Starmer was “100% behind Jeremy Corbyn”. Thierry Monasse/Getty Images
Jeremy Corbyn has described Keir Starmer’s decision to stop him standing as a Labour candidate in Islington North as a “flagrant attack” on democracy. Such pique is understandable, perhaps, since Starmer claimed to be “100% behind Jeremy Corbyn” when the allegations of the former leader’s antisemitism were circulating in 2019. All the more so when you take into account Starmer’s reneging on his pledge to allow local party control over parliamentary selections.
But it’s not unusual for a Labour leader to attempt to define himself against a predecessor and make a decisive break with the past. Sometimes the differentiation is gained through dint of personality, as with the war-hero Clement Attlee who contrasted starkly with his pacifist predecessor George Lansbury. And the grammar-school boy Harold Wilson, who was a clean break from his aloof public-school predecessor, Hugh Gaitskell. Sometimes it is a deliberate political ploy: Tony Blair conjured Michael Foot to condemn the lack of professionalism that characterised “Old Labour”. Corbyn, himself, was elected leader in part as a repudiation of the kind of political triangulation that defined the New Labour years.
No post-war Labour leader has gone so far as Starmer, though, and attempted to block his predecessor from standing for election. Plenty of big-hitters have been expelled from the party – in circumstances which may have resonance for Corbyn. In 2000, for example, Ken Livingstone, who served as the legendary leader of the Greater London Council in the Eighties and then as a Labour MP for 13 years, was explosively ejected from the party when he dared to stand for Mayor of London against the wishes of Tony Blair. This backfired when Livingstone then stood as an independent and decisively defeated Blair’s handpicked candidate, Frank Dobson, who secured just 13% of the vote. Might Corbyn seek to follow Livingstone’s example as he considers his own options in his Islington North constituency?
Michael Foot, too, provides a blueprint of sorts. Twenty years before he became Labour party leader, he and three other Labour MPs lost the whip, though, like Corbyn, maintained party membership.
“Even if they expel me,” Foot declared on the eve of the decision, “I shall still go on supporting the Labour Party”. In this, Corbyn has followed Foot’s example, loyally supporting Labour candidates and canvassing with his local party in Islington. When it was proposed that losing the whip meant that Foot should also be stripped of his party membership, Foot’s ally Harold Wilson declared that such a suggestion was “plain daft”. When the Right-wing leader, Hugh Gaitskell, was replaced by Wilson two years later, the whip was restored and Foot’s political career resurrected.
Such temporary purges are not unusual. In 1939, Nye Bevan and Stafford Cripps were among those booted out of the party for advocating a Popular Front to combat fascism. These expulsions were generally unpopular, with many local Labour constituency parties issuing statements of support for the condemned. Nine months later, they were readmitted to the fold. Cripps would go on to serve as Chancellor in the Attlee Labour government, and Bevan founded the National Health Service.
But in the cases of Foot, Bevan, and Cripps, these expulsions came relatively early in their careers, as a kind of rite of passage, burnishing Left-wing credentials before entering the party establishment. To find an example of a Labour leader being expelled after rising to the top of the party, we must travel back to the interwar period and the travails of Labour’s first prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald.
In August 1931, there was a run on the pound. MacDonald told his Cabinet that severe public spending cuts would be required in order to restore confidence in the markets. These cuts were highly controversial within the Labour Party. Many Labour MPs felt that the poor had suffered enough during the depths of the Great Depression. On Sunday, 23 August 1931, the Labour Cabinet clashed for four hours over the proposals, with MacDonald ultimately failing to win over his colleagues.
That evening, a melancholy MacDonald met with King George V to keep him informed of the situation, anticipating the end of his premiership. He returned to the palace the next morning, to convey his resignation and those of his ministers. Given that Parliament was “hung”, it was expected that the King would ask Conservative leader Stanley Baldwin to try to form a new government. Yet, to almost universal astonishment, MacDonald returned to announce that George V had asked him to stay on as prime minister to form a National Government with the support of the Conservatives and Liberals.
A month later, the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) voted to expel MacDonald and all those MPs who collaborated with him in the formation of the National Government, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Snowden. Their names became bywords for treachery in the lore of the Labour Party. The historian John Shepherd reflected: “No 20th-century party leader has been more hated than Ramsay MacDonald.”
