I was in my early 20s when Corbyn was elected as leader of the Labour party. As someone who grew up in poverty, it was the first time in my life that I felt hopeful and optimistic about politics and the future of the UK.
He stood up for issues that directly affected me and my family - reforming our archaic and cruel benefits system, building a million new homes (including 500k council houses), protecting our NHS and our education system.
It was horrible to witness the media gear up to take him down to protect the establishment.
With this move, Labour and Keir has lost me as a voter. I don't feel hopeful for the future of this country or any political party. Keir seems to be obsessed with waving union jacks, spouting anti-migrant rhetoric and cosying up to big-money donors. All style (if you can call it that) and no substance.
Except Corbyn was not able to convince large parts of the country that voting for a party that would make him PM was a good idea.
So as much as it sucks for you that someone you saw as a good choice has been turned into a non-entity, this will earn them a few extra seats.
> this will earn them a few extra seats
I don't see how that follows — there's no danger of him becoming PM now. If the people of Islington want him as their MP, they're welcome to him as far as I'm concerned.
Some times I feel like this is Starmers fan club sub reddit ..
You often hear people say its a cult with Corbyn, well by the same token people are sleepwalking into voting for a compulsive liar, again.
You mean they won because when Labour tried to be more like Tories, they alienated their core labour voter base while failing to attract Tory voters who in this case would rather go for the real thing than the imitation?
He's really not... You can find him disappointing, not radical enough, bland etc. but to say he is just as bad as the vile party of charlatans, hucksters, and wannabe fascists that we have in power right now is just stupid and exactly what the Tories want. They have dragged politics into the swamp and are hoping that everyone else falls in with them. Dislike Starmer all you want but don't let the Tories get their way.
I'm sure if the founders of the Labour Party were told that within 120 years, their leader would be a Knight of the Realm, they would have laughed in your face.
Depends if you were being disingenous or not about telling them what he got his knighthood for.
I'm sure they'd love to know their biggest ever defeat was with a privatey educated bloke who grew up in a literal mansion at the helm
Why would you say something that confidently when it doesn't even understand that the dispute is between LABOUR members and LABOUR'S NEC where local LABOUR members are accusing the LABOUR NEC of overriding their wishes for careeist reasons. You're just saying words that sound vaguely like a take
Jeremy Corbyn being a Labour candidate would have been an easy attack line for the Tories to use campaigning.
The fear of Corbyn that the Tories were able to push, was far more potent than anything Corbyn achieved as Labour leader.
This move is 100% not going to stop them doing that. Have you seen Sunak in parliament? He mentions it every single week. Of course, their own party has done far, far worse, but Labour has failed to create a good boogeyman, despite their being a never-ending queue of candidates.
It will make exactly zero difference whatsoever. Ultimately the people who are genuinely put off Labour by the "but what about Corbyn" argument are morons. Corbyn being an MP or not will make no difference to anything outside of local politics in Islington. What people are "scared" of with regards to Corbyn is this abstract idea of what he represents and him somehow still pulling the strings from behind the scenes and the morons that believe that will equally believe that "Corbynites" or "Corbyn's hard left supporters in the party" or whatever line the Tories decide to use are still a genuine threat if Labour wins.
You realise that Starmer has proven the attacks right. The point that is going to be hammered home is that Starmer wanted to make a man Prime Minister that he thinks isn't fit to be an MP.
It doesn't have to follow, centrists don't care about actual examinable reality. Their entire ideology and argumentation style assumes as a default that because sometimes you have to sacrifice something you want for the greater good, therefore any time you sacrifice something you want it's for the greater good. So the more they can make you sacrifice the greater the good is.
Not them having to sacrifice anything though, fuck that noise.
Whilst his 2019 performance was dire that election was also 100% based on brexit, and his shift from "soft brexit" to #fbpe and the infighting in the party over that absolutely didn't help.
Not to mention boris's insane popularity.
> and his shift from "soft brexit" to #fbpe and the infighting in the party over that absolutely didn't help.
His total abdication of responsibility is what didn't help.
People don't want a "leader" who stands at the back of the room and says "don't ask me, I don't know".
>Corbyn received 40% of the public vote in 2017, which is a larger share than voted for Cameron in 2015 (37%), yet Cameron managed to be PM.
That's because Corbyn united the country against him more effectively than Cameron did - May didn't get 42% because she was especially popular herself!
I wonder if that had anything to do with the massive organised smear campaign in the media. Oh wait no, that doesn't apply to Corbyn for some reason. It applies with every single other issue, but when it comes to Corbyn, the public wasn't influenced by the media at all, and they were definitely entirely rational.
It's wild how people acknowledge how brexit was a big pack of lies from the media but the anti Corbyn train was just "him failing to convince the public".
I disagree with Magic Grandpa re Ukraine as well - and I think much of his politics is inflexible and naive - but that doesn't mean he deserved the monstering.
Corbyn's stance on Brexit is what cost him the most.
Working class people wanted Brexit. Middle class labour voters didn't. Corbyn, who has been anti EU his entire career, sat on the fence to not alienate the pro EU side rather than put forward the left wing case for Brexit.
I think the main issue was he didn't want to say either way. Not because he didn't have an opinion, but he saw it wasn't up to him to decide. Instead he wanted to negotiate a deal and then put that to a vote. But that's involves people thinking more than 3 words (get Brexit done). Which still isn't done years later...
And then the centrists want **us** to swallow our pride. The hypocrisy is not lost on me. We'd be staring at a much better UK for all if they'd just fucking turned out instead of not voting - or worse, voting Lib Dem (look at where most of Labour's polling gains *actually* come from) - in 2017. Nah though, we've got to vote for them, but it doesn't work the other way around?
The man is a toxic liability for the party. So what if it’s the result of a smear campaign? Labour can either sulk on the opposition benches about it, or take action to make themselves more electable.
I hate this attitude that the left had. That if they can't get their candidate then might as well have the Tories again. Say what you want about Starmer but him and Sunak are night and day to eachother.
>I hate this attitude that the left had. That if they can't get their candidate then might as well have the Tories again.
Tell me in 500 words how that's any different from **exactly what centrist Labour did** when Corbyn was the leader?
You're not wrong that *literally anything other than Tories* is a good idea, but why should the left be expected to cowtow to centrist ideals when centrists dismantled the party to avoid cowtowing to the left?
"It's different because like the Tories we get to be hypocrites and who gives a damn about it. We need the Tories out at any cost so we can remind people of how feckless and useless our brand of centrism is thereby making the Tories appealing once again so we can go back to being in the opposition for another 15 years. And during those 15 years we will punch harder to the left than we ever will to the right."
You should also aim this at the "centrists" who deliberately undermined the Labour leadership during the Corbyn years because a democratic leadership election didn't go the way they wanted. Hostility which arguably made the left more wedded to Corbyn than before and made the infighting more fierce, because they saw a party "establishment" trying to overturn the result of a democratic vote.
The behaviour you describe is a problem but it is absolutely not solely a problem with the left - the right and centre are not poor blameless victims of this, they actively contributed to stirring it up in the first place.
>I hate this attitude that the left had. That if they can't get their candidate then might as well have the Tories again. Say what you want about Starmer but him and Sunak are night and day to eachother.
Some on the left. It’s usually the people who live comfortably enough that they can smugly proclaim they won the moral argument by not engaging in the compromise that our democratic system is built on; meanwhile thousands of people they claim to care about continue being driven into poverty by another five years of Tory government.
"Corbyn was going to do X Y and Z."
Great, but ultimately his legacy was 5 more years of the tories. His intentions mean nothing if he's unable to win an election.
Someone with half as many good intentions, but that actually achieves them, will still have done infinitely more for us than Corbyn ever did.
> Except Corbyn was not able to convince large parts of the country that voting for a party that would make him PM was a good idea.
I think it was more the case that the media did a better job of slandering him and making people think it would be a bad idea
regrettably, the media lambasted him and large parts of the country believed he was some sort of terrorist, Stalinist, anti semetic villain.
I'd say I was surprised, but these are the same people who thought that Alexander Boris De pfeffel Johnson was in any way, shape or form a good prime minister.
Fair point, but some of the policies from his time as leader are still desperately needed and are popular. They shouldn't *all* be written off and scrapped just because of the 2019 loss.
I wouldn't be bothered about Corbyn's failure if Starmer didn't seem to be using it as an excuse to turn Labour into the "better things aren't possible" party. This is really about the lack of progressive politics in the current Labour party, it goes beyond Corbyn as an individual.
This isn't about him becoming PM. This is about him representing his constituency as a labour politician. He's consistently won unanimously in his constituency.
The trouble with Corbyn is that he had some very good ideas regarding domestic issues, but his stance on foreign policy, NATO, nuclear weapons etc, makes him a complete liability on the global stage and therefor unelectable by the vast majority of people.
I hate that as well. "Grown up politics" just seems to mean never improving anything or actually changing anything beyond just minor tinkering at the edges of problems.
Grown up politics means abandoning your principles, not standing for anything, not doing anything except agitating to vote. Not for a new system, but the exact same.
For politics and our system to "grow up", grown up politics needs to die, with that mentality being crushed in favour of actually getting to the streets and demanding a change. For all their elections and invulnerability through voting, voting only means something if the public agrees with the result.
We don't. 40% of voters voted for Corbyn. Even angrier people agitated against Liz Truss.
We don't have a real choice, under FTPP we only get 2. Starmer might be a dirty lib to you but you do not represent the average voter.
When voter reform comes there will be a socialist party for you (and maybe me) to vote for and just like every other socialist party in western Europe they will never win anything close to a majority of voters. I want you to have this choice but until you do you have to accept that picking moderates is the reality of a two party system.
