It’s nice, isn’t it, that Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t “do” personality? Or personal abuse. He’s above all that. Gordon Brown doesn’t do personal either, so he made an entire speech about how bad it would be for Labour to elect Corbyn, without ever directly naming him. Politics, even this new, uplifting, morally superior kind, still operates by different rules to normal discourse.  I was disturbed by the vitriol poured out against Gordon Brown this weekend, even while I’m aware of his flaws  I am sure Corbyn genuinely does not want to sink to the level of yelling at his opponents, but the specialist subject of some of his supporters is vile abuse. This may just be the modus operandi of social media now, but it is unedifying to see that the mood music of those who would enact the socialist dream involves, at times, screaming at anyone who harbours any doubt about Corbyn. Express the slightest qualm about his potential leadership and you’re apparently a war-mongering moron who feasts on homeless people. Or, if you are Liz Kendall, basically to the right of Iain Duncan Smith.  If Labour decides to elect two blokes - Corbyn and Tom Watson as his deputy - then all the misogyny in the Labour leadership race may well go unnoticed, replaced by the magical moment, in 2020, when the sleepy Marxists of the market towns are awakened from their slumbers, and Labour sweeps to victory.  Related: Yvette Cooper: leadership candidates urged to pull out to avoid Corbyn win  The bile directed towards Tony Blair and the never-elected Alastair Campbell is entirely understandable. They signify so much that is wrong. When Peter Mandelson sweeps in, swirling his pantomime villain cloak, with a plot he has clearly lost, support for Corbyn solidifies. All we need now is Ed Miliband on the virtue of carving a load of old tosh on a tombstone, for the circle to be complete.  But I was disturbed by the vitriol poured out against Gordon Brown this weekend, even while I’m aware of his flaws. As leader, he was arrogant, stubborn, compelled by power but unable to exercise it, he sanctioned nasty briefings against loyal colleagues, he was too cautious to call the only election he could have won in 2007. He did not have the charisma that leadership appears to demand, which the Corbynites may note. But what he said in his speech was hard-won, and moving.  He was mocked for pacing up and down while giving his speech; it’s not surprising he memorised it, since his eyesight is now not good. When he talked of the pain of rejection, the heartbreak of grief, he knew exactly what he was talking about, both personally and politically.  If we now see the utter demolition of Blairism, then Brownism too will fall, but for an ex-PM to have to say (contra-Brian Eno) that the purpose of a party is to be in power, emphasises the extraordinary times we’re in.  The ideals of the Corbyn campaign may be laudable, but to cast anyone with any doubts about it as the same enemy is completely ridiculous. Is Blair, with a fortune of £80m and his advice service for a dictator, the same as Brown, who gives most of his earnings to charity? In that case, the Brown/Blair split is certainly over, though it was re-enacted by the Miliband fratricide. We can start at year zero, can we? This is utter fantasy.  If Brown’s career ended as all political careers are said to, in failure, is there any need to trash everything about him now? If Corbyn embodies common decency, it would be good to actually see more of that from his supporters, and less of the nasty party.
Gordon Brown warned about Jeremy Corbyn winning the Labour leadership race. But the backlash against him has exposed a nasty side to the current debate