Forum menu
Are you actually denying that you think Starmer is useless??? LOL!
At the time of the leadership election, he was clearly the best choice out of those who came forward. Even now that still looks like the case to me. Even though at the time of the contest, and at no point since, has he looked to me as the person to win a general election for Labour. No, he isn’t useless. No, he’s not up to the challenge of the next election. The big question is who will do better? And how do Labour try and time the change of leader to their advantage?
How come that works perfectly well for the Tories then?
You think the tories don't believe in the stuff they're selling?
Also the tories have the one advantage that labour can never really use, which is to leverage people's selfishness. There are huge numbers of people who vote tory for the singular reason that they will be better off financially.
How come that works perfectly well for the Tories then?
Because the Tories don't project a sense of moral superiority over working-class voters calling them misogynist homophobic racists and expect them to automatically vote for them?
You think the tories don’t believe in the stuff they’re selling?
I don’t believe that Johnson believes in anything beyond his own ego, and many of his fellow travellers are in there to simply to asset strip the state and funnel our tax money into their pockets. Do they believe in “levelling up” and “getting Brexit done”? No. They know they are designed to mean different things to different voters. Or in other words, they mean nothing at all.
Gap is closing?
I’d be surprised if that is repeated. But perhaps the summer “handling” of the pandemic, and other aspects of the jobs they’ve fought and lied so hard to get, by part time ministers in a part time government, all off enjoying their holidays abroad while voters find it so hard to do so, isn’t playing so well with the public.
You think the tories don’t believe in the stuff they’re selling?
while it's Tory policy they believe it wholeheartedly. when Tory policies changes, they believe something else instead.
How come that works perfectly well for the Tories then?
The tories are preaching to the converted (can I bring up Tory Britain again 🙂 )
- Immigrants bad, taking our jobs and houses
- Poor people, just scroungers who are not trying hard enough why should we help them
- Public services, don't want to give too much of your tax paying money to that lot of wasters
- etc, etc,.
Labour have to get people to see that all the above is nonsense but it is not an easy job and clearly a lot harder that telling them what they want to hear.
Gap is closing?
That's not the latest poll, the one that rone posted is. It also had a very small sample size, half the sample size of the latest one.
It's been a very long time since any poll gave Labour a lead, there's currently not much evidence that that is likely to change anytime soon.
Because the Tories don’t project a sense of moral superiority over working-class voters
A cursory look at Britannia unchained doesnt really support that.
I don't think most working-class voters form their opinion of political parties from reading books.
For many they once saw the Labour Party as "their" party. Often the MPs they voted came from their industries. They now see no connection with Labour, it's not their party anymore, it's just another part of the establishment.
They are aware of the disdain that many middle-class liberals feel towards them, even if they don't read the brexit thread on stw.
They know that they are "expected" to vote Labour no matter how useless the party and its leader might be.
Perhaps some of them are drawn to vote for another party which also isn't theirs but doesn't dismiss them as bigots and racists?
Who knows, eh?
Perhaps some of them are drawn to vote for another party which also isn’t theirs but doesn’t dismiss them as bigots and racists?
Or maybe they like what the other party is offering (Brexit, immigration etc,.) because they are bigots and racists?
Yeah maybe it's that, they are all bigots and racists.
Surely it can't be more complicated than that?
Perhaps some of them are drawn to vote for another party which also isn’t theirs but doesn’t dismiss them as bigots and racists?
You mean one that embraces bigots and racists? You’re probably right there.
Shame that other party is now run by people that continually dismiss UK workers as lazy. You don’t even have to bother skim reading any of the available concise accounts of Britannia Unchained, just listen to the words of their leader. He recently argued for lowering Universal Credit because he is in favour of people improving their income via “hard work” rather than “handouts”. As if those hit hard by a Covid and Brexit fulled recession and price rises, after years of austerity, and still broke despite working long hours, are struggling to make ends meet because they don’t work hard.
The reason the Tories get in is a supportive press. That is all. Blair got Murdoch et al onside, he won.
Tories have failed year after year to get immigration into to 'the 10s of thousands' as promised in every election manifesto but they are not held accountable and people still vote for them to get immigration down.
They have borrowed more and paid back less than Labour yet are seen as a safe pair of hands with the economy.
Yes, not as many newspapers are sold as 30 years ago but the BBC and other TV news channels still take the lead from the press.