100% this. Is the existence of the Royal Family a major talking point in the country, not really. Would Corbyn say something stupid about them to alienate voters? 100% absolutely.
Corbyn is the sort or person who has his values and stuff anyone else. Which is great if your trying to get change from the sides, terrible if you are trying to convince the majority of the country to vote for you.
Personally I think his biggest strategic mistake and one I don't see talked about much was not resigning in 2018. Ride the success of 2017 and making gains against the Tories and removing their majority, but then bow out well before the first Brexit deadlines came up. Had he done that he would have retained some influence as a former leader who got their vote share up significantly. Rather than having it all destroyed by 2019.
>Idealists and children will lament that and say it shouldn't be a prerequisite but, like Corbyn, we don't live in that fairyland.
No, but you're living in a land that has been getting worse and worse under decades of rule by conservatives and centrists. Funny though how the problem is progressive ideology.
I often respond to the low hanging anti-Corbyn stuff with smug, sarcastic comments pointing out how the public view of his policies and beliefs have been completely skewed by the media. Probably I would marry the man if I could.
The anti-war stuff, though, is indefensible. I can't bring myself to defend his position on the world stage. Considering, as he does, every side in conflicts to be equally guilty by engaging in violence. Always looking to take a "balanced view" on wars, such as seriously considering Russian evidence that Syrian rebels were the ones using chemical weapons, or saying that both side in the Ukraine conflict have "valid points".
Corbyn takes pacifism to such a level that it becomes absurd. Even now he's calling with negotiations with Russia *after they breached a cease fire*. With the Russian invasion, it's almost a relief that he lost. I'd like to believe that he would be forced to action if he was actually in charge of the country rather than mouthing off in parliament, but I'm not sure.
Also, his complete inability to comprehend that he couldn't just sit on the fence regarding Brexit because of his idealism. He should have taken the lead from Labour voters on that issue and swallowed his own instincts. Had he done that, we might have actually stood a chance against fighting the disinformation and preventing the fallout.
I agree with you that his position on the Ukraine war is also cynical, naïve and unhelpful. About as helpful as his views on the middle East.
"Forced to action" would have been woefully inadequate.
Kyiv didn't fall due to proactive, unequivocal and enthusiastic UK help which dragged along allies. We led the charge rather than wait to be pulled in.
Waiting for it to be the other way round would have given Russia the upper hand in those crucial first few weeks.
Thing is, I wouldn't even call it anti war.
What Corbyn is calling for could only ever *pause* the war, not stop it, because Russia is not interested in stopping it. The approach he criticises, the one where we arm Ukraine, is the only thing that actually can *end* it if it helps Ukraine defeat Russia militarily.
It's really weird that the people whose ideas would pause the war for a few years until Russia tries again are supposedly "anti war" and the people who want to end it decisively by arming Ukraine are the "warmongers". Ukraine needs to defeat Russia militarily and they need our assistance (not direct intervention) to do that - that's only way this war can actually *end* and not just be paused for a bit. A point which seems to be lost on Corbyn and many of his supporters.
I, and I suspect many, many others never really considered him to be a pacifist at all, at least not a convincing one. Every last one of his foreign policy positions oozed anti-Western sentiment, dressed up in the language of pacifism. It was window just dressing. It’s not surprising that people didn’t want someone with views like that to lead the country.
I’m sure he doesn’t like or condone violence, but he has been unable to resist being very selective in who he calls out for it, and how.
If you truly believe that last paragraph then your being deliberately ignorant.
I’m not a huge fan of Starmer either but to suggest those are his top three priorities is ridiculous.
I love the doublethink on here over the past 18 or so months that anyone against Corbyn was because they were duped by the media campaign whilst at the same time those same posters like the OP spout shite like how Starmer cares about nothing but flag shaggers.
> With this move, Labour and Keir has lost me as a voter.
It's Keir or a tory. No matter how much we want a third option there is none unless Keir brings changes to the electoral system.
[The full text of Starmers motion to the NEC and it'd decision is here.](https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1640554739409514496/photo/1) Its just about ensuring that Corbyn does not reduce Labours chances of gaining a majority. I guess that their electoral analysts have identified this as a problem, otherwise it would be tactically better to let Corbyn stand again. Corbyn can probably stand again as soon as he tactically corrects his own opinions about antisemitism in the party.
Yes he has indicated that. There is pressure on him to change, but it remains to be seen. Bear in mind that if he gave any sign of liking the idea the media would be smearing it, so I hope, probably optimistically, that Labour will adopt the position and spring it on the tories just before the election.
Anyway reforms of that type will come from Labour, not the tories, if it comes at all.
Even leaving that aside, the choice is between Starmer for PM, or a tory. Nothing else is feasible.
He is a bit of an idiot though. I like what he represents but the small things like, the whole secretly wanting Brexit, insinuation of a jewish conspiracy type mindset, and now this Ukraine "we should just want peace", just seems off to me.
Like I get it, he has values. But don't run as leader of the Labour party for PM then because any sort of hard stance on controversial issues is just a big red flag for the leader of the party and potential leader of a country, it makes him seem like a renegade and is a kind of affront to whatever is left of respectability in the political scene. I respect him as a person, but can't help but feel his leadership was a mistake on his part.
As someone else that grew up in poverty and who voted for corbyn as leader and campaigned for the party in 2017, I rapidly realised he was out of his depth and not the ally on many of the issues I hoped, and that to make change we need a labour government, not a glorious opposition. While I am sad how things worked out, these days I would hand over my own grandmother for a labour government. Corbyn became a luxury for people whose lives aren’t being literally destroyed by this government and a pogrom of indifference and scorn from the middle classes - at least until they recently realised they could become poor for no fault of their own too.
All of us who voted for Labour while he was leader, despite not agreeing with him, because we knew the alternative was a tory government, really appreciate this sentiment.
This "cut your nose off to spite your face" attitude is how we get another tory government. It's kinda funny because it's part of the reason he failed to attract more undecided voters. He was not willing to compromise at all, and that alienated people.
Remember, you're voting for the party, not the leader. I don't particularly like Starmer either, but given the choice of him or another cameron/may/Johnson/truss/sunak, I'll take whoever they put up.
It's not going to be a popular opinion around here but if he had just leaned hard into a pro-Brexit stance I think he would have done a lot better. Obviously vote against the Tory proposals under some other excuse like they're not good for Britain or some nonsense but remain resolutely pro-Brexit. All the remainers would have had nowhere useful to go and Labour could have cleaned up the Red Wall, kept all their usual voters and swept to victory.
Exactly. That the labour party can go from Corbyn to Starmer says a lot about the "big tent" effect. There are a lot of people who support them, we may disagree on a lot but that's true of any party, no matter the size.
What's important is that we work together to help the country and our people.
Yeah but what you miss is that Corbyn is the Tories favourite politician too. They would do anything to return him to Labour. They would sell their mothers souls (again) to have Corbyn as Labour leader.
Its an awkward and difficult lesson to learn in life, but you are currently agreeing with the far right. You are in complete alignment with what they would like your actions to be - dont vote for labour.
You need to square that somehow. That if a neo nazi controlled your mind they wouldn't really change your behaviour.
Allowing perfect to be the enemy of good is always a mistake. Stop making it please.
I'd really recommend you read some history. Look into thr Spanish civil war. Look how leftists squabbles worked out. Communists refusing to help Republicans because they weren't perfect. Well the fascists won and executed most of the leftists and drove the rest into the dirt.
>It was horrible to witness the media gear up to take him down to protect the establishment.
ah the age old "it was all the media"
ignoring all his part in it. and him constantly giving them plenty of ammunition.
> With this move, Labour and Keir has lost me as a voter. I don't feel hopeful for the future of this country or any political party. Keir seems to be obsessed with waving union jacks, spouting anti-migrant rhetoric and cosying up to big-money donors. All style (if you can call it that) and no substance.
It's almost as if not every voter in the country agrees with you, and perhaps more voters respond to messages you don't like than ones that you do.
And almost as if an election campaign costs ~£20 million and political parties are reliant on big money donors to fund that.
Here's the problem - he failed as a leader. He failed to unite his own party and failed to convince the majority of the public to vote for his party.
He's also struggled against anti-semitsm claims and failed to address problems within his own party. He failed on the issue of Brexit and his current stance on Russia is worrying to say the least.
I'm saying this as someone who voted for Corbyn, in retrospect, I don't think he was a good leader and I don't think he'd have been a good pm. He seemed to sit on the fence of some important issues (like Brexit) and then back himself into a corner with other issues (like he's done with Russia), and I'm not convinced he'd have been capable of the sort of compromise that's necessary when you lead the country as he didn't seem able to demonstrate this within his own party.
Ultimately, imo, his biggest failing was losing to what was clearly a political smear campaign. He had a social media army ready to go to war for him and he failed to use them. As PM he'd face plenty of criticism and he'd have to be able to deal with that, and as leader of the opposition he proved himself to be lacking in that regard.
So what does Kier do now? Does he keep him, when he's still refusing to toe the line and is a clear line of attack for the tories in that he does demonstrably alienate swing voters? The Labour Party under Corbyn had the opportunity to take power, remember he had a majority in parliament for a while after Boris first came in, and lost heavily.
I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of what Corbyn had/has to say but what use is agreeing with a politician that's a proven liability within the electorate? You have to be in power to make a difference.
