Starmer As Labour's leader - what should he do?

438 posts / 0 new
Last post

Actually if the true be known, in a fair and democratic system, Clinton received was it 3 million more votes that Trump in 2016, but continue on with the nonsense. 

Ken Burch

NorthReport wrote:

Actually if the true be known, in a fair and democratic system, Clinton received was it 3 million more votes that Trump in 2016, but continue on with the nonsense. 

Did you mean to post that in THIS thread, North?


"Lenin had it right about the Labour Party 100 years ago. 'A thoroughly bourgeois party, because, although made up of workers, it is led by reactionaries, and the worst kind of reactionaries at that, who act quite in the spirit of the bourgeoisie."

Ditto the 'progressive left' NDP


[quote=Ken Burch]

The EHRC report also exonerated Chris Williamson and found that Labour was NOT "institutionally antisemitic".  So, Corbyn is essentially innocent of any wrongdoing.

He had no power to make the disciplinary proceedings against the tiny, trivial number of actual antisemites go any faster, and Livingstone just barely got out before being expelled.  What the hell more could he have done, really?


Except for standing by while Williamson was thrown under the same bus he has now. Karma, karma, karma chameleons...


Starter must be doing something right. Marginalizing the Corbynites perhaps?


Norman Finkelstein on the 'Anti-Semite Corbyn' (and vid)

"The British elites could not have gotten away with calling Corbyn an anti-Semite unless they had the visible support, of all the leading Jewish organisations. All three major British publications, for the first time in British Jewish history, all took out a common editorial denouncing Corbyn as an anti-Semite and saying that we're now standing on the verge of another Holocaust. They are the enablers of this concerted conspiracy..."


How Many British MPs Are Working For Israel? (and vid)

"...It is worth listening to a Tory minister in the government of recently departed David Cameron who writes anonymously in the Mail on Sunday. The British government skews its foreign policy to avoid upsetting Jewish donors s/he says. MPs, meanwhile, act like agents of a foreign power. Here is what the minister writes:

'British foreign policy is in hock t Israeli influence at the heart of our politics, and those in authority have ignored what is going on. For years the CFI and Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) have worked with - even for - the Israeli government and their London embassy to promote Israeli policy and thwart UK Government policy and the actions of Members who try to defend Palestinian rights.

Lots of countries try to force their ways on others, but what is scandalous in the UK is that instead of resisting it, successive Governments have submitted to it, taken donors' money and allowed Israeli influence-peddling to shape policy and even determine the fate of Ministers. Even now, if I were to reveal who I am, I would be subjected to a relentless barrage of abuse and character assassination.

It now seems clear people in the Conservative and Labour Parties have been working with the Israel Embassy, which has used them to demonise and trash MPs who criticise Israel, as an army of Israel's useful idiots in parliament. This is politically corrupt and diplomatically indefensible. The conduct of certain MPs needs to be exposed as the poisonous and deceitful infiltration of our politics by the unwitting agents of another country. We need a full inquiry into the Israeli Embassy, the links, access and funding of the Conservative Friends of Israel and Labour Friends of Israel.'

Here we have documented evidence of the Israeli government secretly plotting with 'friendly' British MPs to oust a British government minister [see vids]. If that isn't 'interference' in the British political system I don't know what is..."

[The situation is in some ways even more advanced in Canada and a similar investigation urgently required. How many Canadian MPs are working for the interests of  Apartheid Israel? One thing seems certain  - there is not a single one working against. And few are asking why.]


"The question that UK British people should be asking is not whether there is antisemitism in the Labour Party, but why there has been no investigation into the corruption of UK politics by a foreign power?"

'But Russia...'


Corbyn issued a statement in response to the report, which claimed the “the scale of the [antisemitism] problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party”.

He was suspended because what he said was true.  


Do you think suspending Jeremy #Corbyn from the Labour Party was the right/wrong decision ?