Yet, it is worth noting that MacDonald’s successor, Arthur Henderson, felt enormous heartache over what had happened. Henderson had no love for MacDonald personally: the two barely on speaking terms even when he served as MacDonald’s Foreign Secretary. Yet, the act of expelling someone who had devoted decades of service to the party did not give Henderson any joy. Indeed, Henderson couldn’t bring himself to sign the notice of expulsion, using a rubber stamp instead. If Starmer is required to sign a similar form deciding the fate of his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, we can guess that his hand will waver less than Henderson’s did.
The Labour Party is a “broad church”, a necessity for the party under a First Past the Post Electoral system. While it contains, as Peter Shore once said, the title deeds to parliamentary socialism in Britain, there have always been different interpretations and traditions of Left-wing thought within the party. Historically, its leaders recognised this diversity of thought as one of Labour’s great strengths. Harold Wilson said that the Labour Party needed both its Left and Right wings to fly.
Keir Starmer appears to be less ecumenical. For him, the Labour Party requires strict orthodoxy, where dissenting traditions are not allowed. He has used the longlisting powers of the NEC, which has a pro-Starmer majority, to block any parliamentary candidates who show a whiff of disloyalty to the leader.
The Labour Party may have the wind at its sails in the polls now, but the Starmer project has left it without a very deep keel. The party will be weaker if his legacy in the Parliamentary Labour Party is to produce a cadre of similarly (and, therefore, narrowly) minded MPs, whose defining feature is their loyalty to him. In the short-term, blocking Jeremy Corbyn’s re-selection enables Starmer to achieve a decisive break with the recent past, but the longer-term ramifications could be less salutary.
Richard Johnson is a Lecturer in US Politics and Policy at Queen Mary University of London.
richardmarcj 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“…but the Starmer project has left it without a very deep keel.”
It hasn’t got a hull, let alone a keel.
The Labour Party should remember who founded it and why. In case we have forgotten, it was founded to represent the interests and aspirations of ordinary working people. It lost its way a long time ago, and I couldn’t care less which Blairite, Demi-Blairite, Toytown Revolutionary, or fashionable “Dissident” is, or isn’t, allowed to get its feet under the table. The modern Labour MP would squeal with horror if he (usually he) was confronted with a Deplorable asking for representation from this party.
I think that is the key point. There is a growing belief not only that Labour will triumph at the next election, but that the Tories are facing an existential threat…but all the evidence is that a majority of British people are tolerant of others…but mostly quietly traditional, patriotic and small-c conservative in many of their views…as well as believing in fair play and hard work. The Tories can readily reinvent themselves (again!) to meet the people half-way…
…but having not just taken the traditional “flag, faith and family” working class for granted, but demonstrated that they actually loathe and despise them…smoke and mirrors from Starmer can achieve no more than one election victory…before the conduct in victory of his activists and many of his likely MPs makes it clear how much they hate many of their “natural” voters, and indeed the place they live and values they hold.
He might win once, but I wouldn’t bank on a second term…
Who founded the Labour Party is irrelevant. Who funds it now is all important. Union membership is heavily skewed towards the public sector including middle class occupations. So expect the Labour Party to oversee another huge uncontrolled expansion of government expenditure. The only difference from Blair-Brown is that the UK’s public finances are already unsustainable. In 1997, Labour inherited a balanced budget.
I think that is the key point. There is a growing belief not only that Labour will triumph at the next election, but that the Tories are facing an existential threat…but all the evidence is that a majority of British people are tolerant of others…but mostly quietly traditional, patriotic and small-c conservative in many of their views…as well as believing in fair play and hard work. The Tories can readily reinvent themselves (again!) to meet the people half-way…
…but having not just taken the traditional “flag, faith and family” working class for granted, but demonstrated that they actually loathe and despise them…smoke and mirrors from Starmer can achieve no more than one election victory…before the conduct in victory of his activists and many of his likely MPs makes it clear how much they hate many of their “natural” voters, and indeed the place they live and values they hold.
He might win once, but I wouldn’t bank on a second term…
Who founded the Labour Party is irrelevant. Who funds it now is all important. Union membership is heavily skewed towards the public sector including middle class occupations. So expect the Labour Party to oversee another huge uncontrolled expansion of government expenditure. The only difference from Blair-Brown is that the UK’s public finances are already unsustainable. In 1997, Labour inherited a balanced budget.
“…but the Starmer project has left it without a very deep keel.”
It hasn’t got a hull, let alone a keel.
