Main Edition
US
FR
June 2, 2023 - 1:30pm
After its short life as a caterpillar, a cocoon holds all the cells of the larva as it disintegrates into a primal soup. And yet, quite remarkably, a butterfly — despite being wholly different in almost every aspect — retains memories of its earlier state.
It is from this biological process that we receive the word “metamorphosis”, a phrase often used in politics. And yet if you read Sir Keir Starmer writing for the Daily Express earlier this week, you would have presumed he has no recollection of his previous life as Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary. The metamorphosis of the Europhile QC into a beer-drinking Brexiteer eclipses even the greatest miracle of nature.
“Britain’s future is outside the EU,” the Labour leader wrote with clear-eyed certainty on Thursday. “Not in the single market, not in the customs union, not with a return to freedom of movement. Those arguments are in the past, where they belong.” Four years ago, Starmer would have found that sentence unimaginable.
Starmer’s newfound admiration for Brexit is without precedent. It is akin to Margaret Thatcher suddenly championing public ownership, or Jeremy Corbyn becoming an apostle for US foreign policy. It would be like Tony Blair admonishing PFI, or Gordon Brown declaring that central bank independence was wrong all along. We find none of these scenarios plausible because, for better or worse, each of these figures has a certain political essence. And yet, with Starmer, such a volte face has come to feel mundane.
In the 2017 general election, the Labour Party increased its share of the vote by 10%, depriving then-PM Theresa May of a majority. This was possible because the party neutralised the issue of Brexit, moving the debate onto more profitable terrain such as public services and elderly care. This was obviously necessary to anyone but a fanatic: “Leave” had prevailed in 400 constituencies a year earlier.
What happened next will go down as among the greatest self-inflicted wounds in political history. Labour, having said it would respect the Brexit vote, decided to embroil themselves in parliamentary wrangling for the next two years, before offering the most incomprehensible position imaginable. This consisted in negotiating a new deal against which certain Labour MPs could campaign in a second referendum.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeOr possibly who he spoke to last and might advance his career. Remember him ‘taking the knee’?
“Remember him ‘taking the knee’?”
We will be reminded come the election. So much for his talent.
“Remember him ‘taking the knee’?”
We will be reminded come the election. So much for his talent.
Or possibly who he spoke to last and might advance his career. Remember him ‘taking the knee’?
I’m uncertain Starmer has ever had a policy he has stuck to, and is utterly devoid of ideology. Expect more of the same if he comes to power. I didn’t agree with Corbyn’s ideas, but at least he had principles.
I am not convinced he is devoid of ideology. Integrity certainly, but not ideology.
Then what is his ideology? He became leader of Labour as a continuity candidate appeasing the left, then promptly got rid of them all and dismissed his personal manifesto. What he stands for seems entirely fluid.
He and a majority of the party still, is a hardcore cowardly pro CRT identitarian, fervent about knee bending and women with dicks… and never standing up to the many brave women battered by trans thugs…its just his Blair speechwriters try a
to keep it under wraps knowing it horrifies the public. They are openly pursuing the thin lazy Biden Playbook – we are not him/them! Same Eco/green mega spending. Same Pro trade unions. Pluz he and Rach cannot mask their distaste for grubby discriminatory dirty wealth creation and enterprise. On Brex, I heard a well informed Labour player say nothing would happen on Brexit ‘ in the first term. So keep your eye on the Second…God forbid
He and a majority of the party still, is a hardcore cowardly pro CRT identitarian, fervent about knee bending and women with dicks… and never standing up to the many brave women battered by trans thugs…its just his Blair speechwriters try a
to keep it under wraps knowing it horrifies the public. They are openly pursuing the thin lazy Biden Playbook – we are not him/them! Same Eco/green mega spending. Same Pro trade unions. Pluz he and Rach cannot mask their distaste for grubby discriminatory dirty wealth creation and enterprise. On Brex, I heard a well informed Labour player say nothing would happen on Brexit ‘ in the first term. So keep your eye on the Second…God forbid
Then what is his ideology? He became leader of Labour as a continuity candidate appeasing the left, then promptly got rid of them all and dismissed his personal manifesto. What he stands for seems entirely fluid.
