01-Oct 2022 : LAB: 46% / CON: 27% / LDEM: 9% / GRN: 6%

[Mark]

Westminster prediction :

Lab 46% (+7)
Con 27% (-7)
Lib Dem 9% (-1)
Green 6% (-1)

Via Opinium Research, 1 Oct

(Thanks to hireton for pointing me in the right direction for this poll....)

[mandolinist]

First?

[mandolinist]

Will the Conservative conference force the end of Truss, or will the members double down? Do the "men in grey suits" still exist?

[Mark]

When the Yougov 33 poll came out, I thought 'that *has* to be an outlier', but another 31 since and even Opinium now, with their new methodology ('prediction' rather than 'voting intention' saying 19, it seems not.

I have never known polling to change so quickly.

All self inflicted by the tories, but, surprised at just how quick the change has been...

[reggieside]

has there ever been a more spectacular political suicide? and three weeks into the job?!?

(and how on earth did someone so .. wrong .. on so many levels.. get to be where she is?)

[domjg]

Oct 1, 2022 22:24:09 GMT Mark said:

When the Yougov 33 poll came out, I thought 'that *has* to be an outlier', but another 31 since and even Opinium now, with their new methodology ('prediction' rather than 'voting intention' saying 19, it seems not.

I have never known polling to change so quickly.

All self inflicted by the tories, but, surprised at just how quick the change has been...

Perhaps it indicates a lot of their support was a lot less 'sticky' than had been thought. Culture war and brexit identities were meant to lock them in but clearly that doesn't work on a significant number or things like the economy and simple competence actually do take priority over that, which is heartening. America we are not thank God.

[pjw1961]

Oct 1, 2022 22:24:57 GMT reggieside said:

has there ever been a more spectacular political suicide? and three weeks into the job?!?

(and how on earth did someone so .. wrong .. on so many levels.. get to be where she is?)

On your first question, I was trying to work that out. Maybe Heath's decision to call an unnecessary election in February 74? (Also much further back Baldwin ditto in 1923, although he was back in power in a year). 

As to Truss, someone pointed out that although she is the longest serving cabinet minister she has no tangible achievements in any of the roles she had held - she has sort of 'fallen upwards'. 

[robbiealive]

CAROLINE said a summary.

1. "Labour party members elected Corbyn as their leader but he was rejected by the electorate as a Prime minister.

2. I would support the proposition that if a party elects a new leader during a term in government then a General Election should be called. This would concentrate the minds of party members, they would be more reluctant to change leaders mid term and they would be less likely to select a leader with no electoral appeal

3. There are few incentives for people to actually join a political party. Most do so because they believe that in some small way they can influence the policy direction of that party. The LP is a much bigger membership organisation and much more dependent on an army of foot soldiers to run elections, they can’t afford to pay people to do it for them.

As a membership organisation to side line members from electing their leader would violate principles of democracy, anyone can join the party and vote for their leader who then faces the wider electorate. It is when leaders are changed part way through an election cycle that the process becomes undemocratic."


MY COMMENTS
It's not as simple as asserting a need for membership democracy. By democracy you really mean what you would like to happen, See numbers above.

1. Corbyn was also rejected by his MPs in the failed coup following his poor performance in the EU ref. He was then re-elected. After 2017 he was a liability & there was no no way of getting rid of him: tho the 2019 position was v bad for any leader.
Looking back it was remarkable that he and Labour did so well in 2017. With a united party either behind Corbyn or someone else they would have done better? Voting for a leader not supported by the MPs is bound to cause problems. Corbyn was elected by a membership democracy, not by the MPs. There was trouble ahead.

2. There have been numerous changes of PMs in office. It's far more common than most people realise. What would happen if the PM was merely old or ill as has happened many times: Bonar Law, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan. Voters in theory vote for MPs who sail under a manifesto. The leader of the largest group becomes PM if he or she can command a majority. There is no real constitutional argument for calling a GE when the PM changes if the new PM can command a majority. It may or may not be more democratic to have a GE when PMs change. It is not axiomatic.

3. I joined the Labour part to boost the numbers for propaganda and morale purposes; to give money; to vote for the leader and to try and prevent people like Corbyn being elected.
I do not seek to change policy or have any influence on it whatsoever: & I do not believe most members join for policy reasons. They are sleepers. I think you are confusing the motivation of the mass of of inactive members with a large minoirty of activists. I may be wrong.

