The point is though that Starmer would not be that leader; he would face the same problems (admittedly at a lesser intensity) than Corbyn does - the papers would still be overwhelmingly hostile, the faction around Blair would still seek to undermine him, Watson would still prevent any reform of the party that didn't positively benefit him. Even the fact that it would be the membership would put him in would probably be used against him.
If Corbyn goes it will be someone (as IIRC you said earlier) who has spent the last few years hiding under a rock. That would suggest Cooper or Umunna, and Umunna would be the one that the papers - and the wider establishment - would prefer.
You only have to see the massive surge in Labour membership after Corbyn was elected to understand how The Establishment (because it comprises both Right
and Left, at least up to a point) felt compelled to crush this uprising at all costs. Take the Expenses Scandal, for example. I say "scandal" - the truth is, we were all terribly cross about it for a short while then Call Me Dave said some slightly stern things and it was all back to normal. Hundreds of heads should have rolled (I mean, imagine if that level of corruption was discovered in, say, the NHS or the Teaching profession) but actually nobody took more than a graze from a deflected bullet. Corbyn, of course, is above all of that. He famously claims for next to nothing and devotes scores of hours to commendable causes beyond his official remit.
Doesn't make them look very good, does he?
He needed to be destroyed.
He represents what we expect of our Parliamentarians and yet we have been convinced that he is an untrustworthy fool. In the meantime, a bunch of stupid toffs and bigots are seen as the safe pair of hands.
Cup of tea, Mr Orwell?