The fall and continued fall of the Labour party – Why Starmer is just as bad as Corbyn in terms of leadership.
Under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn anti-Semitism reached levels in the Labour party that were unprecedented in modern times. Jewish labour members and Jewish MPs such as Ruth Smeeth and Luciana Berger were threatened repeatedly both on the media platform such as twitter, as well as at political gatherings of their party. It had gotten so bad that Luciana Berger actually had to have police protection at her own party’s gathering and where the likes of John McDonnell and other actually tried to have her deselected because of “concerns about her loyalty”.
The intervention sparked fury, with Holocaust Educational Trust chief executive Karen Pollock branding Mr McDonnell a ‘disgrace’.
It had gotten so bad and so threatening that Jewish people were actually considering leaving the country if Jeremy Corbyn had been given the keys to Number 10 as they say in the December 2019 election.
For openness I wish it to be known that I am married to a Jewish man and have a son who has taken the Jewish faith but my issue with Jeremy Corbyn was long before his anti-Semitism reared its ugly head. There was the issue of him supporting the IRA at a time when they were murdering soldiers, police officers, prison warders, MPs, and innocent civilians and I have never hidden that fact.
Back to the article….as it happened and thankfully the good people of this country could not stomach the thought that an anti-Semitic terrorist supporter could ever enter the door at Number 10 Downing Street, and promptly gave the Conservative party an 80-seat majority and gave Jeremy Corbyn another title…. the most disastrous Labour leader since 1935.
There was quiet relief from the people all round when Corbyn stated that he would not lead the Labour party and a leadership election was started, but not before an investigation began into the abuses to the Jewish people by the Labour party by the EHRC. (Equality and Human Rights Commission).
The Labour party found itself in the company of one other political party to be investigated for hate and abuses and that was the BNP. The fall of the Labour party was almost complete.
The leadership challenge began and true to form the Labour party picked another M25 leader, one Sir Keir Starmer. Sir Keir had been the former DPP before standing for parliament and had been prominent in the shadow Front Bench under Jeremey Corbyn as the Shadow Minister for Brexit, or rather stopping it.
This is the same Sir Keir Starmer who had stood by and said nothing whilst his colleagues and Jewish members of the party were ridiculed, terrorized, and abused by his own party. He states that he commented as such in the gathering of the party and at meetings, but we only have his word for this, as when questioned he himself refused to believe that Jeremy Corbyn was anti-Semitic and said so on several occasions.
In 2019, Starmer twice rejected an anti-Semitism claim. Starmer appeared on the BBC’s Marr show and with the BBC eagerly amplifying claims of anti-Semitism against the Labour party and its leader, he was confronted with a claim from Liverpool MP Louise Ellman that Corbyn was a danger to the Jewish people and he twice rejected her accusation. This was whilst he was a member of the Shadow Cabinet and Under Jeremy Corbyn.
Let us not forget that Keir Starmer would have if Corbyn been elected given a senior cabinet post in the Government and he would have continued to say nothing and happily become part of the problem by refusing to resign. He stated once that he had thought about it, but I have thought about being 6ft tall and a size 10 but like Starmer’s claim it is a thought and nothing ever came from it.
We then had the spectacle of Starmer apologising to the Jewish community when he became leader, but we have to ask ourselves…did he really mean it? After all he had stayed silent for years and in his shadow cabinet he elevates one Naz Shah to the Shadow Front Bench and Lisa Nandy.
Starmer has strenuously portrayed himself as anxious to deal with the scourge of anti-Semitism that consumed the party under Corbyn. His instant charm offensive towards Jewish community leaders had them purring straightaway. What he says, however, is less important than what he does. And this is causing some concern. For although he has rid his shadow ministerial team of most of Corbyn’s far-left faction, he has still appointed some Labour MPs with backgrounds of deeply problematic views about Israel and the Jewish people.
For example, he appointed the Bradford MP Naz Shah as shadow minister for community cohesion, the post dealing with race relations. In 2014, Shah supported an image posted on Facebook suggesting that the State of Israel should be relocated in the United States. She also tweeted a link to a blog which claimed Zionism had been used to “groom” Jews to “exert political influence at the highest levels of public office.” In another post that year, she appeared to liken Israel’s policies to Hitler’s. Shah was suspended from the party but was accepted back after she declared her contrition and said she had now learned more about Judaism.