[pjw1961]

I note that per Russia’s Ministry of Defence their troops in Lyman have "withdrawn to more advantageous lines”.

[pjw1961]

Oct 1, 2022 22:34:09 GMT robbiealive said:

2. There have been numerous changes of PMs in office. It's far more common than most people realise. What would happen if the PM was merely old or ill as has happened many times: Bonar Law, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan. Voters in theory vote for MPs who sail under a manifesto. The leader of the largest group becomes PM if he or she can command a majority. There is no real constitutional argument for calling a GE when the PM changes if the new PM can command a majority. It may or may not be more democratic to have a GE when PMs change. It is not axiomatic.

The issue here is that Truss has rejected pretty much the entire manifesto the Conservatives were elected on in 2019 and substituted her own ideas. That is an affront to democracy. 

[robbiealive]

Oct 1, 2022 22:40:13 GMT pjw1961 said:

Oct 1, 2022 22:34:09 GMT robbiealive said:

2. There have been numerous changes of PMs in office. It's far more common than most people realise. What would happen if the PM was merely old or ill as has happened many times: Bonar Law, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan. Voters in theory vote for MPs who sail under a manifesto. The leader of the largest group becomes PM if he or she can command a majority. There is no real constitutional argument for calling a GE when the PM changes if the new PM can command a majority. It may or may not be more democratic to have a GE when PMs change. It is not axiomatic.

The issue here is that Truss has rejected pretty much the entire manifesto the Conservatives were elected on in 2019 and substituted her own ideas. That is an affront to democracy. 

That is a separate issue! As NICKP said on the previous thread, and I agree with him, for an existing or new PM to diverge radically from the manifesto is undemocratic, or rather it is unacceptable under the uncodified constitution. Hence the Lords can reject bills that embody that divergence.
Of course the interpretation of what constitutes radical divergence, and the need for a government to retain flexibility in the light of unexpected events and the price tag that comes with them, e.g.Covid, makes matter complex.
But "democractic" is a value term which as Humpty said means exactly what the user says it means. People don't agree on waht the term means. You have to work within the definition of democracy as embodied in the uncodified constitution, whether you like it or not. Yes Truss has diverged; hence, she has broken what we understand to be the democratic compact; hence it's undemocratic if you like. 

[steve]

Crisis what crisis

[pjw1961]

Oct 1, 2022 22:50:36 GMT robbiealive said:

Oct 1, 2022 22:40:13 GMT pjw1961 said:

The issue here is that Truss has rejected pretty much the entire manifesto the Conservatives were elected on in 2019 and substituted her own ideas. That is an affront to democracy. 

That is a separate issue! As NICKP said on the previous thread, and I agree with him, for an existing or new PM to diverge radically from the manifesto is undemocratic, or rather it is unacceptable under the uncodified constitution. Hence the Lords can reject bills that embody that divergence.
Of course the interpretation of what constitutes radical divergence, and the need for a government to retain flexibility in the light of unexpected events and the price tag that comes with the, e.g.Covid, makes matter complex.
But "democractic" is a value term which as Humpty said means exactly what the user says it means. You have to work within the definition of democracy as embodied in the uncodified constitution whether you like it or not. Yes Truss has diverged; hence, she has broken what we understand to be the democratic compact. 

I appreciate no party has ever fully implemented a manifesto, but it has to be doubtful that the Tories could have won an 80 seat majority based on the Truss policies. That has to be an issue. She would need a mandate from a GE to implement them, but is clearly intent on employing the one won on an different basis. That goes beyond constitutional niceties and into the realms of a parliamentary coup. 

[steve]

Labour leads and Truss v Starmer  match ups are now resembling Blair v Major.
The difference  however was Major was a functioning human being and his government not entirely inept.
I can only see this ending one way for the Tories

[ptarmigan]

Oct 1, 2022 22:40:13 GMT pjw1961 said:

Oct 1, 2022 22:34:09 GMT robbiealive said:

2. There have been numerous changes of PMs in office. It's far more common than most people realise. What would happen if the PM was merely old or ill as has happened many times: Bonar Law, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan. Voters in theory vote for MPs who sail under a manifesto. The leader of the largest group becomes PM if he or she can command a majority. There is no real constitutional argument for calling a GE when the PM changes if the new PM can command a majority. It may or may not be more democratic to have a GE when PMs change. It is not axiomatic.