Even though at the time of the contest, and at no point since, has he looked to me as the person to win a general election for Labour. No, he isn’t useless. No, he’s not up to the challenge of the next election
The likelihood is that the conservatives will lose rather than labour "win". He provides a alternative for the voters who get fed up of the incumbent
hoping the remain brexit doomsday scenario plays out as you think it will
Who's hoping? Our Spar round the corner is routinely half empty, deliveries go straight onto the shelves. Morrisons isn't in good health either, stuff is quite often out of stock that just wasn't before.
Even the illiterate working class can see that.
"they are all bigots and racists"
https://newsthump.com/2021/03/17/britain-is-awful-you-people-are-scum-the-labour-lefts-new-slogan/
Meanwhile, in not made up news…
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-tells-23m-poverty-24844395
They won't cut it but the idea he might is a vote winner.
Nevertheless SKS should still attack Boj on this maybe ask Boris about his expenses. "You claimed £275 for food in Feb, but you want to cut U.C to... One rule for you..."
Yeah maybe it’s that, they are all bigots and racists.
Surely it can’t be more complicated than that?
It is more complicated than that. They are also selfish and have no empathy.
Go and speak to some tory voters and ask for the main reasons they vote tory. Come back and tell us what you find.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1431032794319360001?s=19
For me I was hopeful with JC in 2017. By 2019 I was so fed up with his dithering on Brexit and how he could not seem to make a decision on anything. He looked weak and unfit for PM. My hope was that Starmer would come in and hammer the Tories for their Brexit mess. So far he has failed. Part of me hopes he is playing the long game and will turn things around but I just don't know.
Hammering the less well off for ideological reasons, even though it’s economic folly…
Universal credit cut will ‘suck billions out of local economies’ from October
It is more complicated than that. They are also selfish and have no empathy.
So working-class voters are all bigots and racists and they are also selfish and have no empathy, which is why we have Tory governments.
Has your superior intellect kerley figured out why working-class voters weren't sufficiently bigoted, racist, selfish, and without empathy, to give the Tories a majority government in 2017?
But a mere 2 years later had become so racist, bigoted, racist, selfish, and without empathy, that they gave the Tories a thumping great majority?
As a working-class person it's all too complicated for me to figure out.
As a working-class person it’s all to complicated for me to figure out.
That's because as well as being [checks notes] racist bigoted, racist (again?) selfish and without empathy, you're also stupid...God, it's so tiresome having to explain this all the time.. 🙄 Oh, and you're foreign as well, aren't you?...How simply ghastly for you.
Anyway, Vote Labour 👍
So working-class voters…
No.
For over 4 years Labour MPs (and people in the Labour Party like binners) queued up to publicly denounce the Labour Party leader telling everyone how totally shit he was.
And then after he's finally gone, accuse working-class voters of being selfish bigoted racists with no empathy for not voting Labour and installing him as prime minister.
For over 4 years Labour MPs (and people in the Labour Party like binners) queued up to publicly denounce the Labour Party leader telling everyone how totally shit he was.
I’m still astonished why some are confused as to why labour are doing so badly. They spent years telling everyone not to vote for them, and even now the likes of Lisa Nandy never miss an opportunity to remind voters how shit labour were/are. And then they wonder why no one votes for them!
Are they really so naive and stupid to think that all it needed was a more respectable, less controversial leader and voters would come flooding back?
Yes, people kept telling “red Tories” to go and vote for the LibDems, or the Conservatives. Corbyn didn’t. And Starmer didn’t. Now think about who did.
Lisa Nandy never miss an opportunity to remind voters how shit labour were/are
Which is it? Is it Labour arrogantly telling the voters that it is they that got things wrong, Labour had everything right? Or is Labour signalling that they know they have to change after listening to what voters have to say about them? Deny past mistakes, or be prepared to accept and reflect criticism?
Are they really so naive and stupid to think that all it needed was a more respectable, less controversial leader and voters would come flooding back?
Again, I'll make the point that the Tories won by "installing" a different leader, and to use your words; the voters came flooding back... The Tories change when things don't go well for them, they just do it, and move on. Policies, Leadership whatever it takes.
Deny past mistakes, or be prepared to accept and reflect criticism?
Aside from there was no reflection but simply announcing that all was bad. Which then begs the question how are they going to retain those who did vote for them previously?
and to use your words; the voters came flooding back
Actually they didnt. The change in tory votes between 2017 and 2019 was far smaller than the number of votes May added. It was the drop in Labour vote and the perversity of the FPTP that gave the massive increase in seats.
I’ll make the point that the Tories won by “installing” a different leader,
So the previous leader wasn't racist enough? Otherwise Labour would have won?