Right decision: 58%

Wrong decision: 13%


Among 2019 Labour voters only:


Right decision: 41%

Wrong decision: 26%



Sorry. That is a You Guv poll released today

Ken Burch

After five years of corporate media lies-the EHRC admitted Corbyn wasn't an antisemite- that's what you'd expect.

Labour can't anathemize Corbyn and move to the right of his policies and still be distinguishable from the Tories.

Nobody other than the rich want to go back to Labour being just barely different from the Tories, like you do.

Corbyn was exonerated by the EHRC and there was nothing intolerable with him saying the problem was exaggerated.



Ken, no responsible person ever said Corbyn was an anti Semite. He tolerated anti Semitism within his faction, however. The EHRC certainly didn’t “exonerate” him on that.



"The question that UK British people should be asking is not whether there is antisemitism in the Labour Party, but why there has been no investigation into the corruption of UK politics by a foreign power?"

Notice how frequently this central question is evaded/avoided.

Ken Burch

nicky wrote:

Ken, no responsible person ever said Corbyn was an anti Semite. He tolerated anti Semitism within his faction, however. The EHRC certainly didn’t “exonerate” him on that.

He never did any such thing.  There were a tiny number of complaints...I believe less than 1,000...the vast majority of which were found groundless.

If the issue is Ken Livingstone-who is in nobody's "faction"- he was out of the party within a year after Corbyn won the leadership.  That was as fast as he'd have been out under ANY leader, and he resigned because he knew expulsion was certain, so there's no difference between the man leaving by expulsion or leaving by resignation-in practice, it was the same thing.

It wasn't Corbyn's fault that the party bureaucracy was delaying disciplinary proceedings on AS.

And I'll ask you again...why wasn't it enough for Labour to adopt those parts of the IHRA "examples and guidelines" that dealt with actual antisemitism(bigotry against Jews and Judaism as religion, ethnicity, or culture) without endorsing the antidemocratic and right-wing portions of the guidelines which make solidarity with Palestinians, principled non-Zionism, or even criticism of what the Israeli government does to Palestinians that falls within the dying remnants of "Left Zionism" equivalent to bigotry against Jews?

Why should Labour ever agree to any part of the absurd pretense that Israel as a country and Zionism as a (now permanently right-wing) nationalist movement, a nationalist movement that has already achieved its objective or creating a nation-state and thus has no justification for anyone demanding that the nation-state it already created years ago has "a right to exist"(something no other nation on the planet has ever demanded that other nations recognize of those states).

And why should it be ground for admission to say that "the problem has been greatly exaggerated" for political  benefit?  We all know that it was.  We all know that AS, noxious as it is and passionately as we all oppose it, is actually the least prevalent form of bigotry in the whole of the UK, and if anything is on the wane.

Anti-BAME prejudice is much more widespread and virulent in the uk.  Anti-LGBTQ prejudice is much more widespread and virulent.  Islamophobia and xenophobia are much more widespread.

Yet, to hear supporters of the Labour right wing like yourself, to hear the BBC, to hear the once-progressive but now essentially Tory rag known as The Guardian, the British Left are this year's Nazis, and every Jewish person in the country was on the verge of rounded up.

All, basically, over a handful of shouting matches.


Ken Burch

And again...Corbyn stepped down as leader months ago.  He was never going to seek the leadership again.  And nobody allied with him would have been intolerable as a future leader.

Here is the key question:

We both want the Tories to win-although I know that Labour victory can only be worth having if the party is socialist instead of "modernizing social democracy".

After all that he has done, after all the further damage he is going to do, how is Starmer possibly going to persuade Corbyn's supporters-without whom Labour can never win another election- to vote for the party under his leadership?  What possible chance is there that, after persecuting the Left, he can possibly offer any radical policies at all(a Labour Party in which the Left is out in the cold can't ever offer anything radical or different than the Tories...Kinnock proved that in 1992 when he offered a platform with nothing radical or positive at all, just tiny trivial mundane incremental benefit increases that would have been who will vote for them?