But in March 2018, in a blog about the armed and murderous uprising by Gazans on the border with Israel, she claimed that the Israel Défense Forces had used “brute force” and “indiscriminate killing” against unarmed civilians just because “people who have been driven out of their land protested for their right to return.” Even more disturbing was Starmer’s appointment of Wigan MP Lisa Nandy as Labour’s foreign-affairs spokesman. Nandy is a former chairman of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East.
The group’s website, which calls for the “immediate recognition of Palestine,” is stuffed with gross historical and legal omissions and distortions that present Israel falsely as an illegal aggressor and occupier denying the Palestinians their civil rights. Nandy, who calls herself a Zionist, has promised in the past to oppose what she calls “the illegal occupation of Palestine” and the “blockade of Gaza,” and has supported BDS by tweeting against businesses “profiting from the occupied Palestinian territories.”
Worse still, she supports the Palestinian Arabs’ “right of return.” This places her among the opponents of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. For the “Palestinians” have no such legal, moral, or historical right; the so-called “right of return,” which would flood Israel with Arab immigrants, is merely a device to destroy the State of Israel but giving the Arabs the “right of return” would mean the end of Israel, turning the two-state solution into one Arab state. In its rush to normalize relations with the Labour Party, the board in effect farcically endorsed Israel’s annihilation through agreement. Yet Starmer still went out of his way to assure the Jewish Labour voters that he understood what they were concerned about, and that there was no place for anti-Semitism but how come he chose to change so rapidly from the position he had taken under Jeremey Corbyn. https://www.patrioticalternative.org.uk/keir_starmer_conflict_interests
The article states “However, in stark contrast to what he now somewhat grandiosely refers to as his “value statement” regarding Jews, during the four years that he occupied the very visible position of Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union under Jeremy Corbyn, he barely mentioned his Jewish family in public – much to the annoyance of their more vocal co-religionists.
This much was noted the day prior to his election in a Daily Mail article titled ‘Sir Keir and a question of cowardice’. In the article the late Rabbi Dr David Goldberg is quoted, saying “I am very disappointed with Keir Starmer. Particularly as his wife and children are members of my synagogue. It is their community which is under threat and yet he has done so little. It’s pathetic.’ Another member of the Starmer’s’ congregation added: “I never knew Keir Starmer had a Jewish family, let alone that they attended David’s synagogue, which is my own.”
The reason for Sir Keir’s reluctance to make an issue of his Jewish ties, including family in Tel Aviv, at a time when anti-Jewish sentiment in the Labour Party was widely regarded as being at an all-time high is clear enough, but what is less clear is why any Briton would trust a candidate who plays fast and loose with principle – committing to a wife of a people and faith not his own, yet publicly avoiding the topic lest it should hinder his progress towards leadership of a party which, after all, was founded to represent the British working class, not Jewish millionaires.
We were then given an insight into the EHRC where it states: The antisemitism complaints process is an area of particular concern, especially given the focus on this in previous investigations into antisemitism. Over four years on from these investigations, we expected to see clear, publicly accessible, and comprehensive policy documents to guide the complaints process, but the evidence showed that these did not exist. We found that the complaints process was not properly resourced and those responsible for it were not trained to the necessary standard.
We found evidence of a significant number of complaints relating to antisemitism that were not investigated at all; this is especially true for complaints about social media activity where the Labour Party previously adopted a policy of not investigating mere ‘likes’ or reposts. Where matters were investigated, the guidance on appropriate sanctions was unclear and inconsistent. We found evidence of political interference in the handling of antisemitism complaints throughout the period of the investigation. We have concluded that this practice of political interference was unlawful.
The evidence shows that staff from the Leader of the Opposition’s Office (LOTO) were able to influence decisions on complaints, especially decisions on whether to suspend someone. Sometimes these decisions were made because of likely press interest rather than any clear formal criteria.