The issue here is that Truss has rejected pretty much the entire manifesto the Conservatives were elected on in 2019 and substituted her own ideas. That is an affront to democracy. 

Indeed. One might say

[robbiealive]

Oct 1, 2022 22:56:24 GMT pjw1961 said:

Oct 1, 2022 22:50:36 GMT robbiealive said:

That is a separate issue! As NICKP said on the previous thread, and I agree with him, for an existing or new PM to diverge radically from the manifesto is undemocratic, or rather it is unacceptable under the uncodified constitution. Hence the Lords can reject bills that embody that divergence.
Of course the interpretation of what constitutes radical divergence, and the need for a government to retain flexibility in the light of unexpected events and the price tag that comes with the, e.g.Covid, makes matter complex.
But "democractic" is a value term which as Humpty said means exactly what the user says it means. You have to work within the definition of democracy as embodied in the uncodified constitution whether you like it or not. Yes Truss has diverged; hence, she has broken what we understand to be the democratic compact. 

I appreciate no party has ever fully implemented a manifesto, but it has to be doubtful that the Tories could have won an 80 seat majority based on the Truss policies. That has to be an issue. She would need a mandate from a GE to implement them, but is clearly intent on employing the one won on an different basis. That goes beyond constitutional niceties and into the realms of a parliamentary coup. 

Caroline stated, as a general supposed democratic principle, that if the PM changes a GE shoud ensue. NickP & I pointed out that they system does not work like that whether one likes it or not. 
The Manifesto argument is separate. What you imply is:  that if Truss had not diverged from the Manifesto, her succession would be legitimate, contrary to Caroline. 
Ptarmigan said Truss has diverged and we have no means of enforcing the 2019 mandate. I agree with him and you!! But you have to work within what people regard as the logic and principles of the existing system: otherwise people just express a different interpretation of a value term 

[oldnat]

On the last thread I said -

"I'll be mildly interested to see how Opinium's methodology of swing back changes their predictions on Scots VI (probably within the UK Unionist section of the electorate), given the shifts that Truss has produced.


For background (accepting that wee samples of c.175 can produce huge variations) the last 3 Opinium Scots crossbreaks have been -

8 Aug - SNP 40% : SCon 28% : SLab 24% : SLD 6% : SGP 1%

17 Aug - SNP 38% : SCon 23% : SLab 28% : SLD 5% : SGP 4%

2 Sep - SNP 40% : SCon 26% : SLab 19% : SLD 6% : SGP 6%"

It would be daft to make too much of a single crossbreak, but FWIW, this Opinium's Scots crossbreak is -

SNP 45% : SCon 20% : SLab 23% : SLD 6% : SGP 4%

[robbiealive]

Oct 1, 2022 23:05:35 GMT ptarmigan said:

Oct 1, 2022 22:40:13 GMT pjw1961 said:

The issue here is that Truss has rejected pretty much the entire manifesto the Conservatives were elected on in 2019 and substituted her own ideas. That is an affront to democracy. 

That is what I said in my post, lordy, lordy, I agreed with you. To quote myself in the post you highlighted.

"But "democractic" is a value term which as Humpty said means exactly what the user says it means. You have to work within the definition of democracy as embodied in the uncodified constitution whether you like it or not. Yes Truss has diverged [from the manifesto]; hence, she has broken what we understand to be the democratic compact."

That seems pretty clear to me. I just don't use indignant terms or cliches like "affront to democracy". Well not tonight anyway.  
The real point as you said is: there is not much we can do about it.

[caroline]

Oct 1, 2022 22:34:09 GMT robbiealive said:

CAROLINE said a summary.

1. "Labour party members elected Corbyn as their leader but he was rejected by the electorate as a Prime minister.

2. I would support the proposition that if a party elects a new leader during a term in government then a General Election should be called. This would concentrate the minds of party members, they would be more reluctant to change leaders mid term and they would be less likely to select a leader with no electoral appeal

3. There are few incentives for people to actually join a political party. Most do so because they believe that in some small way they can influence the policy direction of that party. The LP is a much bigger membership organisation and much more dependent on an army of foot soldiers to run elections, they can’t afford to pay people to do it for them.

As a membership organisation to side line members from electing their leader would violate principles of democracy, anyone can join the party and vote for their leader who then faces the wider electorate. It is when leaders are changed part way through an election cycle that the process becomes undemocratic."


MY COMMENTS
It's not as simple as asserting a need for membership democracy. By democracy you really mean what you would like to happen, See numbers above.