Nobody is ever going to be a Tory-to-Labour swing voter again.

Nobody is even likely to be a LibDem-to-Labour swing voter again.

And the compromises Labour would have to make to get any such people to vote Labour, as even you would have to concede, would make a Labour victory meaningless.

And we have the examples of the 2010 and 2015 elections to prove already that Labour can never win another election by blurring the differences and treating socialism as an embarrassment, so why even try that approach again?

Tony Blair won in 1997.  All that means is that Labour won in 1997.  With the incompetence of John Major, Labour was certain to have won that year on any manifesto and with any leader.

Labour has nothing to gain by going back to twenty three year-old policies that have no relavance to the problems of today.

Ken Burch

Mass resignations from Labour now happening...only the Tories can possibly benefit from that.

Again, it was enough that Corbyn stood down.  Nothing beyond that was needed.

Ken Burch

More evidence that Starmer's vendetta against Corbyn and all Labour socialists is doing the party harm:

Ken Burch

And it's actually pathetic that, facing nothing remotely similar to the Five Years' Hate Corbyn was subjected to, with Brexit accepted as a settled issue by one and all-as everyone should have accepted it in 2019, when it was useless to even try to have stopped it because stopping it wasn't possible and all stopping it WOULD have achieved was the loss of even more Red Wall seats- we can assume no northern English seat at all would have gone Labour if they did manage to stop it- and no gains for Labour in any Remain constituencies- of which there would have been far too few,if there were any such constituencies that would have voted any other way than the way they did.


Ken, somehow in your post #219 you neglected to mention aspects of the poll showing overwhelming approval of Starmer’s ditching of your favourite Tory enabler:

But Starmer is now also seen as a better leader, according to the poll. 49% of respondents said he was “competent”, a nine percentage point rise over the course of the month, and 38% said he was “decisive” after a five-point rise.

The research suggests that over October Starmer has improved on the metrics of being “trustworthy” (up three points to 32%), “strong” (37%, up five points) and “likeable” (42%, up eight points).

49% in the latest poll agreed that Starmer is “competent” (up nine percentage points since October 5th), 38% “decisive” (up five points), 32% “trustworthy” (up three points), 37% “strong” (up five points); 42% “likeable” (up eight points).

Those consulted in the poll were not supportive of Corbyn’s actions on antisemitism. 76% of those consulted said he dealt with antisemitism badly in Labour, and just 7% of respondents said he had done well.

By comparison, Keir Starmer’s handling of Labour antisemitism is seen more positively. 39% of respondents said he has dealt with the issue “well”, compared to just 22% of people who thought the contrary.

Fresh YouGov polling has also indicated that UK voters overwhelmingly support the decision to suspend Corbyn from the Labour Party, by a margin of 58% to 13%. A further 29% of those surveyed said they did not know.



Ken Burch wrote:

Mass resignations from Labour now happening...only the Tories can possibly benefit from that.

Again, it was enough that Corbyn stood down.  Nothing beyond that was needed.


Resignations are good, but without forming a new party, they will have little impact.  All the left have to look forward by staying in a Labour is to be shit on, as they were for 30 years prior to Corbyn.  


Labour leads in the 2 most recent polls

Nothing succeeds like success!


7 major UK unions issue joint call for Corbyn’s immediate reinstatement – still not told what rule he supposedly broke


Stay in the Labour Party

"You know you like it really..."


Economic Policy After Brexit and COVID-19: Taking Control

"One of the problems we have is that there's internecine warfare within the progressive side of the polity. That played out in the Brexit debate quite clearly, where you had the urban voices talking about Remain as a sort of globalist vision - 'cosmopolitanism', which in the EU ends at its  borders. It's not cosmopolitanism at all. The EU leaves people dying on its borders or drowning at sea and lying on beaches. So we've got this real problem where there's a split within the progressive movement.

