The article concludes with a reprisal of the decisive tone it began with. ‘At last’ as a preposition suggests that change has long been needed: Starmer’s leadership has rectified the Labour Party to a ‘serious party determined on seeking power.’ Seriousness and determination (the former used as a pre-modifying adjective, the latter as a stative verb)= qualities the reader finishes the article admiring.

Author indirectly digs at Johnson: references the ‘Tory press howling at its shocking ineptitude.’ Prefix ‘un’ emphasises what the current government lacks rather than what they consist of.

‘Spread’ as a dynamic verb is linked to the prefix ‘ill.’ Suggests that Starmer’s party will eradicate the ‘bitterness’ spread ‘through local parties.’ Example of positive change.

‘Wind in his sails’ = idiom indicative of growing momentum. Noun phrase ‘dead regime’ solidifies the Corbyn Labour Party as something in need of replacement.

The movement Momentum is listed as an example of this changing regime.

‘Must go’ = imperative, decisive, almost removed from the succeeding clause, which is more of a general declarative.

Repetition of prefix ‘ill’ — if taken literally, it can be viewed that the author is suggesting that the ‘incompetence’ of the current government is like a sickness, and infectious in that retrospect. ‘Hot Brexit passions’ is similarly connotative of a temporary fever.

Repetition of auxiliary verb ‘will’ — demonstrative of certainty.

The reader can infer, having read the article so far, that the contrast is in favour of Starmer.

Paragraph introduces more political jargon.

‘Ill’ is again utilised as a prefix, suggesting that the government is not at all capable to carry the population through the coronavirus crisis — it is debilitated. However, the reader is assured that ‘another future is possible’ through the closing clause and auxiliary verb.

Paragraph summary:

• Paragraph blends Starmer’s ambitions with their relevance in modern-day context.
• The government is presented as incapacitated and unable
• However, despite the conflict within the Labour Party and the conflict of Britain as a whole, the reader is encouraged to view Starmer as a force of authority to rely on.

Acknowledgement of pragmatics — times are defined as uncertain, with the addition of a grim outlook

Tone takes on an evaluative element through the adverb ‘costly.’ However, the reader is soured to ‘expect no backsliding’ due to Starmer’s ‘sincere’ beliefs, which the author presents as worthy of admiration.

Pre-modifying, sibilant adjectives are used to define the opposition as ‘solid and skilful.’

Author encourages the reader to form their own critical opinion before jumping to conclusions.

Metaphor of a ‘tightrope’ suggests both conflict and danger.

Author’s personal opinion takes a backseat, and the reader is presented with largely emotion-based (‘suspect,’ ‘worry’) views of other Labour supporters. It is important that these supporters have had to be, as noted previously, ‘swayed’ to Starmer’s case. Emphasises ideas of ‘division.’

Quote = direct example of aforementioned ‘nuance.’ ‘Pointing to’ also promotes ideas of simply exposing the government’s ‘confused messages’ and ‘slow action’ rather than directly attacking it. ‘Critiques’ as a noun reinforces this — a semantic field professionalism is evoked.

‘Steering off’ is similarly evocative of direct change, suggesting the Labour Party will take a route free from ‘callow opportunism’ under Starmer.’

The author, however, steers the reader’s aggravation towards the government, where the pre-modifying adjective ‘ill-prepared’ is employed to define the current government as incapable in handling the coronavirus crisis. The reader is expected to support Starmer’s ‘critiques to make this government writhe’ as a result.

‘Unseemly gloating’ is directly juxtaposed with noun phrase ‘pitch-perfect nuance’ to demonstrate the switch from what the author views as an incompetent leadership to a refined, capable one.

Statistics in favour of the Tories are countered by the explanatory conjunction ‘because,’ which clarifies that the general public opinion only favours ‘the state’ as a result of the state being the one with authority in today’s context. Tone is almost scathing, sarcastic, although it cannot be said that the coverage is solely focused on Starmer and therefore excessively biased.

Builds on ideas of adversity. ‘Stricken and locked-down,’ a fricative compound of adjectives, is connotative of political change being virtually unaccomplishable in today’s social landscape.

‘Rallies around the government of the day:’ modifier ‘of the day’ suggests that the public merely seek the reassurance of authority than that of the Conservative party specifically.