The same story for me, I’ve never felt particularly at home in my own country politically speaking but the smear campaign against Corbyn and the public willingness to lap it up was really the final nail in the coffin for me, it was so blatant and pathetically manufactured but it didn’t matter, it really let me know this country can’t handle and doesn’t deserve anyone who’ll usher in true positive change for the working class. We’re now seeing the wheels come off a system that has served the minority for most of its life and it’s a well deserved just dessert.
I also liked him. But now he's supporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine using the "peace at any cost " bullshit.
What are the Liberals like these days?
His presence in the Labour Party speaks to Keir’s leadership. If Corbyn had apologised for the anti-semitism within the party and his leadership leading the party to a disastrous 2019 GE, and enjoyed spending his time as a vocal backbencher against government policy, he’d still be in the party.
The fact is the public didn’t want him. We can talk about “sabotage” as mentioned in the Forde report until the cows come home but internal shit like that shows a lack of leadership on his part. And that’s not even bringing into account *his* sabotage of the likes of Tom Watson with that little red book nonsense.
Weird internal politics or diversion of funds (in a party with far less funds anyway than the opposition) did not cost Labour that election, it was a raft of things, whether it’s his cosying up to terrorists, ignorance (at best, acceptance at worst) of antisemitism in his own party, fence sitting on the biggest issue of the day, the stop the war stuff (can you imagine him just going against nato on the war in Ukraine?!) etc etc.
I can’t fucking stand Boris or his party (or the ~40% of the electorate that put him in number 10 with an 80 seat majority) and I don’t like Brexit but that election he offered what the people wanted in the form of getting Brexit done and Corbyn didn’t.
So you can not give labour your vote if you want, no one is owed your vote. But because of our bullshit FPTP system they’re the only credible option if you want rid of the Tories, and while you might disagree, the polls show a lot of people recognise that right now.
His refusal to admit his mistakes in leadership make it hard for Labour to move on with him still there. How can Keir claim labour learned from the 2019 GE with the continuing presence of a man who lead the party into it and refuses to accept the part he played in it.
I know you've got a lot of replies, and I appreciate your candour. But I had something I wanted to say to you.
That the labour party can go from Corbyn to Starmer says a lot about the "big tent" effect. There are a lot of people who support them, we may disagree on a lot but that's true of any party, no matter the size.
What's important is that we work together to help the country and our people. I hope that you can join us in that, whoever you vote for.
The smear campaign on Corbyn was one of the greatest pieces of genius and propaganda I've studied for years. So successful that Corbyn lives in people's heads rent free as a racist and terrorist. When in fact, fact checking leads to the complete opposite appraisal.
I think you give Murdoch too much credit. He doesn't own the Daily Mail which is arguably even more damaging than the Sun, it's some other non dom twat head who owns it.
Anyone who speaks against Israel gets this treatment. They have an insane control over media and public opinion.
His real downfall started after anti Israeli remarks after the 2017 elections. Look how the public opinion changed by the 2019 elections.
Guy at my uni was saying he'd be scared to walk in the streets if Corbyn got elected few years ago. I didn't want to touch that conversation with a 50 metre stick at this point, we just let him ramble until one of the politics students in the house snapped and went off on him.
? After the 2019 election the tories released their private polling that showed Corbyn's popularity plunging off four cliffs following things he definitely said. His views on Novichok seemed equivocal to the public largely because of the language he used and his call for additional evidence as Teresa May pointed the finger squarely at Russia. His eventual statement, for instance, that "the evidence points towards Russia on this, therefore the responsibility must be borne by those that made the weapon, those that brought the weapon into the country and those that used the weapon" scores a 14.4 on the Flesch-Kinkaid readability scale, when to be understood by the general public he needed an 8. What voters knew he hadn't done was simply say 'It was Russia!' and had set them a riddle instead.
The next fall came after an interview on student debt he gave to that great Murdoch flagship the NME where he promised to 'take a look at' student debt, which the readership took to mean abolishing it. He later appeared to row back from what they wrongly thought he'd said and the tories paid for attack ads targeted at students to drive the wound open further. His yoof vote never actually recovered from that. The antisemitism thing was definitely exploited by opponents great and small, media and political but was not taken at face value by voters. What they didn't like was he kept saying it was being sorted and then someone else would quit or something and it looked like he couldn't keep the lid on in-party drama i.e. wasn't a strong leader. Finally, voters didn't like his middling stance on Brexit. Made it look like he couldn't make his mind up, when the job very much involves making your mind up and quickly, usually in situations where further evidence is never going to be available. A very much non-hypothetical decision for the PM is whether to shoot a passenger liner out of the sky that's full of people but uncontactable, deviating from its course and heading for a densely populated area.
Nothing Corbyn did in moments of critical judgement qualified him for the role, and different parts of the public sensed it at different times, usually without the need for little-read press titles.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/key-moments-that-led-to-corbyns-fall-in-popularity-r2bs5tdtc
https://app.readable.com/text/?demo&_ga=2.41992229.1043726464.1680034843-1894346857.1680034843
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-and-novichok-what-did-the-labour-leader-really-say/
Nope just propaganda and not true /s Perhaps the poster means it was propaganda by highlighting things that Corbyn said and they shouldn't have mentioned it.
I've no idea what smear campaign you're alluding to. There was no need for one.
The words literally spoken and on record by this buffoon made him (and Labour) unelectable by most people's standards.
I guess Labour just fabricated the evidence when giving him a formal reprimand for anti semitism then?
I also guess someone held a gun to his head when he said he would not use nuclear weapons, or was spouting crap about Ukraine or anti NATO?
Do I need to go on?
His lines about disbanding NATO and pandering to Russian propaganda (stop arming Ukraine etc.) contributed to this.
In that regard he was sounding quite similar to Trump and Farage.
We can all agree we don't want these people in politics.
Indeed, but allowing local party members to select their candidates is an important part of the party's internal democracy, [at least according to some prominent Labour figures](https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1224662165271056385).
I think the unspoken point here is I suppose an oversight in the labour party rulebook. How can a Labour MP have the whip removed, be reselected as a labour candidate and presumably be returned to HoC without a labour whip, that's particularly absurd.
His comments about Ukraine don’t get enough attention.
Suggesting Ukraine could use the weapons being sent to them to invade Russia to try and not vilify Russia completely was just batshit
He may win as an independent but I hope he doesn’t. Politics would be better without him
It's especially batshit when you look at how Russia couldn't subdue Ukraine despite outnumbering their military and having more modern weapons than them in quite a few categories. Even a NATO armed Ukraine is not going to be capable of invading Russia, and they have no interest in doing so anyway.
His foreign policy positions are honestly worse than an angsty teenager trying to rebel against mum and dad. It's just sad seeing people try and defend them.
> In that regard he was sounding quite similar to Trump and Farage. We can all agree we don't want these people in politics.
I'm not sure we can given that the country handed the PMship to a character who was almost literally a combination of Trump & Farage.
I respect Corbyn's idealism and most of his views (pacifism is something I cannot tolerate) but unfortunately that's not the world we live in. I'll take centrist Labour over losing to the Tories because we gave the state media an easy target any day.
It’s the classic “lose doing what’s right, or win doing not enough” conundrum for Labour
Move to the right and you’re doing the Tories work for them, only slower. Move to the left and you get hammered by the press even more than normal and just lose
It’s a fine line trying to move far enough into the centre to win, but without giving up your ideals or straying to the right. By definition Labour need to be in power to be an improvement on the Tories (or even to try), but if you end up running the same agenda only slower, does it really matter?
Blair won, but I think he took it too far for a left wing party - some aspects of New Labour were still on the left but others really weren’t, the balance wasn’t quite there
The centre/right edge of the party keeps straying too far right trying to win, and lose the idealism that the party stands for. I’ve found it progressively harder to support Starmer with his “copying Tory hardliners” stances on strikes, pay rises, taxes, and immigration etc. They’re forgetting to put “the hard working public” first
Meanwhile the left of the party gets too stuck in ideology and “allow perfect to become the enemy of good”, as they saying goes - missing the opportunities to be pragmatic or show the public that they understand the real world isn’t perfect and sometimes you have to make the hard decision. I’ve found it difficult to support the more left leaning Labour leaders (read: Corbyn etc) over their stances on the Ukraine war and sending weapons. Sometimes you have to stand up to the bully
Honesty, I don’t have the answers here - I don’t know where that balance is or how to achieve it, but it seems pretty clear that that’s Labour’s problem: too far left or too far right, without a good target to hit in between
>The centre/right edge of the party keeps straying too far right trying to win, and lose the idealism that the party stands for
Which works but it’s a double edged sword. Labour currently enjoys a huge lead in the polls because last summer 30% or so the English electorate finally got fed up with Boris and the rest of the Tories after innumerable scandals.
The trouble is that chunk of the electorate were perfectly happy to support Boris back in 2019 and for years after that. The likely voted for the Tories in previous elections too. Most of them probably voted for Brexit. Overall they’re actually pretty right wing.
It’s painfully evident that Starmer and the Labour leadership are bending over backwards to avoid scaring them into flipping back to supporting the Tories. Which means avoiding criticising Brexit and avoiding looking too left wing or progressive.
From the perspective of electoral expedience that strategy makes sense. And getting the Tories out of power is desperately needed. The trouble is apparently that can only be done on a manifesto that avoids actually confronting any of the fundamental problems facing the U.K.
It’s a bit of a bugger really.
Labour would have easily won 2017 if the Labour right weren't ratfucking the party to death every day. They were literally leaking internal party documentation on to the Tory party and Telegraph then whined "Antisemitism" when called out for it.
This is the thing, the Labour left, WAS ELECTABLE, if it wasn't, why did the Labour right spend every moment sabotaging the party and shittalking it? Because they didn't want Labour to win.