1. Corbyn was also rejected by his MPs in the failed coup following his poor performance in the EU ref. He was then re-elected. After 2017 he was a liability & there was no no way of getting rid of him: tho the 2019 position was v bad for any leader.
Looking back it was remarkable that he and Labour did so well in 2017. With a united party either behind Corbyn or someone else they would have done better? Voting for a leader not supported by the MPs is bound to cause problems. Corbyn was elected by a membership democracy, not by the MPs. There was trouble ahead.

2. There have been numerous changes of PMs in office. It's far more common than most people realise. What would happen if the PM was merely old or ill as has happened many times: Bonar Law, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan. Voters in theory vote for MPs who sail under a manifesto. The leader of the largest group becomes PM if he or she can command a majority. There is no real constitutional argument for calling a GE when the PM changes if the new PM can command a majority. It may or may not be more democratic to have a GE when PMs change. It is not axiomatic.

3. I joined the Labour part to boost the numbers for propaganda and morale purposes; to give money; to vote for the leader and to try and prevent people like Corbyn being elected.
I do not seek to change policy or have any influence on it whatsoever: & I do not believe most members join for policy reasons. They are sleepers. I think you are confusing the motivation of the mass of of inactive members with a large minoirty of activists. I may be wrong.

"It's not as simple as asserting a need for membership democracy. By democracy you tend to mean what you would like to happen"


Not at all. In any democratic membership organisation members usually have a right to elect their leader



1. Corbyn wasn't rejected by (all) his MPs, as you say it was a failed coup. =




you say "Corbyn was elected by a membership democracy, not by the MPs.....


This is just wrong. MPs, like all members of the LP, had a vote under OMOV. No reason at all why MPs vote should carry more weight than the vote of any other LP member. If the cabal of MPs ,who wouldn't recognise the majority vote of the members, had suppported Corbyn he may well have won the GE.



2. But if the new party leader changes key elements of the manifesto on which the party was elected it is totally undemocratic. I am pretty sure that the PMs you mention sustained continuity and stability broadly in line with the manifesto commitments. I also don't agree that voters vote just for their local MP without regard for who is leading the party. Corbyn would be an example as would Truss now.



3. If you genuinely joined the party to stop Corbyn being elected that massively suggests you had a policy objective. I accept people join the party for different reasons but in my experience inactive party members (the majority) all play some role in influencing the party by virtue of their membership. I could, and will if required , give examples but I am sure you can think of many reasons why even an inactive member influences others.


 

[caroline]

Whilst I was trying to format my reply to robbiealive I see the discussion has moved on but have to go to bed now!

[ptarmigan]

Oct 1, 2022 23:18:11 GMT robbiealive said:

Oct 1, 2022 23:05:35 GMT ptarmigan said:

That is what I said in my post, lordy, lordy, I agreed with you. To quote myself in the post you highlighted.

"But "democractic" is a value term which as Humpty said means exactly what the user says it means. You have to work within the definition of democracy as embodied in the uncodified constitution whether you like it or not. Yes Truss has diverged [from the manifesto]; hence, she has broken what we understand to be the democratic compact."

That seems pretty clear to me. I just don't use indignant terms or cliches like "affront to democracy". Well not tonight anyway.  
The real point as you said is: there is not much we can do about it.

If this is a reply to me then yes, I think we basically agree on this point - I didn't really intend to give any impression to the contrary so apologies if it appeared otherwise. To be honest, on this occasion I think I mostly just wanted an excuse to post a silly Liz Truss gif and "an affront to democracy" was a pretty good cue for that.

[oldnat]

Today is décadi 10 Vendémiaire in the year of the Republic CCXXXI, celebrating vat.

I wonder why Truss hasn't abolished this foreign republican tax?

[oldnat]

Truss arrives in Birmingham. I wonder why she chose Alabama?

[mercian]

Oct 1, 2022 22:18:43 GMT mandolinist said:

Will the Conservative conference force the end of Truss, or will the members double down? Do the "men in grey suits" still exist?

Yes. Graham Brady is the top one, although I believe they even allow women now (I saw one when Brady was doing his pronouncements), so a new phrase will be needed.

[mercian]

Oct 1, 2022 22:24:09 GMT Mark said:

When the Yougov 33 poll came out, I thought 'that *has* to be an outlier', but another 31 since and even Opinium now, with their new methodology ('prediction' rather than 'voting intention' saying 19, it seems not.

