No I didn't but Khan is a self serving slimeball which says it all. He'd sell his soul for a quick buck.
Khan is a 'self-serving slimeball' to the extent Corbyn is a working-class hero, Boris is charming, Trump is principled, Nige is straightforward and Bernie Sanders is a crypto-communist. Incidentally, all of them retained speechwriters and repeated themselves frequently on air: a reasonable communications strategy appropriate for the medium, where one can face one or both of the two significant obstacles to one's message: hostile interlocutor; short attention spans in the audience. Moreover, running for London Mayor and jumping behind the losing side of a leadership contest -- with the process, scrutiny and public engagement this entails -- is a funny way of making a 'quick buck' for a qualified lawyer, just sayin'.
To Khan's credit: he did face the media; didn't hide in toilets; answered claims and criticisms against him directly; defined himself and his stance on issues publicly; did not avoid debates; and canvassed broadly, including in majority conservative areas. Yes, there will be recurring attack themes against Corbyn; just as there will be common attack themes against Smith. If neither candidate had to face up to anything uncomfortable, it'd have been a pointless exercise. Indeed, if there was nothing uncomfortable for Corbyn to face up to, and he commanded the confidence of his own party, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
The days of dedicated politicians is drawing to a close and the "establishment" reference is slotting into what we get.
That's just wishful thinking.
The days of amateur demagogues and mob rule aren't about to return any time soon, either. It's a full-time, demanding job; and although professional, academic and life experience outside politics is admirable and valuable, experience, competency and communication skills in the job are not optional -- it's called public office for a reason, and why hopefuls for MP candidacy are often advised to stand for local councils first, for example.
And it is through representatives with the above qualities, that can take public office, you obtain lasting change in a representative democracy, safeguarded against regression. Waving placards, taking part in petty vandalism, ranting on social media or, in extreme cases, killing MPs, acts of war and terrorism can only take one so far.
People answer to politicians and politicians answer to big business. In a democracy that system should be on its head.
Congratulations, sir, you've discovered organised societies and markets, though you seem to be missing a few arrows on your conceptual diagram! It's more grey than that: concentrated voting, value and group identification and consumer behaviour can flip the power pyramid any which way, even under neoliberal norms you seem to rail against often enough. However, what democracy is ought to be tomorrow doesn't free you from the historical effects of bad choices (as you perceive anyway) by other people today, nor swallowing their consequences in the system as it stands. This negative effect of democratic freedom cannot be eliminated regardless of the form of democracy you adopt or how closely representative it is.
In fact, it's not the 'establishment' that needs dismantling or defending as such, but rather the opposite extreme case of people being fundamentally rational and able to coexist in social groups without superstructures of state and industry, whilst reaping the full benefits of the two, that requires proving and backing with empirical evidence. (For that's where most bottom-up arguments find their root.) Or putting the problem more succinctly: an unintended consequence for every libertarian; a dictator for every populist.
If you think creative destruction, protest and the vague 'voice of the people' is a viable solution that can be put into a working social model and policies; I wish the very best of luck to you in your noble endeavour.
.