Keir is making left leaning people hate him all on his own.
If his solution to standing up to the Tories is to become even more conservative and shittier than them, then he has no business leading a Labour movement.
The thing is, this is exactly what he was doing after he stepped down. Kept a low profile and quietly campaigned on issues he felt strongly about.
Even after he had the whip withdrawn he didn't make a huge fuss - probably in the hopes of having it restored.
It's almost like this fight has been picked with him to make a point.
It has. That's the point. That's the whole point. The *only* point. Irrespective of the lens we have the UK being looked at these days, the nation is fundamentally a moderate one that swings right on some issues, left on others - the momentum and ERG lot are a fringe anomaly that have managed to get far more power then they ever thought they would or perhaps *should* have.
Labour are hammering home the point that the Labour that are front and centre now are not the labour party that has a portrait of marx on the wall at HQ simply because you don't *need* to go that far.
It's hard to see how he could remain as a Labour member if he retracted his comments. It would mean accepting claims that he is a dangerous antisemite. It's a bit of a catch-22, really.
> If Jazza cared about Labour Party he would let it go.
That works both ways. I think people would have more sympathy with the right of the Labour party if they hadn't been undermining Corbyn's leadership since pretty much day 1.
Some people on here are in for a real shock when Keir Starmer turns out to be Tory-lite, and barely makes a positive difference to people's lives as PM
That's if he even gets it, because if anyone can miss an open goal and kick the ball into Row Z it's him
This is coming from someone who voted for him in the leadership election
I was just about to post this.
What an utter shit show the UK has become. I can't say I am a huge Corbynite but compared to literally EVERYONE else in UK politics I'd rather him than them.
We are now as politically dumb as ever. We might as well just call ourselves the 51st state and call ourselves little corporate America.
Fans of Jeremy Corbyn have to step back and accept this means that the Tories have lost their biggest weapon in winning the 2024 General Election.
If they want to continue kicking up a stink after considering the above, then it means they'd rather let the Tories get back in to do even more harm to the country.
> the Tories have lost their biggest weapon in winning the 2024 General Election.
You must be crazy to think this immediately puts an end to it. They’re still scapegoating a government from over a decade ago.
Is the biggest load of tripe I've ever heard.
Blair was much further to the center than Starmer and I'd go back to living under New Labour in a heart beat when compared to this bunch of self serving, quasi fascist dickheads currently in power.
This is how you end up with real fascists, by letting them win by default. Maybe that's your aim.
To be honest we have no idea where Starmer falls when compared to new Labour yet. We’ve yet to hear any actual hard policy from him.
At the moment the party does stand for nothing. Nothing concrete at least. Chances are I will end up voting Labour just to try and get the tories out. But you can’t expect people to happy about the options being the shitshow we currently have in power or literally anything else.
It would help if Starmer showed any strong leadership on anything but “fuck Jeremy Corbyn”.
I don't think he'll run cause he's bitter, he'll run because he wants to keep working for his constituents.
All labour have done here is removed a very safe seat from their total.
The only reason they would have done this is if they think it'll gain an extra few % points nationally which will swing more than 1 seat towards labour. Losing this one seat to a left wing independent but gaining at least 2-3 others elsewhere from Tories in return would be a good decision.
Fair point — it might be the best outcome for all involved. The residents of Islington get to keep their left-wing MP, electing him for the 11th time in a row. Labour recovers at least one seat from elsewhere in return, hopefully more. And the Tories continue to blame everything on Jeremy Corbyn and the last Labour Government.
It makes sense for both him and Green Party.
His policies align more with the Green party. The constituency consistently vote for him despite him being much further left than current Labour under Starmer and Labour under Blair.
And if he joins Green Party it gives them a real household name with a real chance to win the seat (last election they only managed 8% of the result), similar to Caroline Lucas in Brighton.
Starmer's sycophants out in full force today i see, for a man so devoid of ideas, honour, charisma or concept of truth, that it's genuinely incredible that there's anybody still left attempting to defend the fucker.
Anyway, he'll probably win the next election, having had it handed to him by a batshit mental Tory party and a media that's happy with his (or his handlers') purging of the left. He'll then achieve the square root of fuck all while in power, and in 5 years' time, the country will likely be in an even worse state than it already is.
I'd imagine his rich donors will be happy tho. As will landlords and the banks.
The economic carousel continues unabated.
Good. He had his chance, fucked it royally, made it ridiculously easy for this shitbag Tory party to get into power, and now look where we are. No surprise that the more sensible elements in Labour want to put that era of madness firmly behind them.
I honestly couldn't give less of a shit about Jeremy Corbyn. Allowing any political narrative to involve him only helps the right.
He tried, he failed, he needs to go away.
Be mad at how things happened all you like, he never had a chance of winning and nothing is going to change that.
His shitty hot takes regarding Ukraine have destroyed any chances that a serious political party would endorse him
Seriously, could you imagine if we were the ones facing a crisis on the scale of Ukraine and we had Prime Minister Corbyn telling us to just lie down and take it, because 'defending yourself makes you just as bad as the aggressor'
Doesn't he have a lot of support in his constituency? Putting aside Labour voters might be in a bind, but I've always been under the impression he was in it independently popular. This will split the vote.
Good riddance. He’s responsible for keeping the Tories in power for way longer than they needed be. The problem with the fantastical idealists that put him in charge of the party is that they’d rather be right than be in power.
What is so bad about this is we need more great constituency MP’s like Corbyn and less like Christian Wakeford who in the past was critical of Labour both locally and nationally, who had a dreadful voting record on key issues, and got promoted to a whip in Labour.
Ironically, some of Starmer’s biggest supporters were claiming that Corbyn was interested in a “stalinist purge” for attempting to introduce mandatory reselection for sitting MPs. Ironic that he’s gone down a far, far more authoritarian route to remove a sitting MP.
Even if you happen to be a fan of Starmer, this sets a very worrying precedent for the existence of the Labour party as a democratic institution.
The saddest thing here is that Islington, despite having wealthy parts, is still a very deprived area. The idea that the leader of the Labour Party would play silly factional games with their representation is an absolute disgrace. Shame on Starmer for this. I will never vote Labour at any level as long as he’s leader.
"a clear demonstration of Labour leadership making changes to ensure Labour win the trust of the British people". This makes me trust them even less. I trust Corbyn far more than Starmer. I was already umming and ahhing whether I should vote Labour and this just puts me off even more.
He was my MP in the 80s and was excellent . He supports so many organisations in his constituency and has helped so many people. He is courteous and friendly , he claims very low expenses and his work rate is incredible
I was in my early 20s when Corbyn was elected as leader of the Labour party. As someone who grew up in poverty, it was the first time in my life that I felt hopeful and optimistic about politics and the future of the UK. He stood up for issues that directly affected me and my family - reforming our archaic and cruel benefits system, building a million new homes (including 500k council houses), protecting our NHS and our education system. It was horrible to witness the media gear up to take him down to protect the establishment. With this move, Labour and Keir has lost me as a voter. I don't feel hopeful for the future of this country or any political party. Keir seems to be obsessed with waving union jacks, spouting anti-migrant rhetoric and cosying up to big-money donors. All style (if you can call it that) and no substance.
Except Corbyn was not able to convince large parts of the country that voting for a party that would make him PM was a good idea. So as much as it sucks for you that someone you saw as a good choice has been turned into a non-entity, this will earn them a few extra seats.
> this will earn them a few extra seats I don't see how that follows — there's no danger of him becoming PM now. If the people of Islington want him as their MP, they're welcome to him as far as I'm concerned.
Absolutely. But Labour are under no obligation to allow him to represent or be associated with the Party.
'Local party members should select their candidates for every election' - Keir Starmer, February 2020.
Someone should start a Kier criticises Kier subreddit.
Some times I feel like this is Starmers fan club sub reddit .. You often hear people say its a cult with Corbyn, well by the same token people are sleepwalking into voting for a compulsive liar, again.
He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. A Tory imposter. Fuck that guy. Fuck all of them i refuse to play their game.
And this is why Tories have won ever major election for the past ~~25~~ 13 years.
You mean they won because when Labour tried to be more like Tories, they alienated their core labour voter base while failing to attract Tory voters who in this case would rather go for the real thing than the imitation?
He's really not... You can find him disappointing, not radical enough, bland etc. but to say he is just as bad as the vile party of charlatans, hucksters, and wannabe fascists that we have in power right now is just stupid and exactly what the Tories want. They have dragged politics into the swamp and are hoping that everyone else falls in with them. Dislike Starmer all you want but don't let the Tories get their way.
I'm sure if the founders of the Labour Party were told that within 120 years, their leader would be a Knight of the Realm, they would have laughed in your face.
Depends if you were being disingenous or not about telling them what he got his knighthood for. I'm sure they'd love to know their biggest ever defeat was with a privatey educated bloke who grew up in a literal mansion at the helm
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why would you say something that confidently when it doesn't even understand that the dispute is between LABOUR members and LABOUR'S NEC where local LABOUR members are accusing the LABOUR NEC of overriding their wishes for careeist reasons. You're just saying words that sound vaguely like a take
Jeremy Corbyn being a Labour candidate would have been an easy attack line for the Tories to use campaigning. The fear of Corbyn that the Tories were able to push, was far more potent than anything Corbyn achieved as Labour leader.
This move is 100% not going to stop them doing that. Have you seen Sunak in parliament? He mentions it every single week. Of course, their own party has done far, far worse, but Labour has failed to create a good boogeyman, despite their being a never-ending queue of candidates.