I see this morning that Jeremy Corbyn's been suspended from the Labour Party for god's sake. My friend Chris Williamson was expelled from the Labour Party. Things like that do not auger well for what we need to do. And what we need to do is to create a true working class movement..."

Ken Burch


7 major UK unions issue joint call for Corbyn’s immediate reinstatement – still not told what rule he supposedly broke


And according to the EHRC, he was allowed to say what he said.


”Shit-stirring Zionist cum buckets, bought and paid for by Israel.” According to the Labour party governance unit, as recently as last year, this statement made about Margaret Hodge and I was neither racist nor misogynist and didn’t warrant any action against the Labour party member who had written it. That is, until it appeared on the front page of a national newspaper and even then, the member wasn’t suspended until Jeremy Corbyn had to face MPs in parliament.

This is just one example of literally hundreds detailing how Jews were treated by Corbyn’s Labour party. The last five years have been grim for too many Jewish Labour party members. We have been abused, threatened, belittled and then told we were making it all up or if it did exist we were weaponising racism for factional gain. It felt like a systematic campaign to break us and hound us out of the party. Every day there was a new antisemitism scandal and every day the leadership of the party tried to turn a blind eye.

The fact that I had to move home on the recommendation of the police due to the sheer scale of the threat and that Luciana Berger had to have police protection at the Labour party conference, in the city she represented, were merely inconvenient truths for people who wanted us out of the party, who wanted us silenced.

The Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), the Labour party’s oldest socialist affiliate, at first tried to find a way to work with Corbyn’s team but every effort was rebuffed – to the point that when an antisemitism subcommittee was convened by the Labour party, JLM was told to wait outside: we weren’t wanted at the meeting as they discussed us.

After three years of misery JLM decided that enough finally was enough and that we had no option but to appeal to a regulatory body, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), to intervene to determine whether the Labour party was systematically discriminating against us because of our heritage.

And finally, last Thursday the EHRC did the unprecedented – it found the Labour party responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act and stated that: “The equality body’s analysis points to a culture within the party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.”

My tears were of horror, deep sadness but also relief. The world could no longer dismiss what we were saying as a smear

Those words made me cry. My party, my political home for 25 years, was found to have been illegally discriminating against its Jewish members. My tears were of horror, deep sadness but also relief. We had been vindicated, the world could no longer dismiss what we were saying as a smear. It would finally be possible to move on and fix the endemic racism that had taken a grip of the party I had dedicated my life to.

So, the only important question now is what should to happen next? The EHRC has outlined a series of steps that the party needs to take but the reality is that its remit is about policy and procedures not cultural change. Of course, the JLM wants to work with the new leadership of the Labour party to make sure that the new systems work and that we as targets of abuse have confidence in the new procedures, but we need more than that.

Jewish members need to be heard, our stories of harassment acknowledged and we need to see real cultural change in the party, not just to ensure that the Labour party is a safe space for Jews and non-Jews alike but also to make sure that this never, ever happens again, to Jews or to any other minority community.

Keir Starmer has a huge job of work to do to rebuild bridges with the Jewish community and to fix the Labour party. He didn’t create this mess but fixing it now lies with him. All I can ask of him is please don’t less us down.

Ruth Smeeth was Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, but left the Commons on 6 November 2019

Ken Burch
Ken Burch

Starmer has now revealed himself:  he's a right-Stalinist(as Stalin, who mostly killed leftists, was ALSO a right-Stalinist).

Ken Burch

Starmer has now revealed himself:  he's a right-Stalinist(as Stalin, who mostly killed leftists, was ALSO a right-Stalinist).

Ken Burch

Angela Rayner shown on video admitting that Corbyn's comments about AS within Labour being exaggerated for political gain are true, but, even being true, are "unacceptable"

(And even with that, the CAA still wants HER invesetigated for AS).

When will it be enough for you, nicky?

When everyone who had anything to do with Corbyn has either recanted for being anti-austerity and antiwar or has been expelled?  That won't leave much of anybody, and especially not anyone at all who does the work of campaigning for Labour at elections.  That won't leave anybody who wants Labour to disagree with the Tories.

