if what is contained within is BS. I don't think he really knows the difference. In that sense he's not calculating, as JC isn't.