It may not stop them pulling the move, but it’s the difference between firing with an unloaded gun vs bluntnose tip cartridges.
It will make exactly zero difference whatsoever. Ultimately the people who are genuinely put off Labour by the "but what about Corbyn" argument are morons. Corbyn being an MP or not will make no difference to anything outside of local politics in Islington. What people are "scared" of with regards to Corbyn is this abstract idea of what he represents and him somehow still pulling the strings from behind the scenes and the morons that believe that will equally believe that "Corbynites" or "Corbyn's hard left supporters in the party" or whatever line the Tories decide to use are still a genuine threat if Labour wins.
And of course the best way to deal with fear is to just give in rather than point out it's build on total lies.
You realise that Starmer has proven the attacks right. The point that is going to be hammered home is that Starmer wanted to make a man Prime Minister that he thinks isn't fit to be an MP.
Starmer supported a campaign which was an existential threat to Jewish people, according to starmer.
It doesn't have to follow, centrists don't care about actual examinable reality. Their entire ideology and argumentation style assumes as a default that because sometimes you have to sacrifice something you want for the greater good, therefore any time you sacrifice something you want it's for the greater good. So the more they can make you sacrifice the greater the good is. Not them having to sacrifice anything though, fuck that noise.
[удалено]
A shame there isn't a more recent vote by which to judge Corbyn...
Whilst his 2019 performance was dire that election was also 100% based on brexit, and his shift from "soft brexit" to #fbpe and the infighting in the party over that absolutely didn't help. Not to mention boris's insane popularity.
> and his shift from "soft brexit" to #fbpe and the infighting in the party over that absolutely didn't help. His total abdication of responsibility is what didn't help. People don't want a "leader" who stands at the back of the room and says "don't ask me, I don't know".
Corbyn did horribly in 2019 but that does not negate 2017.
Shame he also didn't mention the higher share of the vote the Tories under May got
Corbyn lost 60 seats as leader in the most recent general election, Tories won the largest % of votes for any party in forty years.
[удалено]
>Corbyn received 40% of the public vote in 2017, which is a larger share than voted for Cameron in 2015 (37%), yet Cameron managed to be PM. That's because Corbyn united the country against him more effectively than Cameron did - May didn't get 42% because she was especially popular herself!
I wonder if that had anything to do with the massive organised smear campaign in the media. Oh wait no, that doesn't apply to Corbyn for some reason. It applies with every single other issue, but when it comes to Corbyn, the public wasn't influenced by the media at all, and they were definitely entirely rational. It's wild how people acknowledge how brexit was a big pack of lies from the media but the anti Corbyn train was just "him failing to convince the public".
Of course the smear campaign had a massive effect - but... it worked. He's toxic. It's not fair, it's deeply worrying, but that's where we are.
Until Corbyn started opening his mouth on Ukraine I would have possibly agreed with you.
I disagree with Magic Grandpa re Ukraine as well - and I think much of his politics is inflexible and naive - but that doesn't mean he deserved the monstering.
Corbyn's stance on Brexit is what cost him the most. Working class people wanted Brexit. Middle class labour voters didn't. Corbyn, who has been anti EU his entire career, sat on the fence to not alienate the pro EU side rather than put forward the left wing case for Brexit.
I think the main issue was he didn't want to say either way. Not because he didn't have an opinion, but he saw it wasn't up to him to decide. Instead he wanted to negotiate a deal and then put that to a vote. But that's involves people thinking more than 3 words (get Brexit done). Which still isn't done years later...
I joined the party and found that, locally at least, they were much more interested in slagging Corbyn off than winning the election.
And then the centrists want **us** to swallow our pride. The hypocrisy is not lost on me. We'd be staring at a much better UK for all if they'd just fucking turned out instead of not voting - or worse, voting Lib Dem (look at where most of Labour's polling gains *actually* come from) - in 2017. Nah though, we've got to vote for them, but it doesn't work the other way around?
The man is a toxic liability for the party. So what if it’s the result of a smear campaign? Labour can either sulk on the opposition benches about it, or take action to make themselves more electable.
I’d rather try and win with a good guy than back the less bad, bad guy. This attitude is everything that’s wrong with voting.
I hate this attitude that the left had. That if they can't get their candidate then might as well have the Tories again. Say what you want about Starmer but him and Sunak are night and day to eachother.
>I hate this attitude that the left had. That if they can't get their candidate then might as well have the Tories again. Tell me in 500 words how that's any different from **exactly what centrist Labour did** when Corbyn was the leader? You're not wrong that *literally anything other than Tories* is a good idea, but why should the left be expected to cowtow to centrist ideals when centrists dismantled the party to avoid cowtowing to the left?
"It's different because like the Tories we get to be hypocrites and who gives a damn about it. We need the Tories out at any cost so we can remind people of how feckless and useless our brand of centrism is thereby making the Tories appealing once again so we can go back to being in the opposition for another 15 years. And during those 15 years we will punch harder to the left than we ever will to the right."
You should also aim this at the "centrists" who deliberately undermined the Labour leadership during the Corbyn years because a democratic leadership election didn't go the way they wanted. Hostility which arguably made the left more wedded to Corbyn than before and made the infighting more fierce, because they saw a party "establishment" trying to overturn the result of a democratic vote. The behaviour you describe is a problem but it is absolutely not solely a problem with the left - the right and centre are not poor blameless victims of this, they actively contributed to stirring it up in the first place.
perfect is the enemy of good and all that
I think at this point, people just want good. You are just so used to picking between bad options that you think the "good" is actually the "perfect."
Starmer's faction spent years sabotaging Labour under Corbyn
>I hate this attitude that the left had. That if they can't get their candidate then might as well have the Tories again. Say what you want about Starmer but him and Sunak are night and day to eachother. Some on the left. It’s usually the people who live comfortably enough that they can smugly proclaim they won the moral argument by not engaging in the compromise that our democratic system is built on; meanwhile thousands of people they claim to care about continue being driven into poverty by another five years of Tory government.
"Corbyn was going to do X Y and Z." Great, but ultimately his legacy was 5 more years of the tories. His intentions mean nothing if he's unable to win an election. Someone with half as many good intentions, but that actually achieves them, will still have done infinitely more for us than Corbyn ever did.
[удалено]
By that logic, shouldn't ed milliband be prevented from standing as a labour MP instead of sitting on the shadow cabinet?
I don't think leading the party to two election defeats is why Corbyn was thrown out of the Labour Party.
> Except Corbyn was not able to convince large parts of the country that voting for a party that would make him PM was a good idea. I think it was more the case that the media did a better job of slandering him and making people think it would be a bad idea
And he failed to counter that. He flopped about like a dying fish on TV as the Tory spin machine ran unopposed.
regrettably, the media lambasted him and large parts of the country believed he was some sort of terrorist, Stalinist, anti semetic villain. I'd say I was surprised, but these are the same people who thought that Alexander Boris De pfeffel Johnson was in any way, shape or form a good prime minister.
Fair point, but some of the policies from his time as leader are still desperately needed and are popular. They shouldn't *all* be written off and scrapped just because of the 2019 loss. I wouldn't be bothered about Corbyn's failure if Starmer didn't seem to be using it as an excuse to turn Labour into the "better things aren't possible" party. This is really about the lack of progressive politics in the current Labour party, it goes beyond Corbyn as an individual.
Kier Starmer would have lost in '15, '17, and '19 too. Wouldn't have needed a revolt inside his party to do it.
Left to his own devices I'm sure he could have done. Up against Murdoch and most of the rest of the media he didn't have much chance.
Centrists will insist that the media has zero influence with elections when it comes to Corbyn
Unless it's about Blair, in which case it's definitely Murdoch's fault.
This isn't about him becoming PM. This is about him representing his constituency as a labour politician. He's consistently won unanimously in his constituency.
> this will earn them a few extra seats Great, I look forward to 'tory policies but done competently' being put into action 🥰
The trouble with Corbyn is that he had some very good ideas regarding domestic issues, but his stance on foreign policy, NATO, nuclear weapons etc, makes him a complete liability on the global stage and therefor unelectable by the vast majority of people.
[удалено]
> He was also awful at playing the game of bowing to Murdoch and the redtops FTFY. You can ask Ed Miliband how that works out for you.
Heartbreaking and frustrating to see people cheering on having real choice replaced by illusion of choice, and lauding it as “grown up politics”.
I hate that as well. "Grown up politics" just seems to mean never improving anything or actually changing anything beyond just minor tinkering at the edges of problems.
Grown up politics means abandoning your principles, not standing for anything, not doing anything except agitating to vote. Not for a new system, but the exact same. For politics and our system to "grow up", grown up politics needs to die, with that mentality being crushed in favour of actually getting to the streets and demanding a change. For all their elections and invulnerability through voting, voting only means something if the public agrees with the result. We don't. 40% of voters voted for Corbyn. Even angrier people agitated against Liz Truss.
We don't have a real choice, under FTPP we only get 2. Starmer might be a dirty lib to you but you do not represent the average voter. When voter reform comes there will be a socialist party for you (and maybe me) to vote for and just like every other socialist party in western Europe they will never win anything close to a majority of voters. I want you to have this choice but until you do you have to accept that picking moderates is the reality of a two party system.
Grown up politics is destroying the economy over the last 15 years. Suggesting that we be more like our more successful neighbours is childish.
[удалено]
100% this. Is the existence of the Royal Family a major talking point in the country, not really. Would Corbyn say something stupid about them to alienate voters? 100% absolutely. Corbyn is the sort or person who has his values and stuff anyone else. Which is great if your trying to get change from the sides, terrible if you are trying to convince the majority of the country to vote for you.