The report can be seen here:
It is damning but not concerned that with Jeremy Corbyn yet again attempted to belittle any investigation into the Labour party, its anti-Semitism, and his responsibility, but not only his but remember he had the help from the likes of John McDonnell, Seamus Milne, and Jenny Formby. Keir Starmer suspended Corbyn from the party and asked a prominent QC to investigate the handling of the anti-Semitism within his own party and todate that report has been delayed again and again. It is called the Forde Report. An investigation was commenced by the Labour National Executive Committee into the Labour Party and its handling of complaints, and I am under no doubt that the Forde report is articulate, factual and an honest approach as the Chair one Martin Forde QC is one of our best legal minds, but this report has been put back again and again and todate we do not have the scheduled release.
This is really not good enough when you think that there are former Jewish MPs were still be harassed despite the EHRC report. Former Labour MP, Luciana Berger, has revealed that Jeremy Corbyn supporters have already started to attack Jewish politicians in light of today’s damning EHRC report. Speaking to Sky News, the former MP, who is Jewish, confirmed that she had been sent messages from Corbyn supporters asking her to “prove” the allegations of anti-Semitism.
At least we have the summary of the damning EHRC report into anti-Semitism in Labour found the party was “responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination”. The UK’s human rights watchdog also said Mr Corbyn’s office had “politically interfered” in the complaints process.
Now what of Sir Keir Starmer, the man who kept quiet whilst this was going on. Well, he was the top solicitor as the Director of Public Prosecutions and the department under his watch had the worst rating and staff morale was running at only 12%.
Starmer makes light that he is the man to go forward with law and order and that only he can be trusted with this….
Listed below are just some of the failures of the Labour Leader when he was in the position of Director of Public Prosecutions.
It falls to Guido to point out how extraordinary it is that a man with such a dire record as Director of Public Prosecutions is talked about as one of Labour’s best talents. The below could have ended his career several times over.
- Decided not to prosecute John Worboys for 75 sex assaults.
- Yet spent four years failing to prosecute 23 Sun journalists.
- Insisted on prosecuting Paul Chambers for making a light-hearted joke on social media (the infamous Twitter joke trial)
- Failed to build a case against Jimmy Savile and forced to apologise after being damned by report into failings.
- Repeatedly championed the innocence of convicted murder who later admitted that he was actually guilty.
- Failed to prosecute police officer who killed newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson.
- Ordered the CPS in Wales to drop the prosecution of a primary school teacher who had been accused of sexting a 16-year-old boy, who went on to commit suicide.
- Damning report into Starmer’s tenure at the CPS showed it was performing well below the necessary standard, with the report attributing part of the blame to a ‘overload of initiatives’ from the CPS’ national leadership.
- Survey of CPS staff found that just 12% of them thought that the organisation was being well managed under Starmer’s leadership.
- Accused of reopening a spurious sex abuse case involving a friend of Tom Watson – the accused was cleared in an hour.
- Chose not to prosecute two doctors accused of carrying out abortions on grounds of gender.
After having been appointed head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in November 2008, Sir Keir’s half decade in the position oversaw cases as large and polarising as the Rochdale grooming gang scandal, mass sexual abuse scandals involving entertainment figures such as Jimmy Savile, and the John Worboys case. Patel noted Sir Keir has a complete ‘lack of interest in prosecuting horrendous crimes against women’, a statement hard to argue with when presented with his record.
Arguably the biggest scandal during his time as DPP came right at the beginning of his tenure. A victim of the Rochdale Grooming gang had reported to Greater Manchester Police the sexual exploitation she had been experiencing since the age of 15, including becoming pregnant by one of the men abusing her. When referred to the CPS, they decided that the victim was ‘not credible’ and that due to ‘insufficient evidence’ there was an ‘unrealistic prospect of conviction’. Victims continued to be plied with alcohol, drugs and gifts and were prostituted out to multiple men a night, multiple times a week for a further five years.
In 2011, Nazir Afzal, who was then the chief prosecutor in the North West, reopened the case. The evidence previously deemed ‘insufficient’ by Starmer’s CPS — evidence which included DNA and eventually led to 47 other victims’ allegations — proved vital to securing the convictions of ten men. One of the victims was still not seen as ‘credible’ enough by the CPS because, despite being abused herself, she had later assisted in recruiting other girls to be groomed. The CPS did not want to call her as a witness and had ruled it was not in the public interest to prosecute the men who had abused her, but they needed to use the victim’s evidence. The CPS chose to name this victim as a co-conspirator without informing her that she had been named on the indictment along with the men who had trafficked and raped her. This resulted in social services attempting to remove her child from her custody, and the resignation of the Detective Constable overseeing the case resigning from the force — so that he could publicly criticise the CPS’s treatment of victims.