One of the most astonishing things I learnt about Jeremy Corbyn from Labour politicians whilst he was Leader was that he is in fact a racist.
A "f****** racist" according to Labour MP Margaret Hodge.
Funnily enough the people who didn't vote for him are also racists.
It's all a bit confusing but I think the simplest solution is to accuse anyone who you don't agree with of being a racist, that should cover it.
Actually they didnt.
shut up with your facts while I'm have a moan 😁
I don’t think most working-class voters form their opinion of political parties from reading books.
For many they once saw the Labour Party as “their” party. Often the MPs they voted came from their industries. They now see no connection with Labour, it’s not their party anymore, it’s just another part of the establishment.
They are aware of the disdain that many middle-class liberals feel towards them, even if they don’t read the brexit thread on stw.
They know that they are “expected” to vote Labour no matter how useless the party and its leader might be.
Perhaps some of them are drawn to vote for another party which also isn’t theirs but doesn’t dismiss them as bigots and racists?
Who knows, eh?
Sums it up pretty well. The British people are used to being led, such is the deep historical entrenchment of the class system. Which is why the vast majority have little to no interest in politics. And why most don't bother to educate or inform themselves beyond what they need to be able to do their jobs and pay their bills. Such ignorance leads to fear, and the tories capitalise on that, by whipping up xenophobia and hatred. This is a far more powerful means of controlling people than simply offering proper democracy. Especially if you spin it as 'democracy = foreigners taking your jobs', and similar rhetoric.
The reason the Tories get in is a supportive press. That is all. Blair got Murdoch et al onside, he won
And there's the other part of it. Controlling the means of disseminating information. Murdoch had had enough of John Major, as he wasn't right wing enough, so used Tony Blair to continue the right wing neoliberal project as started by Thatcher and others. And now we're back to Starmer; he isn't going to challenge Johnson and the tories on their wealth, because he himself is a very wealthy man. And he knows not to bite the hand that is going to feed him ion the future, regardless of what happens in UK politics. Starmer has no vested interest in really opposing the tories, as he is actually part of the very establishment the tories want to maintain, and has power in the socio-economic system the tories want to perpetuate. In short, he's a tory really, but not as vociferous. Which is why votng Labour would be pretty much pointless right now, if you actually want to achieve political change.
But I'll ask the same question again: those who think Starmer is better than Corbyn as Labour leader; how do you think a Starmer led government would achieve the necessary changes to steer the UK back towards some semblance of a decent society with a functioning democracy? Please, I'd really like to hear your thoughts, because so far, we've had nothing on that score. If he's an establishment stooge, how is he going to turn things around?
It’s all a bit confusing but I think the simplest solution is to accuse anyone who you don’t agree with of being a racist, that should cover it.
I know right? Who'd have though politicians could be all so...Politician-y and twist words and make shit up and not tell the whole truth and bewilder and distract...
A “f****** racist” according to Labour MP Margaret Hodge.
The same Margaret Hodge who used the term 'indigenous people' to appeal to racists in her constituency? The same Margaret Hodge who enjoys her considerable wealth due to exploitation of the apartheid system in South Africa?
Right.
They call her Hodge the Hypocrite
But she claims to be a Semite which means that if you criticise her that makes you a racist.
But I’ll ask the same question again: those who think Starmer is better than Corbyn as Labour leader; how do you think a Starmer led government would achieve the necessary changes to steer the UK back towards some semblance of a decent society with a functioning democracy?
I don't happen to think Starmer is a better leader than Corbyn (both are bad in their own ways) but I can't see how Corbyn would have achieved the changes any more than Starmer could.
A government can improve society with it's policies and actions to a certain extent but the people have to want to change and removing the me, me, me that Thatcher started is not a quick or easy thing.
Deleted - no point going over the same stuff
I can’t see how Corbyn would have achieved the changes any more than Starmer could.
That's not answering the question I asked though. Which was:
How do you think a Starmer led government would achieve the necessary changes to steer the UK back towards some semblance of a decent society with a functioning democracy?
Have a great weekend all.
Which then begs the question how are they going to retain those who did vote for them previously?
Well in my case they won't be. Labour is not a party. Its a group of disparate factions who only want to win the argument (not saying other parties arent they just seem to make it work as required) . In my opinion, and only that for myself alone, I will not be voting Labour again anytime soon if at all.
How do you think a Starmer led government would achieve the necessary changes to steer the UK back towards some semblance of a decent society with a functioning democracy?