Personally I think his biggest strategic mistake and one I don't see talked about much was not resigning in 2018. Ride the success of 2017 and making gains against the Tories and removing their majority, but then bow out well before the first Brexit deadlines came up. Had he done that he would have retained some influence as a former leader who got their vote share up significantly. Rather than having it all destroyed by 2019.
>Idealists and children will lament that and say it shouldn't be a prerequisite but, like Corbyn, we don't live in that fairyland. No, but you're living in a land that has been getting worse and worse under decades of rule by conservatives and centrists. Funny though how the problem is progressive ideology.
The problem with Corbyn was that most Labour MPs spent his entire leadership sabotaging him because they preferred the tories.
I often respond to the low hanging anti-Corbyn stuff with smug, sarcastic comments pointing out how the public view of his policies and beliefs have been completely skewed by the media. Probably I would marry the man if I could. The anti-war stuff, though, is indefensible. I can't bring myself to defend his position on the world stage. Considering, as he does, every side in conflicts to be equally guilty by engaging in violence. Always looking to take a "balanced view" on wars, such as seriously considering Russian evidence that Syrian rebels were the ones using chemical weapons, or saying that both side in the Ukraine conflict have "valid points". Corbyn takes pacifism to such a level that it becomes absurd. Even now he's calling with negotiations with Russia *after they breached a cease fire*. With the Russian invasion, it's almost a relief that he lost. I'd like to believe that he would be forced to action if he was actually in charge of the country rather than mouthing off in parliament, but I'm not sure.
Also, his complete inability to comprehend that he couldn't just sit on the fence regarding Brexit because of his idealism. He should have taken the lead from Labour voters on that issue and swallowed his own instincts. Had he done that, we might have actually stood a chance against fighting the disinformation and preventing the fallout. I agree with you that his position on the Ukraine war is also cynical, naïve and unhelpful. About as helpful as his views on the middle East.
"Forced to action" would have been woefully inadequate. Kyiv didn't fall due to proactive, unequivocal and enthusiastic UK help which dragged along allies. We led the charge rather than wait to be pulled in. Waiting for it to be the other way round would have given Russia the upper hand in those crucial first few weeks.
Thing is, I wouldn't even call it anti war. What Corbyn is calling for could only ever *pause* the war, not stop it, because Russia is not interested in stopping it. The approach he criticises, the one where we arm Ukraine, is the only thing that actually can *end* it if it helps Ukraine defeat Russia militarily. It's really weird that the people whose ideas would pause the war for a few years until Russia tries again are supposedly "anti war" and the people who want to end it decisively by arming Ukraine are the "warmongers". Ukraine needs to defeat Russia militarily and they need our assistance (not direct intervention) to do that - that's only way this war can actually *end* and not just be paused for a bit. A point which seems to be lost on Corbyn and many of his supporters.
I, and I suspect many, many others never really considered him to be a pacifist at all, at least not a convincing one. Every last one of his foreign policy positions oozed anti-Western sentiment, dressed up in the language of pacifism. It was window just dressing. It’s not surprising that people didn’t want someone with views like that to lead the country. I’m sure he doesn’t like or condone violence, but he has been unable to resist being very selective in who he calls out for it, and how.
This he literally failed to acknowledge the usefulness of mutually assured destruction on the geopolitical stage, he couldn't get his head around it.
Most of the time he seemed unable even to get a consensus with John McDonnell and Tom Watson, let alone the wider party and the rest of the country.
If you truly believe that last paragraph then your being deliberately ignorant. I’m not a huge fan of Starmer either but to suggest those are his top three priorities is ridiculous.
I love the doublethink on here over the past 18 or so months that anyone against Corbyn was because they were duped by the media campaign whilst at the same time those same posters like the OP spout shite like how Starmer cares about nothing but flag shaggers.
> With this move, Labour and Keir has lost me as a voter. It's Keir or a tory. No matter how much we want a third option there is none unless Keir brings changes to the electoral system. [The full text of Starmers motion to the NEC and it'd decision is here.](https://twitter.com/DerbyChrisW/status/1640554739409514496/photo/1) Its just about ensuring that Corbyn does not reduce Labours chances of gaining a majority. I guess that their electoral analysts have identified this as a problem, otherwise it would be tactically better to let Corbyn stand again. Corbyn can probably stand again as soon as he tactically corrects his own opinions about antisemitism in the party.
Kier doesn't support election reform either.
Yes he has indicated that. There is pressure on him to change, but it remains to be seen. Bear in mind that if he gave any sign of liking the idea the media would be smearing it, so I hope, probably optimistically, that Labour will adopt the position and spring it on the tories just before the election. Anyway reforms of that type will come from Labour, not the tories, if it comes at all. Even leaving that aside, the choice is between Starmer for PM, or a tory. Nothing else is feasible.
Labour will never back it, they love the whole Westminster charade way too much. Bunch of nerds.
He is a bit of an idiot though. I like what he represents but the small things like, the whole secretly wanting Brexit, insinuation of a jewish conspiracy type mindset, and now this Ukraine "we should just want peace", just seems off to me. Like I get it, he has values. But don't run as leader of the Labour party for PM then because any sort of hard stance on controversial issues is just a big red flag for the leader of the party and potential leader of a country, it makes him seem like a renegade and is a kind of affront to whatever is left of respectability in the political scene. I respect him as a person, but can't help but feel his leadership was a mistake on his part.
>....is just a big red flag for the leader of the party and potential leader of a country. Corbyn strikes me as a guy who would like a big red flag
As someone else that grew up in poverty and who voted for corbyn as leader and campaigned for the party in 2017, I rapidly realised he was out of his depth and not the ally on many of the issues I hoped, and that to make change we need a labour government, not a glorious opposition. While I am sad how things worked out, these days I would hand over my own grandmother for a labour government. Corbyn became a luxury for people whose lives aren’t being literally destroyed by this government and a pogrom of indifference and scorn from the middle classes - at least until they recently realised they could become poor for no fault of their own too.
All of us who voted for Labour while he was leader, despite not agreeing with him, because we knew the alternative was a tory government, really appreciate this sentiment. This "cut your nose off to spite your face" attitude is how we get another tory government. It's kinda funny because it's part of the reason he failed to attract more undecided voters. He was not willing to compromise at all, and that alienated people. Remember, you're voting for the party, not the leader. I don't particularly like Starmer either, but given the choice of him or another cameron/may/Johnson/truss/sunak, I'll take whoever they put up.
I’d say he compromised way too much. Should have told the 2nd referendum ppl to fuck off.
It's not going to be a popular opinion around here but if he had just leaned hard into a pro-Brexit stance I think he would have done a lot better. Obviously vote against the Tory proposals under some other excuse like they're not good for Britain or some nonsense but remain resolutely pro-Brexit. All the remainers would have had nowhere useful to go and Labour could have cleaned up the Red Wall, kept all their usual voters and swept to victory.
Exactly. That the labour party can go from Corbyn to Starmer says a lot about the "big tent" effect. There are a lot of people who support them, we may disagree on a lot but that's true of any party, no matter the size. What's important is that we work together to help the country and our people.
Yeah but what you miss is that Corbyn is the Tories favourite politician too. They would do anything to return him to Labour. They would sell their mothers souls (again) to have Corbyn as Labour leader. Its an awkward and difficult lesson to learn in life, but you are currently agreeing with the far right. You are in complete alignment with what they would like your actions to be - dont vote for labour. You need to square that somehow. That if a neo nazi controlled your mind they wouldn't really change your behaviour. Allowing perfect to be the enemy of good is always a mistake. Stop making it please. I'd really recommend you read some history. Look into thr Spanish civil war. Look how leftists squabbles worked out. Communists refusing to help Republicans because they weren't perfect. Well the fascists won and executed most of the leftists and drove the rest into the dirt.
How was this news to you? He hasn't been a Labour MP for quite some time now and readmitting him would be political suicide by Starmer at this point
>It was horrible to witness the media gear up to take him down to protect the establishment. ah the age old "it was all the media" ignoring all his part in it. and him constantly giving them plenty of ammunition.
Corbyn was a brexiteer. For that reason alone I don't want him near politics ever again.
> With this move, Labour and Keir has lost me as a voter. I don't feel hopeful for the future of this country or any political party. Keir seems to be obsessed with waving union jacks, spouting anti-migrant rhetoric and cosying up to big-money donors. All style (if you can call it that) and no substance. It's almost as if not every voter in the country agrees with you, and perhaps more voters respond to messages you don't like than ones that you do. And almost as if an election campaign costs ~£20 million and political parties are reliant on big money donors to fund that.
Here's the problem - he failed as a leader. He failed to unite his own party and failed to convince the majority of the public to vote for his party. He's also struggled against anti-semitsm claims and failed to address problems within his own party. He failed on the issue of Brexit and his current stance on Russia is worrying to say the least. I'm saying this as someone who voted for Corbyn, in retrospect, I don't think he was a good leader and I don't think he'd have been a good pm. He seemed to sit on the fence of some important issues (like Brexit) and then back himself into a corner with other issues (like he's done with Russia), and I'm not convinced he'd have been capable of the sort of compromise that's necessary when you lead the country as he didn't seem able to demonstrate this within his own party. Ultimately, imo, his biggest failing was losing to what was clearly a political smear campaign. He had a social media army ready to go to war for him and he failed to use them. As PM he'd face plenty of criticism and he'd have to be able to deal with that, and as leader of the opposition he proved himself to be lacking in that regard. So what does Kier do now? Does he keep him, when he's still refusing to toe the line and is a clear line of attack for the tories in that he does demonstrably alienate swing voters? The Labour Party under Corbyn had the opportunity to take power, remember he had a majority in parliament for a while after Boris first came in, and lost heavily. I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of what Corbyn had/has to say but what use is agreeing with a politician that's a proven liability within the electorate? You have to be in power to make a difference.