Local authorities had previously blamed their reluctance to prosecute on the fear of being perceived as racist due to the fact the perpetrators were of South Asian origin and the victims were mostly white British girls. This reluctance and inaction saw a rise in far-right agitation across northern England; a father of one of the victims even joined the BNP for a short period over frustration at the lack of action by authorities. After significant public backlash, Sir Keir was forced to apologise for the mishandling of the case, saying that prosecutors should not “shy away” from the “issue of ethnicity” which had to be “understood and addressed”, and that ‘a number of assumptions, myths and stereotypes’ about sexual violence had resulted in the previous decision to ‘no further action’ the case.
This response feebly indicated that the CPS needed to review how staff viewed sexual violence and the treatment of victims. Unfortunately, as later demonstrated by repeated failings on such issues, any internal review that may have gone on seems to have further embedded assumptions, myths, and stereotypes within the institution. Retrospectively looking at Sir Keir’s language, it is quite clear now that his wording, though seemingly confident on this issue, lacked any substance.
In 2009, whilst Jimmy Savile was still alive, police in Surrey and Sussex referred 4 cases to the CPS alleging that Jimmy Savile had abused 3 girls under the age of 16. Savile was interviewed under caution at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, where one of the incidents allegedly took place in the seventies. Within the same month, the CPS had received the files from police, but dropped the case due to ‘insufficient evidence’’. It would later emerge after Savile’s death that he had abused up to 500 victims over a four-decade period. In 2012 Emily Thornberry, Sir Keir’s former opponent in the current Labour leadership contest, stated that she found it “deeply disappointing” that the CPS was “presented with evidence of a clear pattern of sexual assaults by Savile and decided not to act.”
However, one of the most crucial cases is related to John Worboys, the black cab driver who spiked the drinks of scores of unsuspecting women before sexually assaulting them while they were unconscious in the back of his taxi. Worboys was convicted in 2009 of 19 charges against 12 women. It was suspected that there were over 100 more victims. But Sir Keir ruled not to pursue further charges. What is most interesting about the case is that Carrie Symonds, the current partner of Boris Johnson, was a victim of Worboys. The Labour party elected a man who oversaw the mishandling of a high-profile rape case involving the prime minister’s partner.
Sir Keir also oversaw the dramatic decline in the prosecution rate of rape cases as a result of the introduction of new guidance which led to police referring fewer cases to the CPS for charging decisions. The guidance saw an increase in the burden of proof from 50% to 60% which resulted in more complex cases that were more difficult to prosecute being dropped, with thousands of victims seeing their cases ‘no further actioned’ due to ‘insufficient evidence’ and an ‘unrealistic prospect of conviction’. These are the same things the victims of both Savile and the Rochdale grooming gang were originally told, which points to systemic failures resulting in untold numbers of abusers walking free without ever facing trial.
A senior Met officer told the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that ‘referrals (to the CPS) had dropped as a result of policy change put in place in response to the CPS director’s 2011 guidance on charging’. This has contributed to the current crisis in the criminal justice system where campaigners have described rape as being ‘effectively decriminalised’. As a result, the End Violence Against Women and Girls Coalition and Centre for Women’s Justice have brought a judicial review against the CPS for their failure to prosecute rape cases.
Sir Keir also failed to end the process of survivors who are disbelieved by authorities, or who withdraw their allegations from being charged for ‘false reporting’. The fear of false accusations is hugely disproportionate to the frequency of this occurrence. False allegations are extremely rare, ones that are labelled as ‘false’ often result in being true years later or are legitimate allegations that were withdrawn under pressure from the attacker, family and friends or the police.
After Sir Keir’s resignation from the role, he called on the CPS to implement changes to how rape cases were investigated and even helped the Labour Party draw up a victim’s law outlining how it could be done. This was after he had the power to push for these changes himself within the institution. Instead, he left deeply held biases and myths go mostly unchallenged, allowing for a culture of disbelief to continue, paving the way for the further decline of conviction rates. Survivors deserve support and justice, but Sir Keir reserved that for a small few choosing suspicion first and foremost, even in cases with multiple victims like the Rochdale grooming gang and Jimmy Savile scandals.