The Labour Party should remember who founded it and why. In case we have forgotten, it was founded to represent the interests and aspirations of ordinary working people. It lost its way a long time ago, and I couldn’t care less which Blairite, Demi-Blairite, Toytown Revolutionary, or fashionable “Dissident” is, or isn’t, allowed to get its feet under the table. The modern Labour MP would squeal with horror if he (usually he) was confronted with a Deplorable asking for representation from this party.
Having lived in Islington North for decades I can tell you that Corbyn the MP is widely respected as loyal, hard-working and conscientious. He is a bit of an odd ball in some ways, and with a somewhat brittle character, yet these are simply human failings amplified by the spotlight… let him who is without sin etc. Who can really believe him to be an anti-semite? Of course as an opponent of Israeli policy in West Bank and Gaza he has inevitably rubbed shoulders with those who are, but guilt by association would find us all out one way or another. I believe he should stand and I believe he’ll win… the local party might even canvass for him.
Several honest observations there. Thanks for that.
Corbyn was happy to hang around with people who support exterminating all the Jews in Israel.
He may have lots of qualities but that does not inoculate him from Antisemitism. As Hannah Arendt pointed out in Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil
Indeed, those people who are almost unthinking in their political tribalism forget that most people are not. Most people who interact with their representative can be incredibly loyal (or sometimes not of course). My conservative mother-in-law always voted for (liberal) Menzies Campbell, my MSP (Angus Robertson) is SNP, I am a unionist, and, that aside, dislike many other SNP policies and would not ordinarily vote for them. But I will vote for him, not only because of his support for issues particular to our constituency, but also for his unstinting advocacy for my own family and for other friends/neighbours who have encountered problems with unusual and seemingly intractable issues. I have never encountered this in any of my representatives before. Never had a representative who made such concerted efforts to help their constituents or one who follows up (unprompted) and asks our opinion of ongoing issues, or, indeed, asks if he had done enough. I understand Mr. Corbyn is an MP with a similar mindset, and whilst I disagree with some, perhaps more than some, of his politics, it does not follow that I would not admire his integrity, which I do. A few more representatives like this rather than the mere, voting apparatchiks, we seem to have might go some (even if just a little) way to restoring some faith in our politicians.
Corbyn and his ilk typify the left wing middle class described by Orwell; emotionally shallow, self righteous, despise patriotism, consider physical courage barbaric, live in a world of ideas divorced from the physical, cut off from the common culture of Britain, take their politics from Moscow and cooking from Paris, play with fire and do not know it is hot, ceaseless carping etc. The tough rugby league or union playing practical person from the industrial or rural parts of Britain who has served in the Armed Forces, has a bawdy sense of humour, is very different in character.
Corbyn was born into an upper middle class family, attending superb prep and grammar schools in Shropshire. Corbyn could have undertaken an agricultural apprenticeship, served in the Armed Forces( Shropshire Regiment) , played rugby and experienced working class life. Instead he attended North London Poly to study trade union studies and and spent most of his life taking money from the public purse.
If Corbyn could speak from decades of experience working in agriculture and serving in the ranks in the army he could make a valuable contribution to improving the life of the working class but he cannot.
Several honest observations there. Thanks for that.
Corbyn was happy to hang around with people who support exterminating all the Jews in Israel.
He may have lots of qualities but that does not inoculate him from Antisemitism. As Hannah Arendt pointed out in Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil
Indeed, those people who are almost unthinking in their political tribalism forget that most people are not. Most people who interact with their representative can be incredibly loyal (or sometimes not of course). My conservative mother-in-law always voted for (liberal) Menzies Campbell, my MSP (Angus Robertson) is SNP, I am a unionist, and, that aside, dislike many other SNP policies and would not ordinarily vote for them. But I will vote for him, not only because of his support for issues particular to our constituency, but also for his unstinting advocacy for my own family and for other friends/neighbours who have encountered problems with unusual and seemingly intractable issues. I have never encountered this in any of my representatives before. Never had a representative who made such concerted efforts to help their constituents or one who follows up (unprompted) and asks our opinion of ongoing issues, or, indeed, asks if he had done enough. I understand Mr. Corbyn is an MP with a similar mindset, and whilst I disagree with some, perhaps more than some, of his politics, it does not follow that I would not admire his integrity, which I do. A few more representatives like this rather than the mere, voting apparatchiks, we seem to have might go some (even if just a little) way to restoring some faith in our politicians.