It can't and it wont. Only true political reform will achieve that.
In my lifetime I cannot recall a truly decent society. We are all played off against each other and always for soneone else's gain. Very sad.
What about the George Formby Society?
What about the George Formby Society?
Just as bad - whilst one bloke is grafting cleaning windows, there is some lazy bastard leaning against a lamp post.
Further to the fall of socialism debate a couple of pages back, have a look at what's happening in Germany now. The SPD look like being a major force in the next government.
I don't think I would call SPD socialists Ed but if you are referring to the latest opinion polls I can't see any significant increase in their support.
All recent opinion polls appear to show their share of the vote at 25% or less, which is exactly what the
SPD have received in all the federal elections of the last 10 years, ie 25% or less.
When the SPD were last in power they had a 40% share of the vote. If they are in a stronger position now than at any other time in the last 10 years it appears to be purely because of a significant fall in support for the Christian Democrats, not because of any increase in support for the SPD.
It has to be said that appears to be Starmer's strategy - do and say nothing and hope and pray that the Tories become unpopular.
IMO it's a shit strategy because firstly it is very far from reliable and secondly it does not offer any real alternative, just "different people".
Politics really needs to be about more than well-delivered rhetorics and personalities.
Politics really needs to be about more than well-delivered rhetorics and personalities.
Politics as it used to be (ie setting policy and 'doing stuff') is dead in this country. It's nothing more than a media driven soap opera to fill newspapers and news channels, and a vehicle for ambitious narcissists with Dunning-Kruger to develop their careers in an environment where success is not related to achievement. When it comes down to it we're not that much different to China. At least the chinese communists are honest about their patriarchal grip on power.
This is a far more powerful means of controlling people than simply offering proper democracy.
Can you point to a country with "proper democracy", or is it just a concept in your head?
But I’ll ask the same question again: those who think Starmer is better than Corbyn as Labour leader; how do you think a Starmer led government would achieve the necessary changes to steer the UK back towards some semblance of a decent society with a functioning democracy?
Your question implies acceptance of a paradigm that we live in an indecent society without a functioning democracy. Rather than the boring reality that we live in a pretty decent society that could do better with a functioning democracy that could do better as well but essentially allows the key thing which throwing out the incumbents.
Come now Ernie, get up to date with German politics, there are new kids on the block. The Greens have taken from both the CDU/CSU and the CDU. What's significant is that those two are neck and neck in the polls and the very latest ones put the socialists ahead.
essentially allows the key thing which throwing out the incumbents.
But only if they're to be replaced by someone functionally identical.
the very latest ones put the socialists ahead.
You do know that socialists and social democrats aren't exactly the same thing right?
allows the key thing which throwing out the incumbents.
just like Russia then. Putin was elected by a majority, no?
But. Anyway. I just dropped in to see if anyone had spotted KS saying anything worth repeating about Afghanistan - you know, criticising the govt or some such "opposition-like" activity?
Yes, Grum.
It think Starmer is best to keep his head down on Afghanistan, DrJ, as whatever he says will rightly be turned around as "who ****ing started it anyhow?"
as whatever he says will rightly be turned around as “who * started it anyhow?”
Easily answered by who * happily voted for it. Plus regardless of who started it the ineptitude ending it is a separate issue.
Come now Ernie, get up to date with German politics, there are new kids on the block.
I think there might be a bit of a misunderstanding Ed. As far as I am aware there wasn't a "fall of socialism debate a couple of pages back".
I did however suggest that collapse in support for the Labour Party was in line with a global trend which many people have identified and call Pasokification.
This trend has seen support for old well-established social democratic parties, who claim to be "centre-left" but have pursued right-wing policies, collapse.
Conservative parties have mostly benefited from this situation except when occasionally radical left parties such as Podemos and Syriza have.
And yes I gave Germany as one example. I don't however think that the latest opinion polls which show that the SDP are still polling the same 25% or less that they have for the last 10 years, compared to the 40% they polled when last in power, provides a different picture.
If the SDP are seen as being in a stronger position than they have been recently it is only because the Christian Democrats have become significantly weaker. After many years in power their support has waned. And yes, support for the Greens might well have grown, do you think that this vindicates the SDP?
If after many years of Tory rule support for the Tories falls and support for the LibDems and Reform UK grows significantly whilst support for Labour stays the same, but Labour are in a much stronger position because they suddenly become the largest party, will you think think that will vindicate Keir Starmer?