It will just leave people like you, who want the Labour message to once again be reduced to nothing but "it's enough to elect something CALLED 'a Labour government'.  It doesn't matter what that government actually DOES". 

Also, the poll you cited was taken before the EHRC fallout and the unjustified suspension of Corbyn.  Don't assume it represents what the voters feel now.



Starmer Begins Purge of Corbyn Supporters From Labour Party

"...The Zionist Community Security Trust (CST) stepped in to reinforce Starmer's witch-hunt, with the Guardian reporting, 'The group said it had used software to search for terms linked to leftwing antisemitism, such as 'Zionist,' 'Mossad,' and 'Rothschild' along side Starmer's name over the past 30 days.'

In the Labour leaership contest, Starmer and the three other candidates were all asked if they were Zionists and all said they were. He told the Jewish News, 'I do support Zionism...I support Zionism without qualification.' *

This was widely hailed by Jewish publications, who would all now be identified as part of a spike in anti-Semitism by the CST's software. Corbyn was forced to deny the EHRC report's claim of widespread anti-Semitism attributed to his leadership of the party, but added, 'While I do not accept all of its [the EHRC's] findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period'  -  giving de facto endorsement to the contrived witch-hunt of his own supporters, just as he did while still party leader...."

*(At least he admitted it. His actions become clear and follow logically from that point on.  See also #207)



"The question that UK British people should be asking is not whether there is antisemitism in the Labour Party, but why there has been no investigation into the corruption of UK politics by a foreign power?"

'But Russia/China'


The Rare Sight of a Political Reckoning

Britain’s Labour Party has suspended its former leader. Who knew in this partisan age that politicians could hold their own side to account?

OCTOBER 30, 2020 



Keir Starmer and Jeremy Corbyn stand in front of a pack of reporters.


These days, it is rare that a piece of political news can make your jaw drop. But the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from Britain’s Labour Party lit up social media—and my phone—like a fireworks display.

Until April, Corbyn was the leader of Britain’s main opposition party. (He stood down less than four months after leading Labour to a thumping general-election defeat last year.) The man who replaced him, former lawyer Keir Starmer, supported the punishment.




The immediate cause of Corbyn’s suspension was his reaction to an independent report, published this week by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a British watchdog group, on anti-Semitism within the Labour Party. The report found that his office had interfered with complaints about anti-Semitic postings and comments, objected to an investigation into Corbyn himself, and contributed to a hostile environment for Jews in the party. Significantly, it found that the offenses amounted to three breaches of equalities law. One section was entitled “A Failure of Leadership.”

In this context, taking action against the man who oversaw this failure might seem obvious. Yet our political climate encourages partisans to dismiss or even cover up wrongdoing by their side. The American comparison underlines how extraordinary Starmer’s action is. If Donald Trump loses the upcoming U.S. presidential election, absolutely no one expects the Republican leadership to repudiate his racism, sexism, and contempt for democracy. There will be no reckoning with the man who corrupted the values of his party. In a hyper-partisan era, the temptation to excuse and obfuscate the mistakes of one’s own side will surely prove irresistible, even to those who have privately expressed their disgust with the president.

The most extraordinary aspect of Corbyn’s suspension, then, is also the most basic one: A party leader has disciplined his predecessor. (Labour insists that the decision was not taken by Starmer personally—but he created the “zero tolerance” rules which made it inevitable, and it was his chosen candidate for the party’s top official who wielded the axe.) Starmer won the leadership in part because he did not denounce Corbyn, as other Labour politicians did. Indeed, he served in party leadership under Corbyn. He is far from the British equivalent of a Never Trumper. Yet it is under his command that the party has severed the link with its most recent leader. It’s not regicide or patricide, but it feels close to both.

