You were right all along and I should've seen it back when Corbyn as the Labour leader banned socialists who supported Palestine for supposed "antisemitism" while keeping all the Blairites, neoliberals and imperialists like Starmer. I thought "he has to do that to stay electable and to survive in British parliamentary politics" but the truth of the matter is he was perfectly content to strangle the new party in it's infancy the moment he felt attacked from the left, and suddenly being electable or survival of the party didn't matter at all.
For context, he announced a new party with Zarah Sultana, she quit the Labour party for this, and the moment she went out of line (by launching the membership portal without checking with him first) he immediately threw a public tantrum, threatened legal action, sent a mass mail to all subscribers that the portal is "unautharised" and "if any direct debits have been set up, they should be immediately cancelled" and so on.
The portal was doing great by the way, it had 20,000 paying members within 3 hours of announcement which is completely unprecedented and he wrecked it and completely killed the momentum.
Now it seems Zarah has been completely sidelined, there is no mention of her in any communications, and today Corbyn officially registered the party with the Electoral Commission with himself as a sole leader and a transphobic, socially conservative landlord as Nominating Officer.
This is a complete betrayal and I feel sick thinking back to how I kept supporting him. He's a wrecker, I was being a lib and I was wrong.
You wanted proof of bullshit factionalism, it's there. Have you seen leaked screenshots of Karie Murphy removing Zarah's supporters from the party WhatsApp group? She removed Andrew Feinstein, Salma Yaqoob, and others without much explanation:
Yeah, I have seen them. I also have no idea what they mean or what they imply to be occurring.
Also, I wanted sources for why you thought Corbyn was a "wrecker" or how he's betrayed people. Everything I've seen has just left me with a lot of questions about the entire thing that I want answers to. The article you linked only gave me more questions and the screenshots don't really answer anything.
Like, there are far, far too many possible explanations for stuff that's going on other than "Corbyn is controlled opposition and scared by a radical Muslim woman and we should immediately turn on him" for me to feel comfortable definitively coming to that conclusion.
Sorry but I don't really understand what proof you want.
As a Labour leader, Corbyn banned anti-zionist socialists from the party but was soft on neoliberals and imperialists who obstructed him at every opportunity, this is public knowledge. At the time, the explanation went he needs to build bridges to stay electable, for the optics, and so on.
This time the situation is completely reversed: for the optics he should've joined in the celebration of the new party launch, pat himself on the back for amazing membership numbers, and reprimand Zarah behind closed doors. But here suddenly optics and electability went out the window, he sent a mass mail to all subscribers alleging a fraud, reported Zarah to the authorities, etc. Literally every commentator agrees an amateurish clusterfuck.
So it's not about electability, it's not about the optics, it's not about adapting to the parliamentary politics, it's not about playing the system. The only constant thing here is Corbyn siding with liberals against socialists regardless of tactics, optics, etc.
Here's more: despite being critical of NATO before being elected, once he became Labour leader he didn't make leaving NATO official Labour policy, when even the Greens openly called for UK leaving NATO. Now his team is removing people like Feinstein while a transphobic landlord is given top position in the party. Time and time again he's capturing genuine left movements and pushing them to the right.
There is nothing to prove here, I'm just observing things Corbyn does publicly.
This all feels like a major reach. I am someone who is very happy to withdraw my support for someone if I'm given new information about them that tarnishes their image but that hasn't happened for me with Corbyn. It could, not going to deny the possibility, but not anywhere close yet tbh.
The neoliberalists and imperialists made up the majority of the party and they were gunning for a reason to oust him from day 1, it was a miracle he managed to become LOTO with the views he has. If he starts purging the party they would have given a vote of no confidence and/or mass resigned all while the media slams him for antisemitism and it would have been the end of his chances of becoming PM. Now obviously, that happened to some extent anyway and I think it's completely reasonable to be critical of that aspect of his campaign (although hindsight bias is a thing) but it's so much less black and white than "he cared about optics then but not now".
Not to mention the fact Zarah is the one who went nuclear with the "sexist boys' club" stuff - if it weren't for her statement I would have made 0 assumptions about the issue with the portal. Hell, I initially thought they'd been cyber-attacked in some way. It's also a very different situation when people's money is involved. Are you telling me you can't think of a single reasonable or believable reason Corbyn could have had to react the way he did other than "he hates her and feels threatened by her and wants to push the party right"? Like, Zarah could have fucked up big time and we simply do not have the information to say.
[Sidenote, but I can't find anything that says he reported Zarah to the authorities]
I can't find a single thing in the Green Party's 2017 manifesto about NATO but their current manifesto explicitly states their dedication to working with them. As for the Labour 2017 manifesto, the fact that this was after the Brexit referendum should, I feel, explain at least some of the sentiment around this. People in Britain were already outraged about leaving the EU and how it would affect their future so I don't think it's unreasonable to think that selling an exodus from NATO at this time would have exacerbated things.
Like, I don't see why we are giving absolutely zero room for nuance or other explanations for actions when I thought that's what MLs do better than anyone else? Suddenly the idea of "critical support" has gone out the window because of some inconclusive messages in a WhatsApp group that tell us absolutely nothing? Like what is the conclusion here? That Corbyn is just another old white guy desperate for political power and will cut down younger opposition to get it? I genuinely don't understand what we're implying his intentions are here.
[Another sidenote, found more WhatsApp messages while doing some digging on the entire thing]