If Starmer's strategy is to hope that the Tories will lose support to other smaller parties, if he expects other parties to make inroads into the Tory vote, that truly is a shit strategy on so many levels.
It is interesting how many people judge a party's strength not on the level of support they enjoy but in comparison to how well other parties do.
People like binners rant that Labour in 2019 did worse than at any time since 1935, or some other bollocks. In fact in 2019 Labour received a larger share of the vote than it did in 2015 under Ed Miliband or 2010 under Gordon Brown.
What happened in 2019 was that the Tories did particularly well, not that Labour had a historically low share of the vote. And the LibDems did very badly, they even had the humiliation of their leader losing her seat. The poor LibDem performance must have benefited the Tories.
I agree with most of that, Ernie. German politics has become increasingly fragmented. Something that the proportional representation system encourages as people feel they can vote with their hearts rather than for least worst/nearly best. A good thing IMO.
Greens all over Europe are generally seen as been left wing. The left doesn't have a monopoly over green politics but that unfortunately is the way the media are often keen to see it - anti-pinko-commie-green propaganda from right wing media mogals. The German Greens have done a lot to create their own identity but are still more likely to attracts voters from the left. Die Linke do so too (there's a similar problem in France with the left vote divided between several parties).
So when you start to add up all the socialist (social democratic) votes going to the left leaning parties there's the real possibility of a more left leaning coalition being formed if the polls are right and the SPD continues to gain support. The specualtion over which parties will form a koalition is always amusing.
People like binners rant that Labour in 2019 did worse than at any time since 1935, or some other bollocks. In fact in 2019 Labour received a larger share of the vote than it did in 2015 under Ed Miliband or 2010 under Gordon Brown.
Those comparisons are scraping the bottom of the barrel though aren't they. Brown after Labour being in so long and that financial crisis (which he got a lot of the blame for, yes I know) and the Miliband campaign, do we really need to comment on that.
However well Labour do, it is never quite enough is it and with the loss of Scotland they really haven't got much of a chance.
If only there were some kind of lesson to be drawn from Scotland, where a generally competent, reasonably disciplined centre left party under two personable leaders has been in power for a decade. 🤔
If only there were some kind of lesson to be drawn from Scotland, where a generally competent, reasonably disciplined centre left party under two personable leaders has been in power for a decade
Having lived in Scotland I think plenty of people would disagree with a fair bit of that statement.
https://twitter.com/supertanskiii/status/1432729716834852869?s=19
This rant sums up to me what is going on in Labour just now and shows what a difficult job any Labour leader will have unless it was a Corbynite. But then they have a whole host of other problems.
The rant by 'super tanskiii'? That thread is full of provocative nonsense she even uses the classic ageist 'magic grandpa' insult so loved by binners. Claims she wants people to stop going on about Corbyn then goes on about Corbyn.
So what Corbyn gets kicked out of the party and then he's no longer allowed to participate in anything ever again? And he's simultaneously irrelevant but also single handedly handing power to the tories. Yeah...
Do you think Corbyn and his ilke should swallow some of their principles and work together to try and rid us of this tory government? I certainly do.
Do you think Corbyn and his ilke should swallow some of their principles and work together to try and rid us of this tory government?
How's he going to do that when he's been kicked out of the party?
How's swallowing his principles working out for Starmer/getting rid of the tories?
Grum - the snp have been getting around 50% of the vote for a decade. Thats higher than an westminster party has acheived
How’s he going to do that when he’s been kicked out of the party?
By not creating vote splitting factions to weaken the Labour vote. He had his chance and failed, twice.
Errmmm - how about the labour right wing that constantly briefed against corbyn? do they not carry any blame? Its them who would not get behind corbyn instead feeding damaging stories to the right wing press. Given how close Corbyn came to leading the largest party then you could easily say those labour right wingers are the ones who gave us the tory brexit government
Yes they do. But unless we end it then we are never going to get anywhere.
Ed you've missed the point that I was trying to make and yet have managed to hit the nail right on the head!!
My original reference to Pasokification was to draw attention that the Labour Party is victim to a recent global trend in which the old "established" social democratic parties have seen their support collapse.
Part of their problem is that in government they have pursued conservative/austerity polices but also a big problem for them is that they are now seen as very much part of the "establishment", a fairly recent development which is associated with their behaviour in government.
Yes of course new smaller parties such as the Greens will pick some of their support, as you point out, because they aren't seen as part of the "establishment", plus they appear to offer something different.
Unfortunately far-right parties also appear to offer something different.