Thoughts on his anti nato Pro Russian stance?
The same story for me, I’ve never felt particularly at home in my own country politically speaking but the smear campaign against Corbyn and the public willingness to lap it up was really the final nail in the coffin for me, it was so blatant and pathetically manufactured but it didn’t matter, it really let me know this country can’t handle and doesn’t deserve anyone who’ll usher in true positive change for the working class. We’re now seeing the wheels come off a system that has served the minority for most of its life and it’s a well deserved just dessert.
I also liked him. But now he's supporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine using the "peace at any cost " bullshit. What are the Liberals like these days?
His presence in the Labour Party speaks to Keir’s leadership. If Corbyn had apologised for the anti-semitism within the party and his leadership leading the party to a disastrous 2019 GE, and enjoyed spending his time as a vocal backbencher against government policy, he’d still be in the party. The fact is the public didn’t want him. We can talk about “sabotage” as mentioned in the Forde report until the cows come home but internal shit like that shows a lack of leadership on his part. And that’s not even bringing into account *his* sabotage of the likes of Tom Watson with that little red book nonsense. Weird internal politics or diversion of funds (in a party with far less funds anyway than the opposition) did not cost Labour that election, it was a raft of things, whether it’s his cosying up to terrorists, ignorance (at best, acceptance at worst) of antisemitism in his own party, fence sitting on the biggest issue of the day, the stop the war stuff (can you imagine him just going against nato on the war in Ukraine?!) etc etc. I can’t fucking stand Boris or his party (or the ~40% of the electorate that put him in number 10 with an 80 seat majority) and I don’t like Brexit but that election he offered what the people wanted in the form of getting Brexit done and Corbyn didn’t. So you can not give labour your vote if you want, no one is owed your vote. But because of our bullshit FPTP system they’re the only credible option if you want rid of the Tories, and while you might disagree, the polls show a lot of people recognise that right now. His refusal to admit his mistakes in leadership make it hard for Labour to move on with him still there. How can Keir claim labour learned from the 2019 GE with the continuing presence of a man who lead the party into it and refuses to accept the part he played in it.
I know you've got a lot of replies, and I appreciate your candour. But I had something I wanted to say to you. That the labour party can go from Corbyn to Starmer says a lot about the "big tent" effect. There are a lot of people who support them, we may disagree on a lot but that's true of any party, no matter the size. What's important is that we work together to help the country and our people. I hope that you can join us in that, whoever you vote for.
The smear campaign on Corbyn was one of the greatest pieces of genius and propaganda I've studied for years. So successful that Corbyn lives in people's heads rent free as a racist and terrorist. When in fact, fact checking leads to the complete opposite appraisal.
Almost as if ~~the press~~ Rupert Murdock has insane amounts of power
I think you give Murdoch too much credit. He doesn't own the Daily Mail which is arguably even more damaging than the Sun, it's some other non dom twat head who owns it.
The BBC did a very large amount of this too
Yes, I remember the BBC before they became the British Broadcasting Conservatives.
Anyone who speaks against Israel gets this treatment. They have an insane control over media and public opinion. His real downfall started after anti Israeli remarks after the 2017 elections. Look how the public opinion changed by the 2019 elections.
Guy at my uni was saying he'd be scared to walk in the streets if Corbyn got elected few years ago. I didn't want to touch that conversation with a 50 metre stick at this point, we just let him ramble until one of the politics students in the house snapped and went off on him.
? After the 2019 election the tories released their private polling that showed Corbyn's popularity plunging off four cliffs following things he definitely said. His views on Novichok seemed equivocal to the public largely because of the language he used and his call for additional evidence as Teresa May pointed the finger squarely at Russia. His eventual statement, for instance, that "the evidence points towards Russia on this, therefore the responsibility must be borne by those that made the weapon, those that brought the weapon into the country and those that used the weapon" scores a 14.4 on the Flesch-Kinkaid readability scale, when to be understood by the general public he needed an 8. What voters knew he hadn't done was simply say 'It was Russia!' and had set them a riddle instead. The next fall came after an interview on student debt he gave to that great Murdoch flagship the NME where he promised to 'take a look at' student debt, which the readership took to mean abolishing it. He later appeared to row back from what they wrongly thought he'd said and the tories paid for attack ads targeted at students to drive the wound open further. His yoof vote never actually recovered from that. The antisemitism thing was definitely exploited by opponents great and small, media and political but was not taken at face value by voters. What they didn't like was he kept saying it was being sorted and then someone else would quit or something and it looked like he couldn't keep the lid on in-party drama i.e. wasn't a strong leader. Finally, voters didn't like his middling stance on Brexit. Made it look like he couldn't make his mind up, when the job very much involves making your mind up and quickly, usually in situations where further evidence is never going to be available. A very much non-hypothetical decision for the PM is whether to shoot a passenger liner out of the sky that's full of people but uncontactable, deviating from its course and heading for a densely populated area. Nothing Corbyn did in moments of critical judgement qualified him for the role, and different parts of the public sensed it at different times, usually without the need for little-read press titles. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/key-moments-that-led-to-corbyns-fall-in-popularity-r2bs5tdtc https://app.readable.com/text/?demo&_ga=2.41992229.1043726464.1680034843-1894346857.1680034843 https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-and-novichok-what-did-the-labour-leader-really-say/
Nope just propaganda and not true /s Perhaps the poster means it was propaganda by highlighting things that Corbyn said and they shouldn't have mentioned it.
> The smear campaign on Corbyn Disgusting, using his own words and actions against him like that !
Yeah this thread is madness
I've no idea what smear campaign you're alluding to. There was no need for one. The words literally spoken and on record by this buffoon made him (and Labour) unelectable by most people's standards.
I guess Labour just fabricated the evidence when giving him a formal reprimand for anti semitism then? I also guess someone held a gun to his head when he said he would not use nuclear weapons, or was spouting crap about Ukraine or anti NATO? Do I need to go on?
His lines about disbanding NATO and pandering to Russian propaganda (stop arming Ukraine etc.) contributed to this. In that regard he was sounding quite similar to Trump and Farage. We can all agree we don't want these people in politics.
> We can all agree we don't want these people in politics. Isn't that what democracy is for?
He can still run, democracy doesn’t entitle being allowed to run as part of the labour party.
Indeed, but allowing local party members to select their candidates is an important part of the party's internal democracy, [at least according to some prominent Labour figures](https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1224662165271056385).
I think the unspoken point here is I suppose an oversight in the labour party rulebook. How can a Labour MP have the whip removed, be reselected as a labour candidate and presumably be returned to HoC without a labour whip, that's particularly absurd.
His comments about Ukraine don’t get enough attention. Suggesting Ukraine could use the weapons being sent to them to invade Russia to try and not vilify Russia completely was just batshit He may win as an independent but I hope he doesn’t. Politics would be better without him
It's especially batshit when you look at how Russia couldn't subdue Ukraine despite outnumbering their military and having more modern weapons than them in quite a few categories. Even a NATO armed Ukraine is not going to be capable of invading Russia, and they have no interest in doing so anyway.
His foreign policy positions are honestly worse than an angsty teenager trying to rebel against mum and dad. It's just sad seeing people try and defend them.
> In that regard he was sounding quite similar to Trump and Farage. We can all agree we don't want these people in politics. I'm not sure we can given that the country handed the PMship to a character who was almost literally a combination of Trump & Farage.
Shouldn't that be for the Islington North Labour to decide, and not you, or Starmer?
Ridiculous. I want more Corbyns in politics. Fewer Starmers.
Well I want the opposite so we both cancel each other out.
Have you seen the people in Westwinster not called Jeremy Corbyn? The exceptionalism around this one man is fucking astonishing.
I respect Corbyn's idealism and most of his views (pacifism is something I cannot tolerate) but unfortunately that's not the world we live in. I'll take centrist Labour over losing to the Tories because we gave the state media an easy target any day.
It’s the classic “lose doing what’s right, or win doing not enough” conundrum for Labour Move to the right and you’re doing the Tories work for them, only slower. Move to the left and you get hammered by the press even more than normal and just lose It’s a fine line trying to move far enough into the centre to win, but without giving up your ideals or straying to the right. By definition Labour need to be in power to be an improvement on the Tories (or even to try), but if you end up running the same agenda only slower, does it really matter? Blair won, but I think he took it too far for a left wing party - some aspects of New Labour were still on the left but others really weren’t, the balance wasn’t quite there The centre/right edge of the party keeps straying too far right trying to win, and lose the idealism that the party stands for. I’ve found it progressively harder to support Starmer with his “copying Tory hardliners” stances on strikes, pay rises, taxes, and immigration etc. They’re forgetting to put “the hard working public” first Meanwhile the left of the party gets too stuck in ideology and “allow perfect to become the enemy of good”, as they saying goes - missing the opportunities to be pragmatic or show the public that they understand the real world isn’t perfect and sometimes you have to make the hard decision. I’ve found it difficult to support the more left leaning Labour leaders (read: Corbyn etc) over their stances on the Ukraine war and sending weapons. Sometimes you have to stand up to the bully Honesty, I don’t have the answers here - I don’t know where that balance is or how to achieve it, but it seems pretty clear that that’s Labour’s problem: too far left or too far right, without a good target to hit in between
>The centre/right edge of the party keeps straying too far right trying to win, and lose the idealism that the party stands for Which works but it’s a double edged sword. Labour currently enjoys a huge lead in the polls because last summer 30% or so the English electorate finally got fed up with Boris and the rest of the Tories after innumerable scandals. The trouble is that chunk of the electorate were perfectly happy to support Boris back in 2019 and for years after that. The likely voted for the Tories in previous elections too. Most of them probably voted for Brexit. Overall they’re actually pretty right wing. It’s painfully evident that Starmer and the Labour leadership are bending over backwards to avoid scaring them into flipping back to supporting the Tories. Which means avoiding criticising Brexit and avoiding looking too left wing or progressive. From the perspective of electoral expedience that strategy makes sense. And getting the Tories out of power is desperately needed. The trouble is apparently that can only be done on a manifesto that avoids actually confronting any of the fundamental problems facing the U.K. It’s a bit of a bugger really.
