Jeremy Corbyn suspended from Labour Party

Starmer has said that if Priti Patel was in his party he would sack her.

MaizieD if you can't see the difference between
it’s all exaggerated, or a factional attack.
the scale of the problem was dramatically overstated
then I understand
But those quotes are also taken out of context. The whole of the statement acknowedged the problem, but also drew attention to the harm being done through using antisemitism as a political weapon. It's pity Starmer couldn't just agree that this has happened and that it is damaging to Jewish people. While it is ignored the problem remains.

Was that on Twitter?
I'm not sure that Twitter is a big enough platform, a lot of people just dismiss it, although not the political class, but a lot of the general public don't even look at it.
(I only joined to discuss detective fiction!)

Well Said trisher

Let's face it -for some on here, it doesn't really matter what Starmer does - HE'S IN THE WRONG!!! And the opposite is true where Corbyn is concerned. And this will continue to be the case ad infinitum (yawn).

The Corbyn supporters are reminding me of Trump - not accepting that a new leadership has been voted in so they rail against it and threaten disruption instead.

Pathetic really!

Ilovecheese - yes, Starmer has commented on Twitter. It is entirely possible that other media outlets have decided not to interview him or to report his comments if more "newsworthy" (in their view) stories are out there.

Some seem to conveniently forget that the right in the Labour Party worked to undermine Corbyn from the time he was elected in 2016 until the last General Election. In that, it mattered little to those people that Corbyn stood for re-election twelve months after his first success in an attempt to bring on board all in the party that would not accept his overwhelming majority in the first ballot.

However, being elected with an even larger majority in the second election still those on the right continued to undermine Corbyn even to the extent of even working against a Labour victory in a General Election. They then at that time used money provided by trade union members in that effort to make appear that right wing candidates always did better than left wing candidates in that election. Much more was undoubtedly carried out which is in the internal report initiated by the party but the release of that report due for publication in July it would appear is now being withheld from release by Starmer's office.

So, I believe that the left in the Labour movement need to take no lessons in behaviour and acceptance of any new leader from those on the right of the party at this point in time. Starmer is fair game as leader for criticism, and no one can argue that he is giving his critics no shortage of issues to aim at when it comes to his leadership.

?
How are you?

When Starmer became leader he spoke of AS and the 10 pledges of BOD he'd follow. Are BOD political right wing like the Israel lobby? There are more than one type of Jew there are the Jews that support Corbyn KS never mentions those, BOD covers only a small section of Jews yet only they have to be listened to. It has been stated in many publications that AS in Labour is greatly exaggerated for political reasons which it is. So why is Starmer making a big fuss about this he must know this too as well as thoses on the right who worked against a Labour election victory. He must be corrupt doing what the right want, the Establishment, big donors coming back they come with a price. Unions leaving. We want a Labour to beat the Tories but what sort of Labour? It's not about a pure Labour Just need someone we can trust. Agree with Nanfer5g

Let's face it -for some on here, it doesn't really matter what Starmer does - HE'S IN THE WRONG!!! And the opposite is true where Corbyn is concerned. And this will continue to be the case ad infinitum (yawn).

The Corbyn supporters are reminding me of Trump - not accepting that a new leadership has been voted in so they rail against it and threaten disruption instead.
Ramblingrose22 Well I was perfectly prepared to accept Starmer unfortunately the series of disasters that has followed his leadership has made that impossible.
No one is asking for, or expects, Corbyn to return as leader, we simply expect him to be treated fairly. And if that is too much to ask for I despair of the LP.

Callistemon, Galaxy, you seem to have run out of any further argument in defence of Starmer. I do sympathise as I can understand it is impossible to defend the indefensible. ?

That's right , you are always so right. ?

Perhaps Callistemon and Galaxy know it's not worth wasting their time trying to defend Starmer when some on here are determined to criticise and accuse him no matter what.

A silence on their part doesn't mean that they have run out of arguments about how to defend him - just lost the will to live after reading all the conspiracy theories and other allegations that we've all heard before. And I'm joining them!!!

So Nanfer5g, Grany and Trisher - have fun talking to your selves.

Grandad, welcome back (again)

Starmer issued a statement saying if Patel was in his party, he'd sack her.
Corbyn continues to undermine the Labour leader, as he has always done.
Ramblingrose22,you're spot on. It doesn't matter was anyone says, Corbyn will remain some kind of saviour of the left to some people. Starmer will remains some kind of Bond villain.

Ramblingrose22 If someone could post something Starmer has done properly or even well I'd be delighted- but they can't because he hasn't

Made the labour party electable.

No trisher, I'm afraid they don't because it would be a waste of energy

What a very informative thread, thanks to all contributors.

FFS Corbyn holds no post in the LP. He is simply a back bench MP who has been treated badly. When he was leader you blamed him for all the faults in the party. Now Starmer is leader apparently it is still Corbyn's fault. Starmer is a disaster. He was becoming a disaster before Corbyn was suspended, the suspension just confirmed it. If Corbyn hadn't spoken Starmer would still be a disaster.

Or possibly there is nothing Iam64 whereas his failures are obvious.
GalaxyNot if he loses the support of the Unions and a break away party if formed. But I suppose that won't be his fault??? He is the one sowing seeds of division. He is the leader.

Galaxy

Made the labour party electable.

Spot on. Makes Johnson look an idiot at PMQT.

That hasnt happened though has it trisher. So I will probably hold off on blaming him for things that havent actually occurred yet.
His response to covid has been pretty much spot on as well.

It may seem strange, but, I feel, if in front of a Lavery formal challenge for the leadership Starmer could stand down and then stand for the leadership again as Corbyn did in 2017. That move could save the Labour Party from a complete and irretrievable split. Corbyn did the forgoing as a second endorsement of his election, while Starmer could do similar for confirmation of his "style" of leadership and the direction he wishes to take the party (whatever unspoken path that is).

Of course, that election would mean another ballot of the whole Labour movement and not just Labour Party members and would take place in what could be the worst period of Britain leaving the EU. Who would stand to oppose Starmer would be interesting to see but it could provide the only means of heading off the end of the Labour Party in its present form.

I think the end of the Labour party in its present form is devoutly to be wished for.

Over a very long time it has been riven by factionalism and you never know who is going to run it from one day to the next.

It is one of the reasons many people, including myself have never voted for it. If I vote for a party, I want to know I am voting for the one in charge when I vote for them.

I think there would be much to gain from a left of centre party and a left wing party, with clear agendas. The two would be greater than the whole, as many, from both ends of the left would be able to vote with confidence for a party that supported the principles they espoused. Not one that veers from one to the other at regular intervals.

Each party could present the electorate with a clear agenda that they could support or not. I think both would attract new votes.

Each party could present the electorate with a clear agenda that they could support or not. I think both would attract new votes.

Perhaps enough to form a coalition government?

Now that would be interesting....