And traditional conservative parties also benefit. Because if social democratic "centre-left" parties peddle conservative policies it doesn't really make the case for not voting conservative.
One of the very first things Gordon Brown did when he took over Tony Blair and became prime minister was to invite Margaret Thatcher to Downing Street for tea and a photo opportunity on the steps of Number 10.
By then Thatcher was already senile, he didn't invite her for advice on how to run the country, it was to send out a clear message to everyone. And that message was that he would govern as New Labour and fully embrace Thatcherism, just like his predecessor, ie, not to expect any changes in direction (it was mostly a message for the left of the party)
But it also sent out another message - that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with conservative policies.
Which of course begs the question, why the **** shouldn't people vote conservative? "We're just like them but nicer" isn't a very convincing argument.
By not creating vote splitting factions to weaken the Labour vote
I genuinely don't see how speaking at a conference fringe event is creating a vote splitting faction to weaken the Labour vote.
Grum apologies, I read it incorrectly.
Let's see what he says at the conference.
By not creating vote splitting factions to weaken the Labour vote.
I don't think that's true, but regardless, he's not a member of the Labour Party.
I thought he was. He’s not a Labour MP, but he is a member. Anyway, it’s not really been him attacking Labour from the left of the party since he lost the whip, it’s people using his name. Same as it wasn’t Starmer attacking the party while Corbyn was leader, but others on the right of the party… but all that left/right noise that turns off voters is hung around their necks because they are names to rally around/against.
He’s not a Labour MP, but he is a member
If he doesn't have the Labour whip restored before the next general election he will be barred from standing as a Labour candidate.
Image what that will do for party unity and the focus required to defeat the Tories.
But for Starmer and the Blairites there are plenty of issues more important than that, as they repeatedly make clear.
For them sabotaging the party is a price well worth paying.
He’s still a member. And as a past leader focus on him can’t be neutralised by the current leader, no matter what they do. We’re at the point now that restoring the whip to Corbyn will damage Starmer just as much as not doing so. Nothing is going to change there now. He won’t be a Labour MP again under this leader, and probably not under not the next one if they take over any time soon.
If he doesn’t have the Labour whip restored before the next general election he will be barred from standing as a Labour candidate.
He'll be 75 at the next election, pale, male and stale. He should retire gracefully.
He should retire gracefully.
Perhaps he should but it's not about that is it?
It's about unity of the party and its ability to focus on fighting the Tories and not themselves.
Starmer using his excessive personal powers to circumvent a decision made by the NEC to restore Corbyn's party membership isn't contributing to that.
It is simply perpetuating division, distraction, and fighting. I doubt that he cares though.
Personally I have little sympathy for Corbyn, imo he is hugely responsible for the situation he finds himself in.
He does however still enjoy huge personal support within the party whose leadership he overwhelming won not that long ago. No one who is genuinely interested in the unity of the party would callously run roughshod over that support.
The was a golden chance to obtain “unity” but both Corbyn and Starmer blew it. Nothing Starmer can do now will fix that. If he supports returning the whip to Corbyn he is screwed. If he continues to block that happening he is screwed.
The was a golden chance to obtain “unity” but both Corbyn and Starmer blew it.
How the **** did Corbyn "blow it" ???
He bent over backwards for the Blairites. He tried to keep everyone happy with his constructive ambiguity nonsense. He made an arch remainer shadow brexit secretary. He refused to discipline an MP who publicly called him "a f****** racist" with his "I want kinder politics" bollocks. He did whatever he could to keep the Zionists sweet, despite the fact that it was ****ing obvious that nothing would satisfy them short of his complete dimise.
How the **** do you think Corbyn sowed disunity?
The was a golden chance to obtain “unity” but both Corbyn and Starmer blew it.
There's some very fine people on both sides.
How the **** do you think Corbyn sowed disunity?
Corbyn had a record of being the most rebellious Labour politician through all the years of Labour government, voting against his own party 428 times*. How then can he turn to his fellow MPs after becoming leader and say with a straight face. "we must be united" On becoming leader he effectively became the largest dis unifying force in Labour and furthermore, he must have known that would happen (he's not daft after all), which makes him at best pretty bad at self reflection, and at worse disingenuous
You can't be a rebel, and then at the counting of a vote decide to become the head of the thing that you've constantly voted against and pushed aside, it doesn't work. As we all discovered
*EDIT: It bears reminding ourselves that this means voting to defeat your own party. Whatever the rights and wrongs of what he did (and I'm pretty certain many of his votes were morally justified) it's still means trying to help beat your own side.