It is way too early to judge Starmer.
No opposition anywhere does well in a national crisis such as a war or a pandemic. Not anywhere. If you think they do you are ignoring the real.
Not until the war or crisis drags on at least.
There is an extra dimension with this pandemic as it has hindered face to face meetings and gatherings, so extra leeway should be given for.
I think people forget, Corbyn had been in Parliament since 1983, so although he was new to leading a party in opposition and had no front bench experience, even as an outsider his knowledge of the Labour Party and how Parliament works will have been substantial. Whereas Starmer only became an MP in 2015. So people should cut him some slack just for that. He is on a steep learning curve even if he had just been a constituency MP.
In addition, he became an MP just as the Party had lost another GE and then embarked on a period of rapid change and brutal civil war and infighting. A lot of people of the left dislike Starmer because he resigned in late June 2016 along with 21 others in the shadow cabinet in protest at Corbyn's leadership in the EU referendum. I am fairly sure many of that shadow cabinet resigned for more reasons than just that and this was just a pretence. However for some, and Starmer is one of the more likely candidates, this will have been the genuine main reason.
Remember, Starmer was a defence lawyer. He specialised in human rights. He was the legal officer for Liberty. He was human rights advisor to Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Association of Chief Police Officers. He is against the death penalty and was on the Foreign Office's death penalty advisory panel for years. He marched and authored legal opinions against the Iraq War. He helped Helen Steel and David Morris in the McLibel case, which he described the case as "very much a David and Goliath", and said that "there's an extremely good legal team acting for
McDonald's at great expense and Dave and Helen have had to act for themselves with me as a sort of free back up whenever possible." McLibel, the documentary about the case he was interviewed for was directed by Ken Loach incidentally. Starmer actually helped the defendants take the case to the ECHR and won against the UK government that they had not had a fair trial. The whole affair had a big impact on the debate around our stupid libel laws.
So Starmer was against the Iraq War, is for the little man against big corporations, stands up for human rights, freedom of speech, speaks truth to power and will take on the man. Rather than dislike Starmer seeing him as an opponent of Jeremy, he is absolutely in alignment on most of the issues Corbyn cares passionately about, which lefty liberal types in general care about.
What else? Oh yes, he was named QC of the year in 2007. Now, not all barristers are actually exceptionally bright, but a QC of the year certainly is.
As Director of Public Prosecutions he took on the Conservatives when they threatened to repeal the Human Rights Act. He prosecuted three Labour MP's and one Conservative Peer over their fraudulent expenses claims. Corbyn is meticulous about expenses. Starmer prosecuted.
It was his decision to prosecute serving Lib-Dem Cabinet Minister Chris Huhne for perverting the course of justice over his wife's speeding ticket, which i think was the first time in history that a cabinet minister was forced to resign over a criminal prosecution. The DPP stated 'we do not shy away from prosecuting politicians'. How does that compare to now? Don't you think Starmer would be the right man to have as PM?
So far, is there anything Jeremy, or friends of Jeremy could object to? Is there any difference between Starmer and Corbyn?
There might be.
It was his role on policing in Northern Ireland that influenced Starmer to go in to politics. "Some of the things I thought that needed to change in police services we achieved more quickly than we achieved in strategic litigation... I came better to understand how you can change by being inside and getting the trust of people". Corbyn never sought anything other than to be a backbencher, to be a constituency MP and to be an issues MP. Certain issues. He has been good at both. He is principled, for sure. But he never wanted power. To effect big change by getting power. Partly that will be because he knew some of his principles would get in the way. Mainly it is because he doesn't have the right nature, cares passionately about a few things and not a lot about many things, while he shy's away from confrontation and all to often can't make a decision. Starmer seems to want to make big differences. At least while he was head of the DPP he modernised them, made them paperless and more open to scrutiny. He massively changed the approach to rape and sexual assault, which he takes very seriously. He took some tough decisions, such as on the John De Menezes police shooting, maybe not always right, but he made them.