Introduction of present-day (COVID-19) context: simple syntax results in an indisputable statement. ‘Hard time’ as a noun phrase = source of adversity, challenges. Content of the paragraph is displayed clearly.

Specific examples build upon the paragraph’s general, opening declarative. The superlative of ‘most shamed’ has its negative connotations virtually flipped when juxtaposed with Starmer’s efforts to ‘expunge the antisemites.’ ‘Expunge’ suggests a finality, as does the vow ‘never again.’

‘Weasel excuses’ sees the author condemn the actions of the Corbyn-led party.

Paragraph = evidential counterpart to the former paragraph.

Starmer’s slogan is deliberately positioned at the close of the paragraph: a better future is felt as requisite after the reader’s subjection to the ‘raw incompetence of the Corbyn-led campaign.’

Third paragraph summary:

• expands on and defines ‘Incompetence’ with examples from the Labour Party in the 2019 election.
• ideas of defeat and immense loss are similarly furthered
• the paragraph is structured so the reader (along with ‘the party itself and the country’) turn to Starmer in hope of “another future.”

Subordinate clause demonstrates the extent of revulsion.

Focus again turns to ‘incompetence,’ worsened by its ‘raw’ state (pre-modifying adjective). ‘Ballooning,’ a dynamic verb, is demonstrative of this, offering connotations centred around a lack of discipline. ‘Basic failures’ is similarly illustrative of this. Description allows for a direct comparison of Starmer and Corbyn.

‘Rout’ = a common noun evocative of defeat. The juxtaposition of this noun with the verb ‘gifting’ suggests that the failure of the Labour Party was the most significant factor in the Conservatives’ victory.

‘Seismic shock’ = Noun phrase — demonstrates the ‘sheer scale’ of the electoral defeat.

Plosive, overly positive adjectives counter plosive, overly negative adjectives. ‘Grown-up’ as a common noun demonstrates the author’s political view clearly through a depiction of (mature) superiority to the Prime Minister.

Introductory paragraph summary:

• Starmer is immediately presented as a force of change to both the Labour Party and ‘the political landscape’ of Britain itself
• Tone = decisive and unneutral. Starmer is praised; Johnson and Corbyn are attacked.
• The author appears to focus on ‘competence’ in politics (and the lack of it)

‘Authority’ is modified by the adjective ‘cool,’ which suggests an effortlessness in garnering support (a notion which is furthered by the stative verb ‘swayed’).

‘Only a short while ago’ is used as a preposition in order to demonstrate that accomplished by Starmer in such a small frame of time.

The adverb ‘glumly’ evokes connotations resignation, misery that have since been rectified.

Second paragraph summary:

• the author first focuses on the successes of Starmer in the election
• ideas of change are expanded upon with clear evidence of support
• Starmer = ‘respectful,’ ‘without enemies,’ appeals to opposition with ‘cool authority.’

A semantic field of conflict is overtly present. ‘Praise’ is presented as an almost involuntary response to the ‘three finalists’ hustings,’ and the hopeful message of ‘peace was possible’ is presented as its own alliterative clause.

‘Digging’ as a dynamic verb suggests extensive work was needed to find ‘anything but decency,’ which proved, according to author, as nonexistent.

‘Dull’ is modified / lessened by the quantifier ‘a bit,’ again serving as a contrast to the previous adjectival attack of ‘ramshackle, impromptu and patently incompetent.’

‘Swept the board’ = an idiom of success. ‘Risen without enemies’ furthers this idea of success: ‘risen’ suggests a surge to power, while ‘without enemies’ emphasises the negative attributes Starmer lacks (a direct comparison to the author’s previous depiction of positive attributes lacked by Corbyn).

Starmer’s positive contribution to the Labour Party is solidified with simple syntax and adverbs / adjectives connotative of change.

‘Until now’ = preposition used to mark change: introduces the reader swiftly into the present tense.

‘Four-times vanquished and demoralised foe’ = fricative noun phrase (head word: ‘foe’). Adjectives are dramatic, connotative of a great, one-sided battle.

Author’s opinion is again presented as fact: YouGov statistics are included as corroboration.

