I am trying to help by trying to persuade you to take a chill pill! Who has what stance tends to get lost in these pointless battles...

Points made (as far as I can see it) so far, at least by me:

Starmer is a man in suit.

Starmer is a middle-of-the-raid vacillator, long-proven (e.g. by his brexit stance, or lack thereof).

Starmer sacked RLB which he shouldn't have done, thereby shedding his principles and pandering to the vicious forces of the liars who accuse Labour of antisemitism. A follower, not a leader. A poodle, not a lion among men (and women). Those liars will be forever on his tail now. A fatal blunder has been committed.

He lacks charisma, a fatal flaw unlikely to be fixed.

In the next election he will likely be up against Sunak, a young, dynamic-looking, cheery chap who has got charisma by the bucket load.

Therefore we are doomed, which would make it doubly stupid for us to ditch OUR principles in the deluded cause of electoral expediency. It won't and can't work. Sitting here for the next four years and letting this just wash over us won't do. The election knocked the stuffing out of us. There's a fight to be fought, and how we do that is what we should be squabbling about...