As shown when it comes to sexual violence, Sir Keir is not a man of principle, he will not champion justice or stand up for human rights, he will actively deny you them. Sir Keir does not believe sex crimes to be in the public interest to prosecute. Evidence of this is on public record for all to see. If Labour Party members ignore Sir Keir’s history at the CPS we risk sending a damning message that his previous judgements as DPP do not matter and by extension those victims who were let down do not either.
I know it is usual practice to honour DPPs when they leave office, but this award seems particularly inappropriate. Starmer was in post for 5 years, during which time there were increasingly desperate calls by campaigners for prosecutions for female genital mutilation. He sat on his hands, called for more information, and did nothing. It is estimated that in each year of inaction 20,000 girls were abused and mutilated in this way. A recent report suggests that 170,000 women and girls in the UK are now affected.
In the absence of criminal justice sanctions, Starmer did not even encourage Social Services and Police to use child protection legislation to protect girls. Nor did he call for mandatory reporting to Social Services by the health personnel who witness the injuries and deal with the resulting medical complications of pregnancy caused by FGM. In some cases, doctors have been asked by husbands to restitch women’s genitals after childbirth – surely evidence of conspiracy to commit an assault and a clear indicator of physical risk. No action has been taken.
Starmer has said that FGM is difficult to prosecute because it takes place in “secret” and there are few complaints. However, this is true for many forms of child abuse and domestic and sexual violence- and there have been many successful prosecutions of such crimes, based on careful investigation undertaken on the basis of reasonable suspicion or genuine risk. In such cases, even if prosecution has proved to be impossible, the intelligence gathered has been used to safeguard children.
In 2012 journalists filmed doctors agreeing to carry out abortions, for no other reason than that the foetus was female. Starmer justified the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to take no action against the doctors, judging it not to be in the “public interest”. Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, described the decision as “very dubious”.
The CPS said the key reason for the decision was that the doctors would still be investigated by the General Medical Council. But Lord Ken Macdonald said this amounted to letting them “avoid criminal action” because of their professional status — undermining the basic principle that “everyone is equal under the law”.
This is all available on the internet and with so many of his failing as the DPP what about his failings within the Labour party.
The Future is not looking rosy for Starmer.
He comes under attack from his own side due to his ability to achieve nothing. Labour under Keir Starmer is suffering from a “lack of authenticity” and direction, Len McCluskey has claimed as he challenged the leader to “honour” left-wing pledges he committed to 12 months ago to offer a credible alternative to the Conservatives. In a scathing assessment of the Labour leader’s first year, the general secretary of Unite – one of Labour’s biggest financial backers – said Sir Keir’s personal ratings were “plummeting” and suggested voters were unsure who the party speaks for. Writing in The Independent, the union chief said: “Focus groups show that at best his Labour Party is seen as dull, absent of convictions or presence, at worst opportunistic, only following the political wind after it has blown, rarely making the weather.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-keir-starmer-len-mccluskey-unite-corbyn-b1823094.html
Support for Starmer’s Labour has been steadily declining in the polls, while support for the Tories stubbornly refuses to drop below 40 per cent. According to one YouGov poll, Labour is now 13 per cent behind the Conservatives. Now, with elections to key mayoralties, the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly and bumper local elections on the horizon, everything points to a dismal set of results for Labour. So where did it all go wrong?
In politics, as in life, you do not want to get stuck with a bad nickname. And Boris Johnson’s moniker for Starmer, ‘Captain Hindsight’, is a bad nickname because of its proximity to the truth. His initial decisiveness soon gave way to triangulation, policy by focus group, and a return of that fatal ‘strategic ambiguity’ that defined Labour’s Brexit policy when Starmer was the shadow Brexit secretary. So, when the Black Lives Matter movement mobilised in June, Starmer, keen to shore up Labour’s law-and-order credentials, wanted to avoid association with BLM’s ‘defund the police’ demands. To this end, he dismissed BLM as a ‘moment’, and described defunding the police as ‘nonsense’. Then, sensing he had gone too far, Starmer ‘took the knee’ in solidarity with the movement. But he did so just one day after BLM protesters burned a Union Flag atop the Cenotaph. Has Keir Starmer blown it? – spiked (spiked-online.com)
Starmer taking the knee along with his Deputy Angela Rayner and he showed in that gesture alone why he is not fit to lead the party. No strong leader capitulates to the riotous mob.