Author contextualises the article with the repetition of auxiliary verbs (‘will,’ ‘was’). ‘No effective opposition’ is expanded on as a noun phrase with abstract nouns ‘a void, a limbo’ in order to emphasise the lack of specific / tangible effectiveness.

‘Has’ = possessive verb, present tense. ‘Well qualified’ as a post-modifying adjective is demonstrative of Starmer’s strengths, which the author focuses on in how they can improve the Labour Party.

Immediate use of positive connotations — ‘gain,’ presented as a dynamic verb, is connotative of a favourable acquisition; ‘for the first time’ reinforces the notion of positive change.

‘Will’ as an auxiliary verb demonstrates the certainty of the author’s tone.

From the opening clause, the coverage is focused on Starmer as an individual and what the author believes to be the positive effects of his election.

‘Not since’ is used as a preposition to again mark times of change. Asyndetic listing demonstrates the extent of ‘support’ received by Starmer, which is bolstered by the closing adverb ‘too,’ which is positioned after the clause for maximum effect.

The article concludes with a reprisal of the decisive tone it began with. ‘At last’ as a preposition suggests that change has long been needed: Starmer’s leadership has rectified the Labour Party to a ‘serious party determined on seeking power.’ Seriousness and determination (the former used as a pre-modifying adjective, the latter as a stative verb)= qualities the reader finishes the article admiring.

Author indirectly digs at Johnson: references the ‘Tory press howling at its shocking ineptitude.’ Prefix ‘un’ emphasises what the current government lacks rather than what they consist of.

‘Spread’ as a dynamic verb is linked to the prefix ‘ill.’ Suggests that Starmer’s party will eradicate the ‘bitterness’ spread ‘through local parties.’ Example of positive change.

‘Wind in his sails’ = idiom indicative of growing momentum. Noun phrase ‘dead regime’ solidifies the Corbyn Labour Party as something in need of replacement.

The movement Momentum is listed as an example of this changing regime.

‘Must go’ = imperative, decisive, almost removed from the succeeding clause, which is more of a general declarative.

Repetition of prefix ‘ill’ — if taken literally, it can be viewed that the author is suggesting that the ‘incompetence’ of the current government is like a sickness, and infectious in that retrospect. ‘Hot Brexit passions’ is similarly connotative of a temporary fever.

Repetition of auxiliary verb ‘will’ — demonstrative of certainty.

The reader can infer, having read the article so far, that the contrast is in favour of Starmer.

Paragraph introduces more political jargon.

‘Ill’ is again utilised as a prefix, suggesting that the government is not at all capable to carry the population through the coronavirus crisis — it is debilitated. However, the reader is assured that ‘another future is possible’ through the closing clause and auxiliary verb.

Paragraph summary:

• Paragraph blends Starmer’s ambitions with their relevance in modern-day context.
• The government is presented as incapacitated and unable
• However, despite the conflict within the Labour Party and the conflict of Britain as a whole, the reader is encouraged to view Starmer as a force of authority to rely on.

Acknowledgement of pragmatics — times are defined as uncertain, with the addition of a grim outlook

Tone takes on an evaluative element through the adverb ‘costly.’ However, the reader is soured to ‘expect no backsliding’ due to Starmer’s ‘sincere’ beliefs, which the author presents as worthy of admiration.

Pre-modifying, sibilant adjectives are used to define the opposition as ‘solid and skilful.’

Author encourages the reader to form their own critical opinion before jumping to conclusions.

Metaphor of a ‘tightrope’ suggests both conflict and danger.

Author’s personal opinion takes a backseat, and the reader is presented with largely emotion-based (‘suspect,’ ‘worry’) views of other Labour supporters. It is important that these supporters have had to be, as noted previously, ‘swayed’ to Starmer’s case. Emphasises ideas of ‘division.’

Quote = direct example of aforementioned ‘nuance.’ ‘Pointing to’ also promotes ideas of simply exposing the government’s ‘confused messages’ and ‘slow action’ rather than directly attacking it. ‘Critiques’ as a noun reinforces this — a semantic field professionalism is evoked.

‘Steering off’ is similarly evocative of direct change, suggesting the Labour Party will take a route free from ‘callow opportunism’ under Starmer.’