Corbyn failed to take decisions on crucial issues. Does anyone know what his actual position was on Brexit at any time? I doubt it. His advisors didn't, so took his wishy washiness as licence to make his position what they wanted it to be. His response to the Skripol poisoning was disastrous. His response to the bullying and sexual harrassment of female Labour Party staffers was to pretend it wasn't an issue that was that much of a priority, if indeed it was an issue at all. This, at the height of the #Metoo movement. Followed up by the antisemitism non action, while Luciana Berger needed police protection to a Labour conference in Liverpool!
How else might Starmer be different? Corbyn struggles to make up his mind, but when he does he never changes it. Starmer originally wasn't going to prosecute the police officer on the death of Ian Tomlinson, but changed his mind after the inquest. He resigned from the shadow cabinet on principle, but later went back as shadow Brexit secretary. A bigger principle took precedence and both he and Corbyn deserve a lot of respect for that. On Brexit, Starmer was strongly in favour of Remain. After the referendum he decided we had to Brexit and that was his position until the farce played out, the brexit promised wasn't getting delivered and the mood in the country changed, at which point he came to the conclusion that the right thing to do - and it was - was to have a second referendum to pass the deal.
On that last point, it is important to note Starmer showed a lot of political nous and skill. Whatever you think of Blair and Iraq, it was a masterful display of politics to get that decision through Parliament and the country in the face of a lot of opposition and factions. Corbyn couldn't hope to be that skillful. Starmer eventually managed to get that Labour Party, riven with infighting and multiple different views and no leadership from Corbyn, to adopt the position he and the majority of the Party wanted ie second referendum, remain on the ballot and even the Labour would campaign for Remain if it happened. Skill and balls.
I think Starmer has most of the qualities required to be an excellent Labour PM. He might not be likeable or charismatic enough. However, like Gareth Southgate, I had no doubts he would be a very good manager for someone, sometime, it was the wrong time for him to manage the Boro.
Starmers actions on expulsion are
necessary. They might not be right in that
everyone who is expelled deserves it, but they are necessary. They are necessary because the previous incumbents were a shambles, not on policy, but on leadership and professionalism. They have left a legacy where in the minds of the general public the Labour Party was an organisation where anti-semites were welcome. The Russia poisoning fiasco and the terrorist smears were very much tied to Corbyn and his closest advisors only, but the anti-semitism, or rather the apparent ignoring of it, the apparent tolerance of it, the apparent fostering of it, is firmly entrenched in the minds of the voting public. Turning that around is hard and job number one. It has to be clear that the party does not tolerate anti-semitism.
The second task is to show the public in general that the Party is not in thrall to weird far left cults and splinter groups. I liked Corbyn. I thought he was worth a go. I liked almost all of the 2017 policies, which were a lovely compromise between the wings of the Party. I was disgusted by the internal opposition within the PLP and some of the officals in the higher echelons of the Party. Some of them deserved expulsion even more. But 2017 election was a watershed. The next two years was the Left's chance. They had the leader, they controlled the NEC, set policy, strategy, had removed or seen off the influential party insiders working against them. It was their show and they absolutely effed it up. Because they were incompetent, were intent on imposing their particular brand of socialism, settling scores, fighting with each other and ignoring the bigger picture every time.
The court of public opinion matters more than that of endlessly small splinter groups pouring over the minutiae of who said what, or the technical breaches or non breaches of arcane party rules known only by a handful of 75 year old failed trotskyites who have never had anything better to do.
Those of you who disagree with me on Corbyn really need to read
this
It is well researched. If you are capable of being balanced yourself you will also see the account is balanced. Sadly, the bitter disappointment of 2019 looks to have robbed some of you of objectivity on this. I get that, it happened a few times with me after Brexit, but I fought the good fight up until Johnson got his unstoppable majority. If you do read it, I guarantee you will be astonished (and absolutely furious) at the antics of some of those on the Right of the Party. I was. Honestly, the expletives accompanying my 'how dare they!'s
You should also, I think, be left in no doubt that the Left were morally and ethically pretty bad too, even if some of it is understandable, but certainly they were unbelievably shambolic and incompetent. You should be mad at them too, for such a waste of an opportunity.
Then get behind Starmer. Things will change as normality returns and previous decisions by this government start to bite.
can't say I remember that. Who were the big name expulsions or sackings or whip withdrawls?