He is known as Captain Hindsight or fence sitter due to his constant flapping and changing of his mind, and he is very weak on law and order within his own party. He has not punished those MPs who have constantly broken the lockdown rules to join the mob when demanding the change of our history. He has not punished Dawn Butler for her race baiting video accusing the police of racism, and he has not punished those MPs who have openly stated that it is the police who are at fault and refuse to condemn the riots that has resulted in so many of our police being hurt. He seems to think saying nothing and doing nothing will mean it goes away. What a weak stance to take.
He has come out with next to nothing except moaning endlessly about the lockdown and what he would have done. Well, he forgets one thing…he is not the PM and to come out with the advice after the decision has been taken is one of the reasons he is called Captain Hindsight. After all, let us not forget this is the man who repeated many times…although he denied it in Parliament that he wanted this country to stay in the European Medicines Agency…and if we had…then this country would have been given so little vaccine as we know that Europe would have had us last on the list. We have the vaccine because of the forward thinking of a Conservative Government…not the Labour party, not the SNP or the Welsh Labour but this Conservative Government and if Labour had of been in…. Corbyn as the then Prime Minister would have given ours away. Amazing how many multi-millionaires there are in the Labour Socialist party who want to spend our money in other countries except our own. Starmer must have known he was misleading Parliament by saying he had not once mentioned it. He cannot even get his own story right. If Labour had of been in power there would have been no furlough but just bankruptcy and despite his manipulation of words Starmer cannot deny it as under a Labour Government the country has been bankrupt….every time.
Speaking during Prime Minister’s Questions today on the response to the pandemic, Boris Johnson said: “If we had listened to [Sir Keir] we would still be at the starting blocks because he wanted to stay in the European medicines agency and said so four times from that despatch box.” But Sir Keir responded: “Complete nonsense. Don’t let the truth get in the way of a pre-prepared gag. “The Prime Minister knows I’ve never said that, from this despatch box or anywhere else, the truth escapes him.” However, Hansard – which is the official records of exchanges in Parliament – shows that twice in January 2017, when Sir Keir was Shadow Brexit Secretary, he said the EMA should be one of the parts of the EU the UK should remain a part of after Brexit. Keir Starmer denies calling for UK to stay in European Medicines Agency despite records showing he did | Yorkshire Post Let us not forget that he also stated it when talking to reporters when Labour were deluded enough to believe that they would win the Election.
You have to ask yourself what does Starmer stand for? He constantly tells his MPs to abstain from voting and showing that there is no opposition to the Government. He is still trying to stop his MPs commenting on the Brexit negotiations when he was the architect for Labour’s stance, and that stance cost this country billions because he decided to take the 2nd referendum approach. Why he is even in parliament if he does not believe in the rights of the people who had already instructed Parliament to get us out of the EU. He could not even lie convincingly when he stated that he respected the vote.
Starmer has no control over his own party, he has no control over his own MPs, and you have to ask yourself if a man with such a dismal record as the DPP, a man who was the architect of the disastrous showing at the elections of 2019 and a man who spent years either saying nothing or defending the most anti-Semitic, terrorist supporting leader Labour have had really the best choice for leader? A man who kept quiet whilst Jewish people were living in fear and saying nothing. A man who has refused to charge so many criminals and who refused to apply the law in so many abuse cases then you have to ask yourself will he be any good as Prime Minister?
The answer to that is no. If in a position of authority, we cannot guarantee that he will accept the facts in front of him and remember this man has defended IRA terrorists in a case against this country, and who refuses to reign in those very MPs in his own party who are either breaking the law or coming out with the vilest anti-Semitic tropes that they thought were forgotten, and then promoting them…Ms Shah being promoted is proof of that…. then you have to ask yourself….is he even fit enough to lead the party?
Starmer will suffer the same as Corbyn and go down in history as yet another defeated Labour Leader….and one who is very wooden, very indecisive and one not capable of leading the hokey cokey, never mind this country. That is great news for Boris and no doubt he will want Starmer staying where he is for years and years and years as it guarantees a continued Conservative Government.