The author, however, steers the reader’s aggravation towards the government, where the pre-modifying adjective ‘ill-prepared’ is employed to define the current government as incapable in handling the coronavirus crisis. The reader is expected to support Starmer’s ‘critiques to make this government writhe’ as a result.

‘Unseemly gloating’ is directly juxtaposed with noun phrase ‘pitch-perfect nuance’ to demonstrate the switch from what the author views as an incompetent leadership to a refined, capable one.

Statistics in favour of the Tories are countered by the explanatory conjunction ‘because,’ which clarifies that the general public opinion only favours ‘the state’ as a result of the state being the one with authority in today’s context. Tone is almost scathing, sarcastic, although it cannot be said that the coverage is solely focused on Starmer and therefore excessively biased.

Builds on ideas of adversity. ‘Stricken and locked-down,’ a fricative compound of adjectives, is connotative of political change being virtually unaccomplishable in today’s social landscape.

‘Rallies around the government of the day:’ modifier ‘of the day’ suggests that the public merely seek the reassurance of authority than that of the Conservative party specifically.

Introduction of present-day (COVID-19) context: simple syntax results in an indisputable statement. ‘Hard time’ as a noun phrase = source of adversity, challenges. Content of the paragraph is displayed clearly.

Specific examples build upon the paragraph’s general, opening declarative. The superlative of ‘most shamed’ has its negative connotations virtually flipped when juxtaposed with Starmer’s efforts to ‘expunge the antisemites.’ ‘Expunge’ suggests a finality, as does the vow ‘never again.’

‘Weasel excuses’ sees the author condemn the actions of the Corbyn-led party.

Paragraph = evidential counterpart to the former paragraph.

Starmer’s slogan is deliberately positioned at the close of the paragraph: a better future is felt as requisite after the reader’s subjection to the ‘raw incompetence of the Corbyn-led campaign.’

Third paragraph summary:

• expands on and defines ‘Incompetence’ with examples from the Labour Party in the 2019 election.
• ideas of defeat and immense loss are similarly furthered
• the paragraph is structured so the reader (along with ‘the party itself and the country’) turn to Starmer in hope of “another future.”

Subordinate clause demonstrates the extent of revulsion.

Focus again turns to ‘incompetence,’ worsened by its ‘raw’ state (pre-modifying adjective). ‘Ballooning,’ a dynamic verb, is demonstrative of this, offering connotations centred around a lack of discipline. ‘Basic failures’ is similarly illustrative of this. Description allows for a direct comparison of Starmer and Corbyn.

‘Rout’ = a common noun evocative of defeat. The juxtaposition of this noun with the verb ‘gifting’ suggests that the failure of the Labour Party was the most significant factor in the Conservatives’ victory.

‘Seismic shock’ = Noun phrase — demonstrates the ‘sheer scale’ of the electoral defeat.

‘Authority’ is modified by the adjective ‘cool,’ which suggests an effortlessness in garnering support (a notion which is furthered by the stative verb ‘swayed’).

‘Only a short while ago’ is used as a preposition in order to demonstrate that accomplished by Starmer in such a small frame of time.

The adverb ‘glumly’ evokes connotations resignation, misery that have since been rectified.

Second paragraph summary: the author first focuses on the successes of Starmer in the election ideas of change are expanded upon with clear evidence of support *Starmer = ‘respectful,’ ‘without enemies,’ appeals to opposition with ‘cool authority.’

A semantic field of conflict is overtly present. ‘Praise’ is presented as an almost involuntary response to the ‘three finalists’ hustings,’ and the hopeful message of ‘peace was possible’ is presented as its own alliterative clause.

‘Digging’ as a dynamic verb suggests extensive work was needed to find ‘anything but decency,’ which proved, according to author, as nonexistent.

‘Dull’ is modified / lessened by the quantifier ‘a bit,’ again serving as a contrast to the previous adjectival attack of ‘ramshackle, impromptu and patently incompetent.’

‘Swept the board’ = an idiom of success. ‘Risen without enemies’ furthers this idea of success: ‘risen’ suggests a surge to power, while ‘without enemies’ emphasises the negative attributes Starmer lacks (a direct comparison to the author’s previous depiction of positive attributes lacked by Corbyn).