Corbyns entire Socialist Manifesto- big welfarism; magic money tree QE super spending; NHS First worship; nationalisation of rail firms; crippling tax attacks on oil suppliers – ALL has been enacted by the Fake Tories and The Fool Johnson in the Lockdown Panic. So all he has left as a credo is toxic race hating knee bending CRT…its there but kept under wraps so as not to scare us. He clings to the Green excuse to blow 28bn on a new Leyland. But basically there is a big black void where distinctive or viable policies should be. We just need to keep pulling at the loose threads…
I am not convinced he is devoid of ideology. Integrity certainly, but not ideology.
Corbyns entire Socialist Manifesto- big welfarism; magic money tree QE super spending; NHS First worship; nationalisation of rail firms; crippling tax attacks on oil suppliers – ALL has been enacted by the Fake Tories and The Fool Johnson in the Lockdown Panic. So all he has left as a credo is toxic race hating knee bending CRT…its there but kept under wraps so as not to scare us. He clings to the Green excuse to blow 28bn on a new Leyland. But basically there is a big black void where distinctive or viable policies should be. We just need to keep pulling at the loose threads…
I’m uncertain Starmer has ever had a policy he has stuck to, and is utterly devoid of ideology. Expect more of the same if he comes to power. I didn’t agree with Corbyn’s ideas, but at least he had principles.
Having just watched his interview with Peter Hitchens I am starting to rather like this author. Well done Unherd for getring him on board.
I find Bastani a fascinating person. Who would’ve thought that the committed Marxist founder of Novara. Media would start appearing on GBNews, and prove to be extremely good in that capacity, using his obvious intellect and political knowledge, to good effect. Now here he is in an apparently politically neutral position. One has to wonder what has become of his extremist views. Has he changed his mind or are they still intact? He is one to watch.
I find Bastani a fascinating person. Who would’ve thought that the committed Marxist founder of Novara. Media would start appearing on GBNews, and prove to be extremely good in that capacity, using his obvious intellect and political knowledge, to good effect. Now here he is in an apparently politically neutral position. One has to wonder what has become of his extremist views. Has he changed his mind or are they still intact? He is one to watch.
Having just watched his interview with Peter Hitchens I am starting to rather like this author. Well done Unherd for getring him on board.
Starmer “a talented politician” ? Only if Aaron Bastani’s a talented journalist and political analyst.
Do these people think voters have no memory of Starmer’s myriad and conflicting positions on Brexit (amongst other policies) ?
It wouldn’t be quite so bad if Starmer wasn’t quite so sanctimonious. If he presented himself as a Wilson or Johnson style opportunist, he might get away with some of it. But he isn’t.
The only hope for the Tories is the stupidity and incompetence of the Left. Of which the supply seems greater than ever. But I suspect that’s still not enough to save them.
Starmer “a talented politician” ? Only if Aaron Bastani’s a talented journalist and political analyst.
Do these people think voters have no memory of Starmer’s myriad and conflicting positions on Brexit (amongst other policies) ?
It wouldn’t be quite so bad if Starmer wasn’t quite so sanctimonious. If he presented himself as a Wilson or Johnson style opportunist, he might get away with some of it. But he isn’t.
The only hope for the Tories is the stupidity and incompetence of the Left. Of which the supply seems greater than ever. But I suspect that’s still not enough to save them.
In a sense, Starmer’s unwavering eye on the main chance makes him something useful: he’s predictable.
As a political issue, Brexit is dead. The LibDems will keep harping on about it, but then, they are the political equivalent of Oxford University when it comes to lost causes.
Starmer in power will have his hands full, as he tries to make his ‘net zero’ extremism work, and attempts to keep the Diane Abbotts of his party from opening their big mouths.
If he’s predictable, then he will be cautious. He won’t want to rock the re-election boat.
In a sense, Starmer’s unwavering eye on the main chance makes him something useful: he’s predictable.
As a political issue, Brexit is dead. The LibDems will keep harping on about it, but then, they are the political equivalent of Oxford University when it comes to lost causes.
Starmer in power will have his hands full, as he tries to make his ‘net zero’ extremism work, and attempts to keep the Diane Abbotts of his party from opening their big mouths.
If he’s predictable, then he will be cautious. He won’t want to rock the re-election boat.
I am curious about your definition of a talented politician. I can see through him as easily as you. Blair was the (monstrous) talent.