Read: The lessons of Jeremy Corbyn’s defeat

Corbyn’s reaction to the anti-Semitism report was typical of his attitude to the broader issue, which has dragged on for several years. In a Facebook post, he said he regretted the slowness of reforming the complaints procedure under his leadership, but argued that Labour’s anti-Semitism problem had been “dramatically overstated” by his opponents and the media. He used a favorite phrase—denouncing “all forms of racism”—which he must know by now is upsetting to Jewish activists, who see it as evidence that he cannot recognize the unique challenge of anti-Semitism. Corbyn added that he did not accept all the findings of the report.

That last statement sealed his political death warrant. Starmer served as Corbyn’s Brexit spokesman, and ran for the leadership on a platform of unity, promising to heal the division between the Corbynite left and the rest of the party. He was widely expected to reform Labour’s complaints procedures in light of the EHRC report and perhaps even criticize his predecessor by name. But suspending Corbyn from the party, one he has represented in Parliament since 1983, is a much more decisive—and incendiary—move.

Corbyn won the Labour leadership in 2015 on the promise he would take the party to the left, breaking with the capitalist-friendly policies and political centrism of former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Labour’s socialist faction had long been marginalized—one of Blair’s advisers once spoke about consigning it to a “sealed tomb”—and from the start, Corbyn felt attacked by the media and undermined by many of his own members of Parliament, who sat closer to the political center than Corbyn’s supporters.

As the friction grew, his long associations with fringe left-wing groups were a point of contention. A firm opponent of colonialism, he had spent years associating with activists who saw Israel as one of the evils of the modern world because of its activities in Gaza and the West Bank. In those circles, criticisms of Israeli policy too often slid into conspiracies about divided loyalties, a sinister “Jewish lobby,” and shadowy cabals of “bankers” or “Rothschilds” ruling the world. Corbyn had personally invited a Holocaust denier to Parliament and referred to members of the militant group Hamas as “friends.”

Before last year’s election, Britain’s chief rabbi went public with his fears over what a Corbyn government would mean for British Jews. One of Labour’s oldest affiliates, the Jewish Labour Movement, refused to campaign for the party. Britain’s Jewish population is tiny, so this had a negligible effect on the electoral results, but it tainted Labour’s cherished self-image as a champion of equality and anti-racism.

Starmer’s wife is Jewish, and he feels a moral, as well as strategic, imperative to tackle anti-Semitism. His first speech as leader addressed the problem head-on, and he quickly met with Jewish groups that had complained of being frozen out by Corbyn. In June, he sacked his Corbynite rival for the leadership, Rebecca Long Bailey, from his shadow cabinet for sharing an article containing an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory on social media. After several other Corbynite shadow ministers resigned on October 5 over an unrelated disagreement (a bill about undercover operations by the security services), the Labour left is now highly marginalized in Parliament again. It might not be in a “sealed tomb,” but it has gone from believing it could be on the verge of governing Britain to its present humbled and diminished state in less than a year.

Read: Britain just got pulled back from the edge

How much firepower do Corbyn supporters have to aim at Starmer? The current Labour leader is no one’s idea of a charisma machine, but he has previously run a large organization, as Britain’s chief prosecutor, and is nerdishly interested in how institutions work. That has served him well as Labour leader. Since taking over, he has assembled a loyal office, installed his favored candidate in the party’s administration, and laid the ground for the decision to suspend Corbyn by declaring that the party had a “new leadership.” Nonetheless, a civil war in Labour could prove debilitating and even fatal to his chances of becoming prime minister.

As I wrote in December, denying the extent of anti-Jewish sentiment and conspiracy theories—implying that there was a “witch hunt”—had become a loyalty test on the left in Britain. Starmer has indicated that Labour has no room for anyone, no matter how senior, who contests the existence of the problem.