Plosive, overly positive adjectives counter plosive, overly negative adjectives. ‘Grown-up’ as a common noun demonstrates the author’s political view clearly through a depiction of (mature) superiority to the Prime Minister.

Introductory paragraph summary:

• Starter is immediately presented as a force of change to both the Labour Party and ‘the political landscape’ of Britain itself
• Tone = decisive and unneutral. Starmer is praised; Johnson and Corbin are attacked.
• The author appears to focus on ‘competence’ in politics (and the lack of it)

Starmer’s positive contribution to the Labour Party is solidified with simple syntax and adverbs / adjectives connotative of change.

‘Until now’ = preposition used to mark change: introduces the reader swiftly into the present tense.

‘Four-times vanquished and demoralised foe’ = fricative noun phrase (head word: ‘foe’). Adjectives are dramatic, connotative of a great, one-sided battle.

Author’s opinion is again presented as fact: YouGov statistics are included as corroboration.

Author contextualises the article with the repetition of auxiliary verbs (‘will,’ ‘was’). ‘No effective opposition’ is expanded on as a noun phrase with abstract nouns ‘a void, a limbo’ in order to emphasise the lack of specific / tangible effectiveness.

‘Has’ = possessive verb, present tense. ‘Well qualified’ as a post-modifying adjective is demonstrative of Starmer’s strengths, which the author focuses on in how they can improve the Labour Party.

Immediate use of positive connotations — ‘gain,’ presented as a dynamic verb, is connotative of a favourable acquisition; ‘for the first time’ reinforces the notion of positive change.

‘Will’ as an auxiliary verb demonstrates the certainty of the author’s tone.

From the opening clause, the coverage is focused on Starmer as an individual and what the author believes to be the positive effects of his election.

‘Not since’ is used as a preposition to again mark times of change. Asyndetic listing demonstrates the extent of ‘support’ received by Starmer, which is bolstered by the closing adverb ‘too,’ which is positioned after the clause for maximum effect.

Article is concluded with a personal call for a ‘future’ which ‘belongs to the brave.’ Change is presented as a necessity, while the Labour Party supported by previous ‘generations’ is presented as something for Starmer to strive for. Plural pronoun ‘we’ is seen replacing the noun of the Labour Party, suggesting that it is a collective responsibility to enforce change. Focus has been shifted from Starmer as an individual to the Labour Party as an institution.

Emotive language is a direct reference to the author’s anecdotal experience.

Example of Britain ‘coming together’ — ‘to reach out’ as a verb phrase solidifies the idea that it is Starmer’s responsibility to promote unity (although previous ‘proclamations’ of such have been attacked by the author).

Positioning of the Conservatives before the Labour Party suggests that the Labour Party ought to follow their lead. Ideas of superiority come into play.

Personal tone is developed alongside the guarantee of ‘lasting political consequences’ (use of auxiliary verbs, declaratives).

Singular pronoun suggests an authorial bias / alternate political preference. Arguably weakens personal arguments against Starmer.

Pragmatic elements influence language use: in the coronavirus crisis, the modal auxiliary verb ‘must’ illustrates that it is requisite for Starmer to ‘have a vision of how the nation should come together.’

Auxiliary verbs combined with declarative sentence functions present the author’s (metaphorical) opinion as fact, even advice.

Anecdotal context is provided in order to support the author’s current arguments against the Labour Party — emotive language is used to personalise his experience and present the actions of Momentum as a wilful ‘betrayal.’

Links to Starmer being able to ‘take out the hard-Left if he wanted to.’ The author solidifies Momentum as a ‘threat’ which requires the opposite of ‘benign indifference.’

Unlike the Guardian article, it is suggested that change will not come in positive forms. ‘Grip’ is an uncompromising abstract noun; ‘ignored’ is a stative verb that connotes a lack of concern for ‘thuggery and bullying;’ ‘drove out decent people dedicated to the democratic...’ is a form of alliteration that summarises the author’s opposition to the Labour Party and Starmer.

The verb phrase ‘hold the Labour Party’ rather dramatically suggests that it is now free from the clutches of ‘zealots of the hard-Left.’ ‘Catastrophe’ and ‘debacle’ are both connotative of extreme disaster as common nouns — a disaster that needs immediate rectification. Pragmatic elements are provided to bolster this claim (‘Michael Foot debacle of 1983’).