I will not be voting for or against Starmer: Success for me would be the destruction of the Tory Party. Starmer can be left for later.
I am curious about your definition of a talented politician. I can see through him as easily as you. Blair was the (monstrous) talent.
I will not be voting for or against Starmer: Success for me would be the destruction of the Tory Party. Starmer can be left for later.
I think Author knows full well that Starmer’s statement about not going back is clear realpolitik about where we are now and not because he has changed his view on what would have been better for the Country. All PMs inherit some things they just have to accept at least in the short/medium term. For example the Tories accepted the NHS having battled hard against it as just one example.
I think he also knows the public attitude has changed and an increasing majority favours sensible realignment and negotiation with EU but not a re-opening of the full debate. (I mean even today papers have headlines with public blaming Brexit for rising food prices – whether that’s solely a Brexit issue in some regards doesn’t matter if the impression is forming. Of course it is a factor but that’s a separate debate).
Starmer has certainly shown a ruthless streak – to eject the Corbynista’s and re-centre the Labour party in such a short timespan he’s had to be, and the more impressive for it. There are v few politicians, if any, who get to the top without some of this attribute.
As regards the criticism of ‘careerism’, there is of course no better modern day example than Bojo. The EU supporter when Mayor of London switching to secure the PMship, leaving a trail of porkies in his wake and a right shambles for the rest of us. Now I wonder if Author would write such an Article about that mendacity?
Anyone with an ounce of wit can see through Starmer. The fact that you resort to “what about Bojo” demonstrates the paucity of your case. They are a pair of spivs together.
PR I wouldn’t draw too much attention to your record on foresight and predictions. Over time here on UnHerd seen you indicate how wonderful Brexit will be/been, Bojo too, Vax killing millions, Woke issues going to be more important to folks than cost of living and decent public services, Ukraine going to collapse etc.
It would be difficult to find a record of such abject failure in correct predictions if one tried. It is at the point of becoming comical. Suspect your views on Starmer just your latest reverse Nostradamus moment.
??
You are attributing to me views that I do not hold and have not expressed.
Do you hear voices?
??
You are attributing to me views that I do not hold and have not expressed.
Do you hear voices?
PR I wouldn’t draw too much attention to your record on foresight and predictions. Over time here on UnHerd seen you indicate how wonderful Brexit will be/been, Bojo too, Vax killing millions, Woke issues going to be more important to folks than cost of living and decent public services, Ukraine going to collapse etc.
It would be difficult to find a record of such abject failure in correct predictions if one tried. It is at the point of becoming comical. Suspect your views on Starmer just your latest reverse Nostradamus moment.
Anyone with an ounce of wit can see through Starmer. The fact that you resort to “what about Bojo” demonstrates the paucity of your case. They are a pair of spivs together.
I think Author knows full well that Starmer’s statement about not going back is clear realpolitik about where we are now and not because he has changed his view on what would have been better for the Country. All PMs inherit some things they just have to accept at least in the short/medium term. For example the Tories accepted the NHS having battled hard against it as just one example.
I think he also knows the public attitude has changed and an increasing majority favours sensible realignment and negotiation with EU but not a re-opening of the full debate. (I mean even today papers have headlines with public blaming Brexit for rising food prices – whether that’s solely a Brexit issue in some regards doesn’t matter if the impression is forming. Of course it is a factor but that’s a separate debate).
Starmer has certainly shown a ruthless streak – to eject the Corbynista’s and re-centre the Labour party in such a short timespan he’s had to be, and the more impressive for it. There are v few politicians, if any, who get to the top without some of this attribute.
As regards the criticism of ‘careerism’, there is of course no better modern day example than Bojo. The EU supporter when Mayor of London switching to secure the PMship, leaving a trail of porkies in his wake and a right shambles for the rest of us. Now I wonder if Author would write such an Article about that mendacity?
Sadly most of the voting public have very short memories. If they take much notice of politicians at all. He’ll be running the country in 18 months.
Sadly most of the voting public have very short memories. If they take much notice of politicians at all. He’ll be running the country in 18 months.
Hold on…it was Starmer’s fault that Labour was unable to agree on a Brexit deal with Theresa May? Where was Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Leader at the time, when this was happening?
