This is a big moment for Keir Starmer – which may prove a milestone on Labour’s long road back to power

Since Keir Starmer became Labour leader in April, a “will he, won’t he?” debate has rumbled inside the party over whether he would discipline his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, when the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) inquiry into antisemitism was published. The consensus was that he would not.

Now we have a different answer. Starmer has taken a right fork in the road and there can be no turning back. Yet the drama did not unfold in the way that Labour figures had expected. The EHRC report did not blame individuals. It was Corbyn’s response that gave Starmer and Labour no choice.

Starmer had told his predecessor on the eve of the report that no Labour figures should play down the EHRC’s verdict. Yet Corbyn did just that in a typically unrepentant statement, insisting the scale of the problem had been “dramatically overstated” by his internal opponents and the media. 

Even some natural allies were appalled that Corbyn put his own reputation and legacy before sealing a moment of unity in which the whole party could have accepted the EHRC findings in full and moved on.

Starmer did not pick this fight. When the shadow cabinet discussed Corbyn’s suspension on Thursday, the mood was “more of sorrow rather than anger”, according to one member. But Starmer cannot afford to lose the battle. Corbyn’s circle is divided over whether to sue for peace or wage civil war. Intermediaries will try to broker a compromise, but it might not be easy. “Jeremy is very stubborn,” one ally admits. 

Corbyn will be reluctant to eat his own words, especially on the media he loves to hate. One barrier is that Starmer cannot negotiate with him, as that would repeat the interference by Corbyn’s office in Labour’s disciplinary process, which the EHRC found breached the Equalities Act.

For some, this is Starmer’s Clause IV moment, as significant as Tony Blair removing Labour’s commitment to old-style nationalisation from the party’s constitution in 1995. But Starmer is not Blair mark two. He rightly argues that, unlike Blair’s move on Clause IV, suspending Corbyn is not part of his “electoral strategy”.

Although Corbyn’s many Labour grassroots supporters will find it hard to believe this weekend, Starmer is not on the right of the party. He is on the same soft-left page as Neil Kinnock when he expelled the Trotskyist Militant Tendency from Labour in 1985. The parallel is also more accurate because Kinnock, like Starmer, had not yet won the battle for full control of the party, whereas Blair had when he scrapped Clause IV.

Starmer’s move is high risk but potentially high gain. The characteristic threat of “chaos” from Len McCluskey, the Unite leader, is real. Civil war would bring some short-term pain; it would look like navel-gazing during a national emergency. Unite has already reduced its affiliation fees to Labour, in a warning to Starmer not to ditch Corbyn’s policy platform. Other unions might follow suit. 

Leadership elections in unions such as Unison and the GMB  could affect the balance of power in the party. Like Kinnock at the start of his leadership, Starmer does not yet enjoy a commanding majority on Labour’s national executive committee.

Unions and left-wing members might threaten to form a breakaway socialist party. But they know that would merely split the anti-Tory vote and Starmer would keep the Labour brand – one reason why more Labour MPs did not walk out when anti-Corbyn figures launched Change UK in 2019. It wasn’t a good advert for breakaways.

Despite the turbulence, there will likely be long-term gain for Starmer in the course he has plotted and must now stick to. McCluskey is wrong to argue it will damage Labour’s electoral prospects. Starmer’s claim that Labour is “under new management” has been powerfully illustrated; voters who would normally only tune in to the opposition at election times will notice.

Whether they like it or not, all leaders are defined to some extent by their relationship with their party. Blair sought it. Starmer didn’t; he offered and genuinely wanted unity. The public will be on Starmer’s side. According to YouGov, 58 per cent of voters support Corbyn’s suspension, as do 41 per cent of Labour voters, 26 per cent of whom think it was wrong. This controversy will enhance Starmer’s appeal in the crucial red-wall former Labour seats, where Corbyn’s unpopularity was a factor in the Tories’ sweeping gains last December.

Kinnock changed Labour’s brand image and its policies but failed the “can you imagine this man in Number 10?” test. Starmer shows every sign of passing it. His poll ratings outscore those of the tarnished Labour brand. The dramatic turn of events will show that the party is changing, thus addressing Starmer’s weakness. The Tories now have a more formidable opponent than they did on Thursday morning.

It is a big moment, one which may prove a milestone on Labour’s long road back to power.