The hope in a ‘small shining light’ (made pleasant-sounding by a combination of sibilance and assonance) is not founded by Starmer but in the closing of a ‘dismal chapter in the history of the Labour Party.’ Suggestion: the author does not have a similar hope for the leadership.

Ridiculing tone is reequipped with noun phrase ‘outbreaks of sweetness and light,’ with the abstract noun ‘outbreaks’ suggesting only a temporary presence. Despite overly positive connotations of the nouns presented, there is a turbulent undertone.

The reader is similarly inclined to ‘fear the power of zealots who tolerated antisemitism and thuggery.’ ‘Zealot’ as a common noun has links to the extent of aforementioned ‘radicalism.’

Gambaccini is humanised by the author before his quotes are inserted into the article as opposition to Starmer. The reader is inclined to feel sympathetic, or otherwise outraged, at Gambaccini’s treatment by the CPS: his superlative claim of ‘I have the most negative feelings about Keir Starmer imaginable’ is therefore granted a higher degree of validity.

Auxiliary verbs (‘is’) mirror the author’s certainty.

‘To this day’ = preposition describing long-term negative impact.

‘Claimed’ as a dynamic verb is connotative of an overall lack of evidence / proof, thus presenting Starmer as unreliable: especially when he is confronted with the ‘claims’ of ‘others.’ Focus has adopted a pragmatic element that the reader is entrusted to apply to his politics.

Embedded clause completely (& negatively) alters the content of the paragraph.

‘Flirted’ as a stative verb suggests a lack of commitment to ‘radicalism,’ which has already been proven with the article’s previous content.

Tone becomes actively ridiculing with juxtaposition of ‘confided’ — dynamic verb connotative of secrecy — with bland, everyday information, which is again juxtaposed against stative verb ‘enliven.’

Language focuses on politics in general: accusation of ‘opportunism’ (abstract noun) is not personally levelled at Starmer, although it is suggested that is no different than ‘most modern politicians.’

Pragmatics: it can be inferred that the audience of the Daily Mail are not socialists. The author is indirectly providing reasons for reader opposition to Starmer.

‘Because’ as a subordinating conjunction suggests a certainty in the following clause.

‘Convinced’ = connotative of manipulation, borderline fraud. Indirect suggestion is that Starmer is not, in fact, ‘best placed to draw together Labour’s disparate elements.’

‘Disparate’ as a pre-modifying adjective heightens the internal conflict of the Labour Party.

‘Elements’ = a regular plural noun. Demonstrates the extent of differences in the Labour Party.

‘Draw together’ as a verb phrase does not suggest a successful blend of these ‘elements;’ rather, it is suggested that the best Starmer can do is bring these elements ‘together’ in an unsatisfying co-existence.

‘Too’ as an adverb demonstrates the extent of ‘ridicule’ targeted at Starmer, which the article actively participates in.

Opinion of ‘friends’ is sought to further emphasis the conflict present in Starmer’s leadership.

‘Reconcile’ = connotative of contrast, differing notions. ‘Firebrand politics’ as an abstract noun phrase has similar passionate connotations to the ‘fervent’ Momentum.

‘Other side’ = abstract noun demonstrative of aforementioned hypocrisy.

Direct quotes from Starmer are used to further the author’s presentation of conflict / hypocrisy. Attacks have now moved past Corbyn and are grounded in the present tense.

‘Characteristically’ suggests, as an adverb, that this is a typical issue with Starmer — the article also shifts into a personal, individual focus. Emotive language is employed with ‘did his heart swell with pride’ and ‘did he feel a little conflicted.’ Author encourages audience speculation with interrogatives.

Topic subheading: informal lexis is evident in common noun ‘chum.’

Asyndetic listing used in ridicule with ‘dull, wooden and too lawyerly’ all evoking particularly negative connotations. Tone of the article loses its factual element. Contrast: the Guardian article does not find fault with the post-modifying adjective ‘dull,’ and modifies it with quantifier ‘a bit.’

‘Really’ as an adverb voices the author’s doubt.

Quote is also directly referenced in the Guardian article.