Corbyn and his ilk typify the left wing middle class described by Orwell; emotionally shallow, self righteous, despise patriotism, consider physical courage barbaric, live in a world of ideas divorced from the physical, cut off from the common culture of Britain, take their politics from Moscow and cooking from Paris, play with fire and do not know it is hot, ceaseless carping etc. The tough rugby league or union playing practical person from the industrial or rural parts of Britain who has served in the Armed Forces, has a bawdy sense of humour, is very different in character.
Corbyn was born into an upper middle class family, attending superb prep and grammar schools in Shropshire. Corbyn could have undertaken an agricultural apprenticeship, served in the Armed Forces( Shropshire Regiment) , played rugby and experienced working class life. Instead he attended North London Poly to study trade union studies and and spent most of his life taking money from the public purse.
If Corbyn could speak from decades of experience working in agriculture and serving in the ranks in the army he could make a valuable contribution to improving the life of the working class but he cannot.
Having lived in Islington North for decades I can tell you that Corbyn the MP is widely respected as loyal, hard-working and conscientious. He is a bit of an odd ball in some ways, and with a somewhat brittle character, yet these are simply human failings amplified by the spotlight… let him who is without sin etc. Who can really believe him to be an anti-semite? Of course as an opponent of Israeli policy in West Bank and Gaza he has inevitably rubbed shoulders with those who are, but guilt by association would find us all out one way or another. I believe he should stand and I believe he’ll win… the local party might even canvass for him.
Starmer has learned one of the key lessons Blair picked up and Conservatives have known for a while: winning is everything.
In pursuit of this he has eviscerated the hard left, moving the party to a more social democratic, center left position. Ideas such as spreading power away from Westminster, promising action on immigration, being less submissive to the trans lobby, all designed to gain power. None are more than vague gestures, nothing he can really be held to. But all play well to the electorate ( which suggests to me that this is actually the wishes of the populous, but what do I know?).
Another lesson from Blair is to say as little as possible while the Conservatives sink lower and lower in the polls. Sunak is little more than a WEF appointee, pushing their agenda to the evident fury of the electorate. I have little doubt that when (not if) Starmer wins the next election he will follow suit.
I despair for our political leadership, the gulf between people and politics has never been greater. Despite all that, I struggle to find fault with slinging out a basket case like Corbyn. Let him found a genuinely socialist hard left party, let the radicals join him. All the better to see them for what they are, I say.
Very confusing. Here in the UK we have the Liberal Party that represents the centre ground on behalf of the Capitalist establishment.
The Labour Party was formed by the Unions as a Socialist Party in order to wrest power from the Capitalists.
Are you saying that because you object to socialism then no main political party should be allowed to advocate left wing policy and eject all members who do.
In my long life I have had the choice to vote for Labour (Socialist), Liberal (Social Democrat) & Tory (Bourgeoisie). As an owner of capital and business I have voted to my preference but I respect the option of being able to change real control.
Your alternative is the US system of 2 Neo-liberal parties that both represent monied power. That’s not a real or citizens Democracy.
‘Sunak is little more than a WEF appointee‘, Agreed but Starmer is a product of the Trilateral Commission, as is Trudeau and Macron.
All the better to see you for what you are. An ideologue.
Very confusing. Here in the UK we have the Liberal Party that represents the centre ground on behalf of the Capitalist establishment.
The Labour Party was formed by the Unions as a Socialist Party in order to wrest power from the Capitalists.
Are you saying that because you object to socialism then no main political party should be allowed to advocate left wing policy and eject all members who do.
In my long life I have had the choice to vote for Labour (Socialist), Liberal (Social Democrat) & Tory (Bourgeoisie). As an owner of capital and business I have voted to my preference but I respect the option of being able to change real control.
Your alternative is the US system of 2 Neo-liberal parties that both represent monied power. That’s not a real or citizens Democracy.
‘Sunak is little more than a WEF appointee‘, Agreed but Starmer is a product of the Trilateral Commission, as is Trudeau and Macron.
All the better to see you for what you are. An ideologue.
Starmer has learned one of the key lessons Blair picked up and Conservatives have known for a while: winning is everything.
In pursuit of this he has eviscerated the hard left, moving the party to a more social democratic, center left position. Ideas such as spreading power away from Westminster, promising action on immigration, being less submissive to the trans lobby, all designed to gain power. None are more than vague gestures, nothing he can really be held to. But all play well to the electorate ( which suggests to me that this is actually the wishes of the populous, but what do I know?).
Another lesson from Blair is to say as little as possible while the Conservatives sink lower and lower in the polls. Sunak is little more than a WEF appointee, pushing their agenda to the evident fury of the electorate. I have little doubt that when (not if) Starmer wins the next election he will follow suit.
