Interesting thread. As usual with the left & Labour, this revolves around parliamentarianism, but I feel it skirts the real issue: party democracy. Corbyn's failure to radically reform Labour meant he never got the chance to radically reform the country. https://twitter.com/jemgilbert/status/1324652961855873024

And that failure stems from him being a lifer: a thoroughly institutionalised (if eccentric) parliamentarian for whom seeking compromise with an implacably hostile PLP & the party apparat was second nature. That is not the route to hegemonic change.

The right has taken two paths in recent years to achieve that sort of change. UKIP/BP was an example of a ginger group approach that pulled the Tories rightwards. Trump was an example of an elite-level takeover, leveraging limited party democracy, that forced a realignment.

Corbyn also took the latter path, but he failed to realign the party because he was an insider (if a widely dismissed one) rather than an outsider. He accepted that the party appartus had to be worked with rather than bypassed & indulged much of the PLP's histrionics.

It's likely under Starmer that party democracy will go backwards, if only to close the loophole by which a fringe MP can become a leadership candidate. The problem for the left is that the alternative route, the ginger group, is notoriously difficult due to splits & egos.