2016 has, so far, been a year of political turbulence. David Cameron has quit as Prime Minister following a disastrous result for him in the EU Referendum, Nigel Farage has (once again) quit as UKIP Leader, this time for good, and the USA has to elect one of two rather unpopular people as President. But right now, dominating the headlines in the UK, is the Labour Leadership race.
I'm voting for Corbyn because his commitment to women's equality has been consistent from his days as a trade union worker supporting women in the fight for equal pay, to the far-reaching and comprehensive set of policies on women's equality he announced this week.
Jeremy Corbyn is a politician in England who I believe in, which is why I then paid the extortionate and exclusive fee of £25 to vote in the second leadership election. This time I received a letter from Iain McNicol, General Secretary of The Labour Party, explaining, 'A panel of the National Executive Committee (NEC) has considered your application, and has decided to reject it on the grounds that you tweeted in support of the Green Party on 8th May 2015'.
Each year Labour's governing body, the National Executive Committee, can propose changes to the party's rules to be voted on at Labour Party Conference. Recently there has been increased interest in what any potential rule changes might be. People have speculated about whether these changes will be used to pursue various factional agendas or "settle scores". In reality, the rule changes we have spent the past year working on are designed to improve campaigning, communications and engagement through digital technology and Party Reform.
Disagreements within any political party are inevitable and should be welcomed as a healthy sign of debate. But that debate must be conducted with mutual respect, in which everyone is able to participate and express their opinion, free from harassment or intimidation.
Most Corbyn supporters are driven by a desire to help the less fortunate. Nobody's suggesting that the left automatically hold the moral high ground, but it increasingly feels like holding a world view based on compassion is seen as 'hard' and 'extremist' in 21st century Britain. Whatever your politics, that should be recognised as a sad thing.
Instead of playing this tax avoidance game, we have to call tax avoidance what it is: tax dodging. It is wrong. At a time of deep economic insecurity after years of austerity economics, ensuring that enough tax is raised is a matter of national security. A Corbyn-led Labour government will make the changes that are necessary to make a difference.
In 2015 pollsters, including YouGov called the General Election wrong. At 10pm on May 5th the broadcasters delivered a huge shock to Ed Miliband --and the rest of us. If Reg Race is right, Jeremy Corbyn is destined to get a similar shock at around 10am on September 24th.
Parliament will be standing up for fair taxes. For all companies to pay responsible tax and to play by the same set of rules. If Parliament steps up, we won't be the last country to do so. But the UK will be at the front of the pack. Right where we should be.
Weaponising allegations of abuse by opponents (or allegations of purges in response) may not be the same as weaponising the abuse itself but it is also unlikely to help. Insults are never an acceptable substitute for political argument, from whichever direction they come. Abuse in politics disfigures us all and it threatens us all.
Yet for those on the receiving end, the repercussions of meritocratic liberalism are having your pay cut year on year, drowning in debt, losing your tenancy, or surviving on minimum wage. To such people this ideology basically says; 'give it up'. You have no one to blame for your precarious situation but yourself. These are, let's not forget, the very people that Labour was formed to represent.
Jeremy, it is admirable that you have taken up the 'women's' issue. It is necessary for women's position in society to be free from discrimination and for equality of opportunity and treatment to be the norm. However, what is missing is the recognition of equality of worth for those who work, unwaged, outside the paid economy.
What could lead Rowling to align her views with that of career politicians over that of a huge percentage of ordinary people, young and old, who have continued to show support for the Labour leader despite the constant media barrage against him? I don't know. However, I do know why I, as well as many others, support Jeremy and so I will now endeavour to explain why.
Plenty of us believe that progressive parties need to start to discuss - to at least consider the possibility of - some kind of electoral pact. A 'popular front' to avoid fragmenting the vote among ourselves in winnable seats looking towards electing a Parliament in 2020 that would have a progressive majority for democratic change. For mending our broken democracy.
Then as the so-called coup began, as resignations began to happen, I began to wake up to a reality that many had already seen. Jeremy, while his politics are great, was not going to be a man to lead us to an election victory. When you cannot command the support of your MPs - how can you be expected to command the support of the country.
Both campaigns have deliberately bypassed rational argument. They play instead to the emotional response of angry people for whom reason no longer makes sense. Since the time of Plato and Aristotle, democracy's critics have warned of the ease with which reason can be subverted and citizens seduced by the false oratory of charismatic leaders.