I despair for our political leadership, the gulf between people and politics has never been greater. Despite all that, I struggle to find fault with slinging out a basket case like Corbyn. Let him found a genuinely socialist hard left party, let the radicals join him. All the better to see them for what they are, I say.
I hold absolutely no candle for Corbyn. I despise his style of politics. If he is expelled, then that is long overdue. It should have happened decades ago after the Brighton bombings when he invited PIRA/SF to the House of Commons days after the bombing. But less of him. Starmer is no democrat. His actions post EURef were shameful. His ringing endorsement of Corbyn against accusations of antisemitism then removing the whip from him for antisemitism shows that Starmer has not one scintilla of integrity. Not enough to even to have a job selling used cars let alone enough to be a PM.
I hold absolutely no candle for Corbyn. I despise his style of politics. If he is expelled, then that is long overdue. It should have happened decades ago after the Brighton bombings when he invited PIRA/SF to the House of Commons days after the bombing. But less of him. Starmer is no democrat. His actions post EURef were shameful. His ringing endorsement of Corbyn against accusations of antisemitism then removing the whip from him for antisemitism shows that Starmer has not one scintilla of integrity. Not enough to even to have a job selling used cars let alone enough to be a PM.
Corbyn’s real crime was to be seen as a ‘populist’ leader (at least for a significant chunk of the Labour supporters). Populist leaders (Trump, Johnson, Sanders, Corbyn, Farage, Truss (perhaps), Meloni (possibly)) all seem to get the bums rush to move them away from the levers of power.
In which case you could argue that Starmer is just a spear carrier for the ideology of global capitalism.
Here we go again – ‘populist’ being used as a dirty word. IMO populist means that you are popular and people vote for you. Isn’t that what democracy means?
I understand the opposite – you are sneaky, avoid the public gaze, stand for things that nobody wants – excepting pseudo-intellectuals of course, who want somebody who is deep and unpopular. Then they can proudly boast that only they can understand what is happening. Of course, you don’t get elected either.
Populist is not a dirty word as far as I am concerned. I thought it interesting that the short list of ‘populists’ I provided contained people who are identified with both the left or right. It’s the bland middle you have to look out for.
OK, thanks for your answer. My point really is that in order to get a battle between Right and Left, you need people who represent those stances. Starmer is so wishy-washy that he could lead any party.
Better to have someone who stands for something on both sides and let the best, er, person win.
I’m tempted to argue that a continuing petty battle between left and right will never lead to a settled society. But seeing the managerial alternatives who have ascendancy, better the devil you know.
I’m tempted to argue that a continuing petty battle between left and right will never lead to a settled society. But seeing the managerial alternatives who have ascendancy, better the devil you know.
OK, thanks for your answer. My point really is that in order to get a battle between Right and Left, you need people who represent those stances. Starmer is so wishy-washy that he could lead any party.
Better to have someone who stands for something on both sides and let the best, er, person win.
Populist is not a dirty word as far as I am concerned. I thought it interesting that the short list of ‘populists’ I provided contained people who are identified with both the left or right. It’s the bland middle you have to look out for.
Corbyn was happy to hang around with people who support exterminating all the Jews in Israel.
Here we go again – ‘populist’ being used as a dirty word. IMO populist means that you are popular and people vote for you. Isn’t that what democracy means?
I understand the opposite – you are sneaky, avoid the public gaze, stand for things that nobody wants – excepting pseudo-intellectuals of course, who want somebody who is deep and unpopular. Then they can proudly boast that only they can understand what is happening. Of course, you don’t get elected either.
Corbyn was happy to hang around with people who support exterminating all the Jews in Israel.
Corbyn’s real crime was to be seen as a ‘populist’ leader (at least for a significant chunk of the Labour supporters). Populist leaders (Trump, Johnson, Sanders, Corbyn, Farage, Truss (perhaps), Meloni (possibly)) all seem to get the bums rush to move them away from the levers of power.
In which case you could argue that Starmer is just a spear carrier for the ideology of global capitalism.
….”Harold Wilson said that the Labour Party needed both its Left and Right wings to fly.”
Take off is one thing but cooperating to maintain direction is quite another!
….”Harold Wilson said that the Labour Party needed both its Left and Right wings to fly.”
Take off is one thing but cooperating to maintain direction is quite another!