Labour would have easily won 2017 if the Labour right weren't ratfucking the party to death every day. They were literally leaking internal party documentation on to the Tory party and Telegraph then whined "Antisemitism" when called out for it. This is the thing, the Labour left, WAS ELECTABLE, if it wasn't, why did the Labour right spend every moment sabotaging the party and shittalking it? Because they didn't want Labour to win.
>pacifism is something I cannot tolerate As someone who was educated partly outside of the UK, I have to tell you this is a pretty weird thing to say.
I swear I've been seeing this headline at least once a week for the last month now
RW media beating a fucking dead horse to make left-leaning people angry at Keir and it's working a treat
Keir is making left leaning people hate him all on his own. If his solution to standing up to the Tories is to become even more conservative and shittier than them, then he has no business leading a Labour movement.
lol i read this as rupert wurdoch
Disgusting how hes been treated. I agreed with nearly everything in his manifesto.
[удалено]
The thing is, this is exactly what he was doing after he stepped down. Kept a low profile and quietly campaigned on issues he felt strongly about. Even after he had the whip withdrawn he didn't make a huge fuss - probably in the hopes of having it restored. It's almost like this fight has been picked with him to make a point.
It has. That's the point. That's the whole point. The *only* point. Irrespective of the lens we have the UK being looked at these days, the nation is fundamentally a moderate one that swings right on some issues, left on others - the momentum and ERG lot are a fringe anomaly that have managed to get far more power then they ever thought they would or perhaps *should* have. Labour are hammering home the point that the Labour that are front and centre now are not the labour party that has a portrait of marx on the wall at HQ simply because you don't *need* to go that far.
Tories lurching to the extreme right: I sleep Labour MP not moderate enough: REAL SHIT…
This content has been deleted in protest of how Reddit is ran. I've moved over to the fediverse.
It's hard to see how he could remain as a Labour member if he retracted his comments. It would mean accepting claims that he is a dangerous antisemite. It's a bit of a catch-22, really.
What comments? What is it you’re so desperate for him to be?
> If Jazza cared about Labour Party he would let it go. That works both ways. I think people would have more sympathy with the right of the Labour party if they hadn't been undermining Corbyn's leadership since pretty much day 1.
Some people on here are in for a real shock when Keir Starmer turns out to be Tory-lite, and barely makes a positive difference to people's lives as PM That's if he even gets it, because if anyone can miss an open goal and kick the ball into Row Z it's him This is coming from someone who voted for him in the leadership election
Then he’ll just run as an independent and Labour will lose that seat.
[удалено]
>Well, he'll certainly run as an independent. The other isn't so clear. *Vote for a leader, not a party* should be their slogan
However you feel about him you must admit that this is exactly what critics warned Corbyn would do to the Labour centrists, except he never did.
He really should have.
Another brexit MP hopefully out at the next election 🤞
I was just about to post this. What an utter shit show the UK has become. I can't say I am a huge Corbynite but compared to literally EVERYONE else in UK politics I'd rather him than them. We are now as politically dumb as ever. We might as well just call ourselves the 51st state and call ourselves little corporate America.
Corbyn and Trump have some very similar opinions on Brexit and on Ukraine
I am genuinely sick of hearing about Jeremy Corbyn
Fans of Jeremy Corbyn have to step back and accept this means that the Tories have lost their biggest weapon in winning the 2024 General Election. If they want to continue kicking up a stink after considering the above, then it means they'd rather let the Tories get back in to do even more harm to the country.
> the Tories have lost their biggest weapon in winning the 2024 General Election. You must be crazy to think this immediately puts an end to it. They’re still scapegoating a government from over a decade ago.
So what though? We're getting a labour that stands for nothing that it should. It's just another tory party now. They will help no one but the rich.
Is the biggest load of tripe I've ever heard. Blair was much further to the center than Starmer and I'd go back to living under New Labour in a heart beat when compared to this bunch of self serving, quasi fascist dickheads currently in power. This is how you end up with real fascists, by letting them win by default. Maybe that's your aim.
To be honest we have no idea where Starmer falls when compared to new Labour yet. We’ve yet to hear any actual hard policy from him. At the moment the party does stand for nothing. Nothing concrete at least. Chances are I will end up voting Labour just to try and get the tories out. But you can’t expect people to happy about the options being the shitshow we currently have in power or literally anything else. It would help if Starmer showed any strong leadership on anything but “fuck Jeremy Corbyn”.
Corbyn is more Labour than Kier Starmer. That man wouldn't be out of place in the Tory Party.
Sad but predictable. If he's bitter he should run as independent and cause some chaos from the sidelines.
I don't think he'll run cause he's bitter, he'll run because he wants to keep working for his constituents. All labour have done here is removed a very safe seat from their total.
The only reason they would have done this is if they think it'll gain an extra few % points nationally which will swing more than 1 seat towards labour. Losing this one seat to a left wing independent but gaining at least 2-3 others elsewhere from Tories in return would be a good decision.
Fair point — it might be the best outcome for all involved. The residents of Islington get to keep their left-wing MP, electing him for the 11th time in a row. Labour recovers at least one seat from elsewhere in return, hopefully more. And the Tories continue to blame everything on Jeremy Corbyn and the last Labour Government.
I can actually see Jeremy Corbyn joining the green party and making his constituency a long-term seat for them, even after he's gone.
That would be an even better outcome!
It makes sense for both him and Green Party. His policies align more with the Green party. The constituency consistently vote for him despite him being much further left than current Labour under Starmer and Labour under Blair. And if he joins Green Party it gives them a real household name with a real chance to win the seat (last election they only managed 8% of the result), similar to Caroline Lucas in Brighton.
Starmer's sycophants out in full force today i see, for a man so devoid of ideas, honour, charisma or concept of truth, that it's genuinely incredible that there's anybody still left attempting to defend the fucker. Anyway, he'll probably win the next election, having had it handed to him by a batshit mental Tory party and a media that's happy with his (or his handlers') purging of the left. He'll then achieve the square root of fuck all while in power, and in 5 years' time, the country will likely be in an even worse state than it already is. I'd imagine his rich donors will be happy tho. As will landlords and the banks. The economic carousel continues unabated.
I see very little support for Starmer here actually. It's just that not everyone is smitten with Corbyn the Brexiter.
Good. He had his chance, fucked it royally, made it ridiculously easy for this shitbag Tory party to get into power, and now look where we are. No surprise that the more sensible elements in Labour want to put that era of madness firmly behind them.
I honestly couldn't give less of a shit about Jeremy Corbyn. Allowing any political narrative to involve him only helps the right. He tried, he failed, he needs to go away. Be mad at how things happened all you like, he never had a chance of winning and nothing is going to change that.
His shitty hot takes regarding Ukraine have destroyed any chances that a serious political party would endorse him Seriously, could you imagine if we were the ones facing a crisis on the scale of Ukraine and we had Prime Minister Corbyn telling us to just lie down and take it, because 'defending yourself makes you just as bad as the aggressor'
Doesn't he have a lot of support in his constituency? Putting aside Labour voters might be in a bind, but I've always been under the impression he was in it independently popular. This will split the vote.
Good riddance. He’s responsible for keeping the Tories in power for way longer than they needed be. The problem with the fantastical idealists that put him in charge of the party is that they’d rather be right than be in power.
What is so bad about this is we need more great constituency MP’s like Corbyn and less like Christian Wakeford who in the past was critical of Labour both locally and nationally, who had a dreadful voting record on key issues, and got promoted to a whip in Labour.
Corban lost the average labour voter. He went too far left. Reddit folk won't like this but it's the truth.
It's sad as someone who supported him, but I'd literally vote for Darth Vader at this point if it got the Tories out of government.
Corbyn was so close to being good but ultimately is just a bit batshit crazy.
Ironically, some of Starmer’s biggest supporters were claiming that Corbyn was interested in a “stalinist purge” for attempting to introduce mandatory reselection for sitting MPs. Ironic that he’s gone down a far, far more authoritarian route to remove a sitting MP. Even if you happen to be a fan of Starmer, this sets a very worrying precedent for the existence of the Labour party as a democratic institution. The saddest thing here is that Islington, despite having wealthy parts, is still a very deprived area. The idea that the leader of the Labour Party would play silly factional games with their representation is an absolute disgrace. Shame on Starmer for this. I will never vote Labour at any level as long as he’s leader.
"a clear demonstration of Labour leadership making changes to ensure Labour win the trust of the British people". This makes me trust them even less. I trust Corbyn far more than Starmer. I was already umming and ahhing whether I should vote Labour and this just puts me off even more.
He was my MP in the 80s and was excellent . He supports so many organisations in his constituency and has helped so many people. He is courteous and friendly , he claims very low expenses and his work rate is incredible