Corbyn\u2019s political record is a matter of public record, and his detractors have never struggled for material. In the 1980s, his invitations to figures linked to the Provisional IRA earned him a reputation that stuck \u2014 not least because he refused to condemn the group\u2019s bombing campaigns outright at the time. His explanation was always the same: he was pursuing peace through dialogue. For his critics, however, it all looked rather too cosy for comfort.<\/p>\n
Likewise, his longstanding engagements with representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah \u2014 groups he once described, in his now-famous formulation, as \u201cfriends\u201d \u2014 continue to haunt him. Corbyn later insisted the term was \u201ca collective\u201d one, spoken in the context of fostering diplomatic dialogue. His opponents saw it rather differently: as a troubling willingness to extend political warmth to organisations whose commitment to democracy is, shall we say, less than robust.<\/p>\n
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/strong><\/p>\n Image credit: Palestinian Embassy in Tunis, via Facebook.<\/p>\n One of the most damning episodes highlighting Corbyn\u2019s anti-Israel stance was his appearance at a wreath-laying ceremony in Tunisia in 2014, commemorating individuals linked to the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre<\/a>, in which 11 Israeli athletes were murdered by Palestinian terrorists.<\/strong><\/p>\n Corbyn\u2019s presence at the ceremony, coupled with his evasive responses when questioned about it, reinforced perceptions that his criticism of Israel was not merely political but perhaps deeply rooted in ideological bias.<\/strong><\/p>\n ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________<\/strong><\/p>\n These episodes are not footnotes. They shaped how the public perceived Corbyn as Labour leader, and they shape how they will perceive this new party. For many voters, Corbyn\u2019s foreign-policy worldview simply sits too far outside the British mainstream: a blend of anti-Western scepticism, reflexive suspicion of American power, and an instinctive sympathy for almost any anti-establishment movement overseas, no matter how illiberal its methods.<\/p>\n The New Party With Old Problems<\/strong><\/p>\n Corbyn\u2019s new movement \u2014 whose official name matters less than its unmistakable ideological DNA \u2014 presents itself as the antidote to Starmerism. Where Labour now seeks moderation, Corbyn offers purity. Where Starmer talks about fiscal responsibility, Corbyn talks about \u201cending austerity\u201d for the fifteenth consecutive year. Where Starmer tries to reassure Britain\u2019s allies, Corbyn offers a foreign policy warmly received in Caracas, Havana and various parts of the Levant.<\/p>\n There is a market for this, of course. A small one. But its size is not necessarily the point. For Corbyn and his allies, the purity of the message matters more than its popular appeal. Electability was always a secondary concern behind the loftier mission of global reorientation \u2014 ideally away from NATO and toward a vague internationalist brotherhood that has never successfully existed anywhere except on left-wing academic reading lists.<\/p>\n One suspects Starmer will not be mourning the return of Corbynism to the ballot. If anything, it allows Labour to point at Corbyn\u2019s new project as an external embodiment of everything the party has tried so desperately to exorcise. \u201cThat was then,\u201d Labour can say. \u201cAnd this is now.\u201d<\/p>\n Voters Didn\u2019t Forget \u2014 They Remembered All Too Well<\/strong><\/p>\n Corbyn again insists Britain is ready for his vision. The voters, however, have always said otherwise. Repeatedly, and in increasingly loud tones. The 2019 general election wasn\u2019t judged harshly because the manifesto was misprinted. It was because the public took one look at Corbyn\u2019s worldview \u2014 from economics to national security \u2014 and politely, then firmly, declined.<\/p>\n Britain is, after all, a country with a long memory. It remembers the IRA bombings. It remembers Islamist attacks on British soil. It remembers the need for strong alliances \u2014 particularly at a time when Russia, China and Iran are shaping the international environment with far less regard for niceties.<\/p>\n Against that backdrop, Corbyn\u2019s instinct to distrust Britain\u2019s own institutions, to frame Western democracies as the problem rather than authoritarian regimes he appears to admire, has always strained his credibility. And while his supporters admire his \u201cprincipled consistency,\u201d much of the country simply sees stubbornness dressed as virtue.<\/p>\n A Party Destined for the Footnotes?<\/strong><\/p>\n Realistically, Corbyn\u2019s new party is unlikely to break into the mainstream. But it could drain votes from Labour in precisely the wrong constituencies, creating havoc at the margins. The Conservatives will quietly welcome this. Reform will cheer. And Corbyn\u2019s supporters will hail every lost Labour seat as proof that their message is catching fire \u2014 even as it burns down no one\u2019s house but their own.<\/p>\n If the new party proves anything, it is that Corbyn remains convinced the public didn\u2019t reject Corbynism \u2014 they merely misunderstood it. His movement is built on the belief that ideological conviction matters more than public consent, and that Britain will eventually come round to his worldview through sheer force of repetition.<\/p>\n A Revival No One Requested<\/strong><\/p>\n And so Corbyn steps back onto the political stage, armed with familiar grievances, familiar allies, and familiar controversies he insists were all part of a noble pursuit of peace. Whether this convinces anyone beyond his devoted base remains doubtful. Britain in 2025 is not yearning for a revival of Cold War posturing or radical anti-NATO adventurism.<\/p>\n But this much is true: Corbyn\u2019s new party offers something clarifying. It shows just how far Labour has travelled. It crystallises the difference between pragmatic governance and performative radicalism. And it reminds the electorate \u2014 vividly \u2014 of the political experiment it was asked to endorse just a few years ago.\u00a0If nothing else, that is public service.<\/p>\n Main Image: By plasteredparrot \u2013 Leader of the Opposition, CC BY-SA 2.0, https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/w\/index.php?curid=105417278<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n![\"Jeremy](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Corbyn-Wreath-Laying-300x268.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\n