Centrist and moderate are not the same thing. Again you really need to start defining what you mean by the terms you use or there is no room for debate.I think that a more centrist Labour only ever have a realistic chance at success, as history has proven - do you not agree?
Do you not think a more moderate Labour would be an infinitely better government than the current Tory catastrophe?
Exiled - It's simple not true to say Starmer is the only one creating division.
There is a left wing twitter feed that sends out a daily offensive against Starmer.
Many of those who support momentum confront Starmer's agenda at every possible moment.
Personally think its all part of politics but don't think it is right to blame one person for the division.
On this one - Starmer has made a decision.
The Division will come from those who disagree with him.
No. Success is making the lives of millions of ordinary people better. If you aren't going to do that then I don't care what you call yourself.Success is a Labour government, rather than a Conservative one - I would have that that was self-evident?
Of course we've never hard left government, it was a rhetorical question really.
That just sets yourself up for a massive betrayal. I hope it doesn't happen but the more I see the more it looks certain.Exactly NOTHING else matters
No they're not, but in the context of my point it's obvious what I mean.Centrist and moderate are not the same thing. Again you really need to start defining what you mean by the terms you use or there is no room for debate.
Corbyn's manifesto was moderate by any reasonable measure. Therefore the answer to your second question is a resounding yes.
A Starmer led Labour on the other hand is looking more and more like being a catastrophe for both the country and the left.
I think you make a very good point about Mick Lynch in that he got out there and won the intellectual argument.In my opinion he could do more good leading and fundraising for his campaign organisation. The thing the left needs more than anything is for its policies to be talked about. Look at the support Mick Lynch was able to win for striking workers over the last year just by being able to out argue the media.
I know he's a great constituency MP so it'll be nice for the folk in Islington North if he stands and wins as an independent. But what benefit would there be to the rest of us? He'll have zero direct influence on policy whether it's a Labour or Tory gov.
Starmer's faction are so vexxed by Corbyn's presence it honestly might be easier for the wider left to extract compromises from a right wing Labour government without his face being there. I'm really not exaggerating much to say I'd worry about a PM Starmer launching some kind of ground war with Russia just for the sake of contradicting something Corbyn says about the need for peace talks in the next parliament.
Yup, I totally get it, the party, and winning, is more important than any one person, and the direction Labour take needs to be cohesive.It will cause a bit of a ruck
Starmer has laid out the logic - with Starmer endorsed it diminishes the chances of a Labour win.
I probably agree with him on that.
Others won’t but - at least we understand.
As for JC - he can stand as an independent will get elected and continue to do what he does.
It might alienate some of those who voted for Corbyn, but aiming to please those doesn't win elections unfortunately, if it also alienates the centre (or allows people to vote tory right), which is why the tactics have needed to change.Don't really see the need for it.
Will be glad if I never have to hear about Corbyn again, but it's going to alienate more than it will win over by being so heavy handed here.
The problem isn't alienating people who would vote for Corbyn. The problem is treating the truth as an inconvenience and just wanting power for the sake of it.It might alienate some of those who voted for Corbyn, but aiming to please those doesn't win elections
I don't hate many people but I really f*cking hate Keir Starmer.
You could be right or is it simply that Starmer is showing a ruthlessness to win an election which Labour have lacked since Tony Blair?The problem isn't alienating people who would vote for Corbyn. The problem is treating the truth as an inconvenience and just wanting power for the sake of it.
It's coming across as very much "it's our turn" rather than "we need to change things". Without meaningful change the Labour party will do well to last a term and certainly won't get another.
Blair - love him or loathe him - understood this. Starmer and his fanboys don't.
The right-wing press will bring up every single example that the left have uncovered to show why Starmer is unfit to lead the country. He, personally, will become unelectable very quickly. The next election might be won due to the Tories recent record. The one after that will be much harder. Abandoning everything that kept the left vote onside for a very short term gain is idiotic. The floating voters will leave on a whim. The left will never come back.
But there's only a mis-match in messaging because Starmer has consistently avoided telling the truth (as per the criticism from Martin Forde last week).You could be right or is it simply that Starmer is showing a ruthlessness to win an election which Labour have lacked since Tony Blair?
The problem with Corbyn is that he is so high profile that he will/would have as many journalists following him around as Starmer at the next election campaign quoting his every word as Labour policy rather than a personal comment.
From a messaging point of view alone I can see why that might be seen as a problem.
And I say that as a big fan of Corbyn.