The question now is this: Will the rump of Corbyn’s supporters mount a coup attempt on Starmer? Or now that the pretense of “unity” is gone, could Corbyn become a king in exile? Since stepping down, the former leader, who once drew thousands to his rallies, has largely retreated to defending his record and commenting on liberation struggles abroad. Perhaps he might remember his heyday and brand himself as the leader of “True Labour” or something similar. Any new outfit would struggle to win seats under Britain’s electoral system—the experience of those who left Labour to form a new party in the last Parliament is not a happy one—but who cares? Corbyn never really believed in parliamentary democracy as a route to socialism anyway. He might feel life is more congenial as the Old Pretender, criticizing his successor from beyond his reach.

This is an arresting moment in British politics—a truly unexpected event—and a rare one in global terms, too. The U.S. is less than a week away from an election which the president is expected to lose. Yet if he does, there will be no catharsis, no reflection, no denunciation.

Starmer has shown that another way is possible. His decision is a gamble. It is the nuclear option. It is a reckoning.


Labour Is Irredeemable (and vid)

"Here is Corbyn's supposed closest ally recently passionately defending the legacy of Tony Blair and claiming categorically that he isn't a war criminal. Labour is irredeemable."


The Orwellian Ironies of the So-Called Labour Party

"...Perhaps the most Orwellian thing about the Labour Party as it now stands, is that the world 'Labour' even appears in the title."

Ken Burch

Suspending Corbyn was never about AS- none of this has ever been about sincerely opposing AS- a largely right-wign prejudice in the UK, and which was expressed most passionately in recent years by Tory leader Boris Johnson, who wrote a novel that used numerous antisemitic tropes and has never, at any point apologized or admitted he was wrong to do so.  

It was about a purge of the Labour Left...about removing everyone who supports socialism, international solidarity and internal party democracy from the party.  

This article is explanation of Starmer's actual agenda...making Labour the second Tory party again, as it was under Blair, who moved Labour massively and vindictively to the right when everyone knew there was no reason to do so:

Btw, many of the polls taken under Starmer's leadership have had Labour behind the Tories, and the ones which showed him in the lead have only had him in that status by a trivially small margin.  

Nobody out in the wider electorate was demanding that Starmer purge the left.  And  Labour with the left purged can't be significantly different than the Tories.


Finkelstein To Sue Campaign Against Antisemitism For Antisemitism

"I am Jewish,' he said as a Proud Jew. 'But the CAA didn't mention my name until page 50. That's an outrage! Anything a Jew says or does should be in the first paragraph of the first page of any report, even if it's on Climate Change!"


The Labour Party has one objective and that is to win elections and unfortunately Corbyn is an impediment to that objective. It's time for Corbyn to

Ken Burch

NorthReport wrote:
The Labour Party has one objective and that is to win elections and unfortunately Corbyn is an impediment to that objective. It's time for Corbyn to

He doesn't need to be removed from the party for Labour to win.  And the people whose ideals he supports don't need to be removed or silenced, either.

And your last sentence makes no sense, given that the phrase "move on" has nothing to do "", a website devoted solely to raising funds for U.S. political campaigns.

Corbyn is simply a man.  

But Labour has nothing to gain from driving the activists associated with him out of the party or moving sharply to the right of the policies they support.

If the voters in the UK wanted Labour to stay Blairite, Labour wouldn't have lost badly in 2010 and 2015.

Ken Burch

In case, Starmer ran as a party unity candidate-you can't build unity-at least not unity for victory- by driving huge numbers of people OUT of the party you lead.  No party can gain votes while shrinking in membership size.

And the truth is, Labour would have won in 1997 without any of Blair's right-wing vindictiveness.



The Labour Party has one objective and that is to win elections and unfortunately Corbyn is an impediment to that objective. It's time for Corbyn to


How inspiring. I'm sure the leadership shares your view that UK Labour be above all things an election winning machine and fuck its political public purpose which will now promote the interests of  Zionists.  Here's hoping the British public drives a stake through the dead thing's heart and consigns it to the political grave it so richly deserves.

Ken Burch

Starmer is running Labour as Mulcair ran the NDP.  And we all remember how well THAT worked out.