As Neil Kinnock discovered, you can’t tolerate tankies. They will not tolerate you. It’s existential. There’s a decent centre left, and then there are tankies. Corbyn is their man.
As there is a difference between social democracy and socialism. One believes in democracy and freedom of speech, the other in prison labour camps and smashing dissidents teeth out with a rifle butt.
As there is a difference between social democracy and socialism. One believes in democracy and freedom of speech, the other in prison labour camps and smashing dissidents teeth out with a rifle butt.
As Neil Kinnock discovered, you can’t tolerate tankies. They will not tolerate you. It’s existential. There’s a decent centre left, and then there are tankies. Corbyn is their man.
The author rather under plays the antisemitism that was rife in Labour under Corbyn.
The “anti-semitism rife under Corbyn” was a narrative cooked up by the Israeli govt and Starmer faction fanned by the Tories, media, and 77th Brigade. See the excellent work of ex Guardian dep foreign editor Jonathan Cook at https://www.jonathan-cook.net/
Waiting to get a bollocks comment from CHARLES STANHOPE
The Corbynites are forever trapped in a haunted house of conspiratorial thinking. If it’s always a conspiracy, there’s no need to accept personal responsibility.
The Corbynites are forever trapped in a haunted house of conspiratorial thinking. If it’s always a conspiracy, there’s no need to accept personal responsibility.
The “anti-semitism rife under Corbyn” was a narrative cooked up by the Israeli govt and Starmer faction fanned by the Tories, media, and 77th Brigade. See the excellent work of ex Guardian dep foreign editor Jonathan Cook at https://www.jonathan-cook.net/
Waiting to get a bollocks comment from CHARLES STANHOPE
The author rather under plays the antisemitism that was rife in Labour under Corbyn.
I disagree. Dissidents may be useful for political parties in general, but I cannot see what useful ideas Corbyn offered. His foreign policy views, seemingly the area he was most passionate about, have been rendered even more despicable since he stepped down as Labour leader. His support for better-funded public services chimes with public appetites, not least since the pandemic, but he offered no plan for how such things could be afforded. His leadership was wretched, and his expulsion would alienate many activists that Labour could do without.
I disagree. Dissidents may be useful for political parties in general, but I cannot see what useful ideas Corbyn offered. His foreign policy views, seemingly the area he was most passionate about, have been rendered even more despicable since he stepped down as Labour leader. His support for better-funded public services chimes with public appetites, not least since the pandemic, but he offered no plan for how such things could be afforded. His leadership was wretched, and his expulsion would alienate many activists that Labour could do without.
Starmer has a complex situation to deal with
He must affirm himself as leader, mobilize voters, reassure the anit-Corbyn wing of the party while not pissing off the Corynites. And with a mixed blessing : Labour is promised a landslide victory.
The promise of a landslide victory can prevent Labour from circling the wagons and admitting that the party unites different political sensibilities, opening the temptation for one wing to purge the other.
At the end of the day, though, Unherd in general and Unherd’s comment section in particular may not be the first place were Labour cabinets will come looking for well-intentionned, labour-friendly advice.
How does the Labour Party cope with the reality that large swathes of the working class do not respect them? If they did, they would be in power
How does the Labour Party cope with the reality that large swathes of the working class do not respect them? If they did, they would be in power
Starmer has a complex situation to deal with
He must affirm himself as leader, mobilize voters, reassure the anit-Corbyn wing of the party while not pissing off the Corynites. And with a mixed blessing : Labour is promised a landslide victory.
The promise of a landslide victory can prevent Labour from circling the wagons and admitting that the party unites different political sensibilities, opening the temptation for one wing to purge the other.
At the end of the day, though, Unherd in general and Unherd’s comment section in particular may not be the first place were Labour cabinets will come looking for well-intentionned, labour-friendly advice.
No previous Labour leader has so much to put between himself and his own recent past. Corbyn had a couple of decades between advocating leaving the ‘Bankers’ Union’ and opposing Brexit.
No previous Labour leader has so much to put between himself and his own recent past. Corbyn had a couple of decades between advocating leaving the ‘Bankers’ Union’ and opposing Brexit.
Nice history lesson, but not much of an argument for keeping an openly antisemitic pol in the Labor Party. Unless Labor has a tradition of antisemitism or you think racism is merely dissent, Corbyn deserves to be purged.
Nice history lesson, but not much of an argument for keeping an openly antisemitic pol in the Labor Party. Unless Labor has a tradition of antisemitism or you think racism is merely dissent, Corbyn deserves to be purged.