There is criticism of the movement to elect Jeremy Corbyn that wants to relate it with Michael foot.The question is a contextual issue. The attempt is to disrupt or block the candidature by taking the issue out of context.
In 1979 the debate between Keynesian and Monetarist economics marked a contextual change.
In British politics in particular, Thatcherism along with the Chicago School and the monetarism of Milton Friedman, marked a stage of neo-liberalism and the capitalist counter offensive to Socialism and the workers’ movement.
The then, Social Democracy, elected Kinnock at a moment of the rise of the neo-liberal agenda that sought to assert itself after a period of consolidation up to the peak of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Within that period Michael Foot came to lead the Labour Party (after Kinnock’s election defeat and subsequent resignation) at a point of ideological and political retreat by Socialism.There was no such tactical retreat in the presentation of “left” politics by the Labour Party. Only out of context politics at a specific point in history.
The period since Blair was elected in 1996 saw neo-liberalism occupy the Labour Party until 2010 (including up to 2014). This period started as the “Third Way” period and saw its demise after Gordon Brown took over and saw Ed Miliband become the Labour leader. All candidates in the election, apart from Jeremy Corbyn, represent the back end of the Blairite period.Historical context in time and space needs to be taken into account yet again.
The present context is at the point of neo-liberalism in its end game. Indeed the Austerity agenda is facing growing resistance across Europe and Britain is no exception. The Context has changed. Jeremy Corbyn cannot simply be looked at as the same as in the Michael Foot context. In the midst of a pro-social movement Jeremy Corbyn has surprised those in the politics of the status quo who are out of touch or more likely sync. with the mood being developed.