Focus shifts back to Momentum — negative connotations are pre-established.

‘But’ as a coordinating conjunction is indicative of an approaching challenge, which is solidified with the auxiliary verb ‘will’ in ‘Momentum will play a new role.’

Repetition of ‘failed’ as a past-tense stative verb demonstrates weaknesses already present in Starmer’s leadership.

‘Quell’ as a dynamic verb suggests a great extent of ‘criticisms.’

After attacking the leadership of Jeremy Corbin, negative connotations are then ascribed to Starmer when he is directly tied to Corbyn with the possessive ‘Mr Corbyn’s Shadow Brexit Secretary.’

Pragmatic element of the article is furthered with discussion on antisemitism in the Labour Party.

‘But’ as a coordinating conjunction, however, suggests that removing ‘the poison’ of antisemitism is an act in direct opposition to ‘paying tribute’ to Corbyn. Article attacks the Corbyn-led Party here.

Paragraph begins with coordination conjunction; purpose = to further the viewpoint accumulating flaws in the Labour Party / Starmer.

Factual, precise tone is furthered with ‘has’ auxiliary verbs and use of past tense.

‘While’ = subordinating conjunction. Suggestion: that the Tories have somewhat of a superiority over the Labour Party with ‘two female leaders.’

‘Refuse’ = stative verb. Suggestion: that Labour is deliberately withholding the ‘top job’ from women. It could be inferred from this that the author is deliberately attempting to position his female audience against the current state of the Labour Party.

‘For years’ = a preposition that marks an on-going problem. Links to conjunction ‘and’ with the same purpose.

Ideas of weakness are built upon from the last paragraph with the pre-modifying adjective ‘deep’ emphasising the degree of ‘concern from Northern, Brexit-supporting MPs.’ Language takes a political focus: embedded clause displays Starmer’s political leanings.

‘Lost to the Tories’ = connotative of (a contrasting) defeat. Stative verb ‘lost’ directly opposes previous victory / triumph.

Focus becomes more individually centred on Starmer. ‘Still’ as an adverb is demonstrative of weakness despite the aforementioned strength of his electoral ‘victory.’

Pre-modifying adjective ‘further’ suggests that Starmer’s election is already a loss for the ‘Left.’

‘Pushed’ = dynamic verb, suggestive of forced change.

Connotations of power are solidified in the verb phrase ‘take out,’ which is dependent on the simple ‘want’ of Starmer. It can be inferred that the author believes the hard-Left should be ‘taken out’ as a result of previous negative depictions.

Tone is factual, precise, supported by auxiliary verbs (‘was’). Like the aforementioned Guardian article, asyndetic listing is used to demonstrate the degree of support in ‘party members, affiliates and registered supporters.’

Noun phrase ‘top choice’ is indicative of superiority / a ‘decisive’ victory.

Adverb ‘ahead’ is modified informally by ‘way’ in order to demonstrate the extent of such victory: article so far appears to be supportive of Starmer’s success.

‘Threat’ as an abstract noun immediately modifies the tone of the previous paragraph: the reader’s opposition against Momentum is solidified. Article attacks the ‘hard-Left’ rather than Starmer himself.

Use of expert opinion in ‘one Corbyn ally:’ author’s perspective becomes supported by the opinion of certain Labour Party supporters.

Repetition of ‘victory.’ Reader is encouraged to believe that Starmer’s ‘triumph’ is well-deserved as a result.

‘Howling at the moon’ = idiom equipped to emphasise the ridiculousness of the ‘hard-Left’s’ actions. Interestingly, ‘howling’ is also used in the Guardian article to describe the outrage of the ‘Tory press.’

‘Fervently’ = an adverb connotative of great passion, intensity. Immediately positions the Momentum group as a challenge to Starmer’s ‘overwhelming triumph:’ the reader is inclined to oppose the group as a result. ‘Triumph’ as an abstract noun suggests victory in the face of adversity; ‘overwhelming’ heightens the intensity of this triumph as a pre-modifying adjective.

‘Vowing’ = dynamic verb. Suggests a commitment to challenging Starmer.

Adverb ‘only’ immediately negates the positive connotations of the phrase ‘stormed to victory,’ with the dynamic verb ‘stormed’ connotative of a significant power.