I have never known polling to change so quickly.

All self inflicted by the tories, but, surprised at just how quick the change has been...

It's because of the relentless attacks by the BBC, who assume that Labour will keep them in their cushy jobs.  To an ordinary person such as myself macro-economics means next to nothing, though of course my shares have taken a hit, but they'll go back up again at some point. Inflation is increasing, largely because of Putin, but the government is doing what it can to mitigate the pain (more than any other government that I can remember).  For those of us who lived through the inflation of the late '70s this is nothing, and wholesale gas and oil prices are already coming down. People will soon see sense.

[mercian]

Oct 1, 2022 22:24:57 GMT reggieside said:

has there ever been a more spectacular political suicide? and three weeks into the job?!?

(and how on earth did someone so .. wrong .. on so many levels.. get to be where she is?)

That reminds me of a little anecdote. I was playing  a grandmaster at chess in a simultaneous exhibition, and I soon reached a point where although material was equal, almost any move I made would lead to a very quick loss - except advancing my king. He asked me if I was attacking him with my king, and when I said I couldn't do anything else aggressive he said "That's wrong on so many levels"! 

[Deleted]

Oct 1, 2022 22:18:43 GMT mandolinist said:

Will the Conservative conference force the end of Truss, or will the members double down? Do the "men in grey suits" still exist?

I suspect there will, at least initially, be an attempt to close ranks in a 'nothing to see here', sort of fashion. They will try somehow to muddle through the next few days as if nothing happened last week, and without any more major gaffes. However they are not in control of events. Truss' keynote speech, and how it goes over with the attendees, might be revealing. 

[EmCat]

Oct 1, 2022 22:24:57 GMT reggieside said:

has there ever been a more spectacular political suicide? and three weeks into the job?!?

(and how on earth did someone so .. wrong .. on so many levels.. get to be where she is?)

One of the stories in Harlan Ellison's collection of stories from various authors,  Dangerous Visions[1], was about the people wanting to get better unity, and so welcomed a new leader. The first action of the new leader was (if memory serves) quite outrageous, with them saying "Fast Track" as they did so.

The sting in the tale was that, by uniting everyone against that new leader (eventually deposing them), that it had been the fast track to greater unity. Even if the route seemed a bit opaque at the time.[2].

Are we witnessing life imitating art? The previous, gradual, ratcheting up of the authoritarian actions clearly didn't have the desired effect in uniting the populace; the followers became ever more niche, rather than being a broad spread of opinions.



[1] It may have been the sequel , Again, Dangerous Visions

[2] Further details of the story are lost in the 30+ years since I read it

[robbiealive]

Oct 1, 2022 23:30:19 GMT caroline said:

Oct 1, 2022 22:34:09 GMT robbiealive said:

"It's not as simple as asserting a need for membership democracy. By democracy you tend to mean what you would like to happen"

Not at all. In any democratic membership organisation members usually have a right to elect their leader
1. Corbyn wasn't rejected by (all) his MPs, as you say it was a failed coup. =
you say "Corbyn was elected by a membership democracy, not by the MPs.....
This is just wrong. MPs, like all members of the LP, had a vote under OMOV. No reason at all why MPs vote should carry more weight than the vote of any other LP member. If the cabal of MPs ,who wouldn't recognise the majority vote of the members, had suppported Corbyn he may well have won the GE.

2. But if the new party leader changes key elements of the manifesto on which the party was elected it is totally undemocratic. I am pretty sure that the PMs you mention sustained continuity and stability broadly in line with the manifesto commitments. I also don't agree that voters vote just for their local MP without regard for who is leading the party. Corbyn would be an example as would Truss now.

3. If you genuinely joined the party to stop Corbyn being elected that massively suggests you had a policy objective. I accept people join the party for different reasons but in my experience inactive party members (the majority) all play some role in influencing the party by virtue of their membership. I could, and will if required , give examples but I am sure you can think of many reasons why even an inactive member influences others.


 

1. Yes, if you constitute a membership organisation which elects its leader under OMOV, then it's democratic to follow the rules. I don't think its democractic for the members under OMOV to impose a leader on millions of lifelong, non-member Labour voters. I don't agree that MPs should not have more wieght in the decision. 
It wasn't a cabal, which suggests a small inner group of malefactors; it was a much wider rebellion than that, probably the majority of Labour MPs. You repeat my point that Labour would probably have done better in 2017 if the party had been united.  

