KEN LIVINGSTONE’S acceptance of Jeremy Corbyn’s advice to apologise “unreservedly” to Kevan Jones is correct and reflects well on the former London mayor.

His anger at Jones’s sneering observation to the Politics Home website that he was “not sure Ken knows anything about defence” is certainly understandable.

Livingstone has been politically active for over half a century and has developed views across the piece, including on defence.

To claim, as Jones did, that the party leadership’s appointment of Livingstone to co-chair a review of defence policy would “only damage our credibility among those that do (know) and who care about defence” was personalised and gratuitously insulting.

It suggests that Livingstone’s opposition to nuclear weapons is not founded on sound research and analysis.

His supposedly irrational stance is contrasted unfavourably to politicians who support the splurging of up to £167 billion over a decade to replace the Trident nuclear deterrent.

No wonder the London ex-mayor was so irritated by the implicit slur that opponents of weapons of mass destruction are political flibbertigibbets while supporters of the nuclear white elephant are hard-headed realists who take state security seriously.

However, personal irritation should not give way to inappropriate references to mental health. That ought to pertain irrespective of an individual’s medical history.

Our language is replete with outdated references to race, nationality, religion, gender and disability, which Livingstone has been at the forefront of challenging through the equality agenda exemplified during his periods in office as Greater London Council leader and then London mayor.

Negative comments related to mental health to score political points are more deep-rooted than other unacceptable references.
Labour leader Corbyn has made mental health a major part of his compassionate socialist agenda, giving responsibility to Luciana Berger to lead on this issue.

His initiative poses a challenge to the whole labour movement to reassess past and present practice and to seek to do better.

Livingstone’s brief period of soul-searching prior to issuing his apology is part of the process.

It’s easy to point to hypocrisy exuded by some MPs quick to attack Livingstone and to demand that he be sacked from his role of co-chairing Labour’s policy defence review.

A short perusal of media coverage of Labour’s leadership election campaign would uncover countless slights towards the policies advocated by Corbyn as mad, crazy and so on.

That’s quite apart from members being told to “have a transplant” if their heart was telling them to back Corbyn.

There are current Labour MPs who have smeared socialists in the party as “loonies,” buying into the Tory media image of lefty loonies to belittle progressive alternatives to capitalist orthodoxy.

Corbyn has paid tribute to the courage of Jones and others in the public eye who have spoken out to acknowledge personal struggles with depression and other problems with mental health.

Everyone should be encouraged to be as candid as possible about these issues as other health problems.

No-one should feel constrained to open their mouth for fear of being abused.

Corbyn has already achieved a civilising impact on Prime Minister’s Questions by his insistence on conducting himself politely and this has had a knock-on effect.

Extending the approach to political discussion, both inside Labour and throughout the labour movement, would be a significant step forward.

Comrades ought to be able to make a political case factually, forcefully and emotionally without having to abuse or demean those with another view.

Anti-nuclear advocates Corbyn and Livingstone will be up for it.

May their opponents do the same and let’s dispense with efforts to play the man not the ball.