Corbyn's wishy-washy position on Brxit is what did Labour in, everyone knows that.
But Corbyn's time in the sun is done, and he needs to gracefully bow out, and
If you support Labour support the Leader and you will be surprised how well Labour does in the next election.

Ken Burch

NorthReport wrote:
Corbyn's wishy-washy position on Brxit is what did Labour in, everyone knows that. But Corbyn's time in the sun is done, and he needs to gracefully bow out, and If you support Labour support the Leader and you will be surprised how well Labour does in the next election.

He bowed out when he stood down as leader.  He doesn't need to give up his seat, take a vow of silence and live out his days in a cell on Devil's Island.  There was no reason not to just accept him staying on as an elder statesman and voice of conscience in the party.


Ken Burch

More proof that Starmer stands for nothing.  He is all but abandoning the Ten Pledges.  Without the Ten Pledges being kept absolutely in force, Labour can't claim to be a different party than the Tories.  Nothing to the right of the Green New Deal can make a difference on climate issues.


One thing Starmer clearly stands for is Zionism. Not only has he declared it but demonstrated his commitment by Corbynning the previous party leader.

Ken Burch

It's now clear that, just like in 1997, there will be no differences between Labour and the Tories at the next election. Starmer will not fight for anything radical, or even anything left of center.  And as a result, no one will think the next UK election will matter.

All hope has been killed.

Nothing lives in the Labour Party anymore.

The poor and the workers do not matter to Starmer-only the left wing fight for them.

Peace doesn't matter to Starmer-only the left wing opposes perpetual war.

Starmer is pushing Labour to go back to being the second party of the Establishment-the second party of the wealthy and the warmongering.

Why should Labour even exist in that form, since nothing that is meaningfully different from the status quo can happen if Labour reduces itself to that?


What nonsense you spout Ken? No difference between The Tories Labourunder Starmer..

If you believe that it is time for you to join the Socialist Workers Party. Please take Corbyn with you because no one has ever inflicted as much damage on the LabourParty as he had.

Ken Burch

And if the issue was Corbyn, it was enough that he was no longer leader.  There was no good reason to keep the war going against Corbyn and-it is now clear-essentially against every socialist still in the party going until all of them were either silenced or expelled.

And Starmer can't silence or expel them all and STILL offer any radical alternative to the Tories at the next election.  Nor can Labour win if he depopulates the rank-and-file.

The reality is this:

Labour would have a slight lead in the polls, at this point, against a government like this, under ANY leader who was neither facing the Five Years' Hate Corbyn was subjected to nor Brexit being the dominant subject of debate.

And quite frankly, your whole approach to this thread has been bullshit:

I started it in good faith, talking about what positive steps Starmer could take to unify the party around a socialist agenda and win.

Every response you have made was as if I was arguing for Corbyn to be reinstated as leader-something you knew perfectly well I was never doing.

I don't want Corbyn back as leader.

For that matter, it's pretty obvious he wouldn't want the job back either- and that he would have given it up shortly after 2017 if only the PLP and the party bureaucracy had pledged that the policies wouldn't be scrapped-none of his policies were unpopular or wrong-that there'd be no purge against his allies- and that the PLP would agree that a candidate reflecting the values the majority of the rank and file held- and, essentially, still hold, as we know by the fact that Starmer only won by guaranteeing Labour wouldn't move right on any issue- and that it would be guaranteed that a Left candidate would be on the leadership ballot to replace him.

But neither the PLP, the party bureaucracy, nor yourself were willing to be reasonable and handle it like that- refused to support doing the decent, unifying thing- and would settle for nothing short of what is happening now;  yet another unjustified Kinnock-like purge of all socialists and the erasure of socialism from the manifesto.

Why could neither they NOR you admit that that approach was what was needed?

Why did you all pretend it was about personal worship of Corbyn when you knew it was about what the party should stand for?

And why insist on pushing the party back to the right when 2010 and 2015 proved Labour couldn't win as an antisocialist party anymore?


Topic locked