2. I didn't say voters disregard the leader! That would be idiotic. People vote for an MP under a manifesto, a brick in the system, and the leader with the majority forms a government. That's the theory. The manifesto is the democratic mandate. 
I have said now 3 times that divergence from the manifesto by a PM old or new is a repudiation of the democratic compact. Your original point was a quite different one: that a new PM = GE. Maybe it should. but it doesn't work like that and never has. (Baldwin became leader in '23 when Bonar Law retired on health grounds, having won an election. Baldwin decided to go for protection and as that was not in the manifesto called the '23 election, which he lost.) 

3. Good point! I joined the party years ago but certainly voted against Corbyn twice. That was an influence on policy. 

The real issue is that choosing a leader solely by OMOV, who is then at odds with the majority of his MPs, didn't  work. You have to choose a leader within the wider system that parties have to work in, rather than proclaim the sanctity of membership democracy. How you balance the weight of MPs and the members is tricky. But some attempt has to be made or we end up with Corbyn.
Corbyn lost 3 elections, '16, 17, & then '19. He fell out with the MPs or they fell out with him. The post-2016-EU Ref coup was undemocratic. So was Corbyn's crap campaign in the Ref. Every Labour voter I knew was as appalled as I was by his half-hearted efforts -- "oh I would give the EU 7 out of 10" he said, what? in an effing  Yes/No campaign. We never forgave him. After '17, I vote for him of course, he should have gone. In '19, I voted again, I knew lifelong Labour voters who stayed at home. It was that bad. 

Starmer would have won the MPs and the membership.

[ptarmigan]

Oct 2, 2022 0:51:35 GMT robbiealive said:

Oct 1, 2022 23:30:19 GMT caroline said:

1. Yes, if you constitute a membership organisation which elects its leader under OMOV, then it's democratic to follow the rules. I don't think its democractic for the members under OMOV to impose a leader on millions of lifelong, non-member Labour voters. I don't agree that MPs should not have more wieght in the decision. 
It wasn't a cabal, which suggests a small inner group of malefactors; it was a much wider rebellion than that, probably the majority of Labour MPs. You repeat my point that Labour would probably have done better in 2017 if the party had been united.  

2. I didn't say voters disregard the leader! That would be idiotic. People vote for an MP under a manifesto, a brick in the system, and the leader with the majority forms a government. That's the theory. The manifesto is the democratic mandate. 
I have said now 3 times that divergence from the manifesto by a PM old or new is a repudiation of the democratic compact. Your original point was a quite different one: that a new PM = GE. Maybe it should. but it doesn't work like that and never has. (Baldwin became leader in '23 when Bonar Law retired on health grounds, having won an election. Baldwin decided to go for protection and as that was not in the manifesto called the '23 election, which he lost.) 

3. Good point! I joined the party years ago but certainly voted against Corbyn twice. That was an influence on policy. 

The real issue is that choosing a leader solely by OMOV, who is then at odds with the majority of his MPs, didn't  work. You have to choose a leader within the wider system that parties have to work in, rather than proclaim the sanctity of membership democracy. How you balance the weight of MPs and the members is tricky. But some attempt has to be made or we end up with Corbyn.
Corbyn lost 3 elections, '16, 17, & then '19. He fell out with the MPs or they fell out with him. The post-2016-EU Ref coup was undemocratic. So was Corbyn's crap campaign in the Ref. Every Labour voter I knew was as appalled as I was by his half-hearted efforts -- "oh I would give the EU 7 out of 10" he said, what? in an effing  Yes/No campaign. We never forgave him. After '17, I vote for him of course, he should have gone. In '19, I voted again, I knew lifelong Labour voters who stayed at home. It was that bad. 

Starmer would have won the MPs and the membership.

I don't understand how you can reconcile thinking that "its [not] democratic for the members under OMOV to impose a leader on millions of lifelong, non-member Labour voters" whilst thinking that MPs ought to have more weight in the decision. MPs represent a much smaller pool of members - how is that more democratically legitimate? The party should have united behind the democratically elected leader. That it failed to do so is on the parliamentary party and a party apparatus that worked ceaselessly against him (costing the party the chance of winning elections), not the party members.

2016 wasn't an election and if Corbyn was as fundamentally useless and unpopular as his detractors claim, his supposedly lukewarm support of Remain should have been a boon to the campaign. 

Starmer only won over the membership by deceiving them.