Good, given what we've seen can happen
>"It means - conclusively - that Keir Starmer and his team lied their way to the Labour leadership, when they promised party unity, not to "trash" the 4 years preceding his victory, and to end internal navel gazing."
Did they say specifically they wouldn't change anything at all? If not - bollocks
>"They wouldn't have won if they'd be honest about their intentions."
They won under a system that massively favoured wing-nut candidates and everyone was so sick and uninspired by them they lost anyway. So, no.
>"It means many will ask that if the Labour leadership are willing to lie their way into power in the party, they will do so again and again."
Is this the sort of "lie" that means they're not keeping something they never said they would but you assumed they would, or the sort of lie where someone says they're a lifelong campaigner against bigotry but doesn't give a shit if it suits him?
>"British democracy has been corrupted by liars and charlatans like Boris Johnson. How is the Labour leadership able to argue it is different?"
Changing an internal process = widespread, open corruption. Got it.
>"It means that the Labour leadership have only a strategy to crush the left: they have, as they have shown, no strategy to defeat the Tories."
Apart from anything else, this is LITERALLY all Corbyn's lot did when in power to anyone who wasn't in their gang, up to and including effectively throwing some seats in order to exact revenge on people seen as disloyal
>"But millions of voters under the age of 40 are attracted to ideas of the left. Labour is now telling them to go and take a jump."
Ideas of the left, which are still in place. Not a system that sees hard left wingers boosted into roles they are incapable of performing at the whim of a bunch of randoms who were probably out selling Socialist Worker at the weekend.
>"It means Keir Starmer's leadership is dead."
>"You'd only rig the leadership rules in a hurry if you were scared a leadership election soon would allow a candidate you don't like to win."
Or you'd do it now while you can so that a useless old git doesn't get in again in the future, and to help dissuade any utterly clueless blunderers from interrupting a poll climb with a pointless distraction (*cough* Burgon *cough*)
>"The Labour right privately say Starmer is a loser and will now feel safe in replacing him."
Do they now? Bit convenient, you having this "Labour right" source with a soundbite that fits your narrative and yet would be something that someone on the left would say to try and dissuade people from doing what would make life worse for them.
>"The Tories have presided over tens of thousands of needless deaths, multiple scandals and a war against working class people, e.g. by cutting Universal Credit.
Labour let them get away with it all, and are only interested in waging war on their own party."
Labour can't do anything, what with not being in power and being a much reduced minority thanks to one J. Corbyn. Putting things in place to make it clear people like him won't be able to jump in in some sort of coup if Labour are re-elected will help bring voters back in.
>"Here's what the Labour leadership are achieving: simultaneously completely failing to win over older Tory-leaning voters while repelling younger voters."
Yes, that would be exactly why the poll direction is upwards.
>"They may win this particular battle."
Ah, the "I'm actually conceding defeat, but only at the end after a long list of made-up complaints" bit
>"But Keir Starmer is set to be king of the ashes, and nothing more."
Keir Starmer? The man with the dead leadership who's about to be ousted? He'll be king, will he? Make your mind up. And who exactly started the house fire he's been trying to put out for the last couple of years?