Surely, as the Leader, Corbyn was responsible for the Labour approach when talking to Theresa May. If Starmer was manipulating the discussions, Corbyn, in my view, should have stepped in.
That’s what Leaders are supposed to do. Lead.
Hold on…it was Starmer’s fault that Labour was unable to agree on a Brexit deal with Theresa May? Where was Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Leader at the time, when this was happening?
Surely, as the Leader, Corbyn was responsible for the Labour approach when talking to Theresa May. If Starmer was manipulating the discussions, Corbyn, in my view, should have stepped in.
That’s what Leaders are supposed to do. Lead.
Starmer is trying to keep the Labour traditional voters, who aren’t opposed to Brexit, on side. Sadly no politician dares to be honest in this debate, but I suspect it’s a few years too soon to be pushing for a second referendum.
Although, if he were to find himself in coalition with the liberals then who knows?
They will if they get a second term. Cannot wait to see us rejoin a suffocating anti innovation risk averse regulatory & protectionist cartel…. and a pol union ( by the 2030s) of what will be predominantly far right run states… with a currency dysfunction, porous borders, a terrible war it helped stoke with its vile appeasement and in economic ruin due to a lack of cheap energy.
They will if they get a second term. Cannot wait to see us rejoin a suffocating anti innovation risk averse regulatory & protectionist cartel…. and a pol union ( by the 2030s) of what will be predominantly far right run states… with a currency dysfunction, porous borders, a terrible war it helped stoke with its vile appeasement and in economic ruin due to a lack of cheap energy.
Starmer is trying to keep the Labour traditional voters, who aren’t opposed to Brexit, on side. Sadly no politician dares to be honest in this debate, but I suspect it’s a few years too soon to be pushing for a second referendum.
Although, if he were to find himself in coalition with the liberals then who knows?
Has David Lammy resigned as Shadow Foreign Secretary? If not, why not? He described Leave voters as Nazis and white supremacists, before apologising for having used language that was “not strong enough”. How can he continue to serve under Keir Starmer after this? If anyone believed Starmer, then they would be reconstituting Change UK.
British elite influence within the EU institutions prior to formal Brexit makes it not quite true that we were now obeying the rules while having no say over them. Unless everyone in the place has deleted all of those people’s numbers, then, while there is less British involvement than there used to be, there is not none.
Britain remains one of the largest economies that adhered to EU legislation, so of course there are channels across the Channel. That is not your influence or mine, but it never was. That was why we voted Leave, just as that was why they voted Remain, although the result made very little difference to them, as voting rarely or never does. They have other powers at their disposal.
Still, formal Brexit has embarrassed them, so they are going to reverse it. They know their trump card. “You have no one in the room,” they can say to us, although they can never say that of themselves. On immigration, they have two arguments, depending on the audience. One is, “It has gone up, anyway.” The other is, “The Stay Outers are still fighting a battle from 2016. Take out Don’t Knows, and of those who express an opinion, the majority now thinks, either that immigration is at the right level, or that it is too low.” Oh, and Nigel Farage has said on television that, “Brexit has failed.” How do we get out of that one?
Even if the pension age had gone up to a mere 68, the age at which my father died, then in a dozen years’ time come September, I would still be 10 years away from retirement. But Britain will already be back in the EU. Not just Margaret Thatcher’s Single Market and the Customs Union, but the eurozone and the Schengen Area. No referendum. A handful of votes against in the Commons. No division in the Lords. Royal Assent with one of those occasional Buckingham Palace statements which explicitly welcomed a political development. Thoroughly celebratory television coverage, largely of primary schools.
And then we are going to have to get on with trying to make it work. We should already be preparing for that. “There is no final victory, as there is no final defeat,” said Tony Benn. “There is just the same battle. To be fought, over and over again. So toughen up, bloody toughen up.”
“How can he [Lammy] continue to serve under Keir Starmer after this?” [Lammy’s racist language]
It’s obvious!
“How can he [Lammy] continue to serve under Keir Starmer after this?” [Lammy’s racist language]
It’s obvious!
Has David Lammy resigned as Shadow Foreign Secretary? If not, why not? He described Leave voters as Nazis and white supremacists, before apologising for having used language that was “not strong enough”. How can he continue to serve under Keir Starmer after this? If anyone believed Starmer, then they would be reconstituting Change UK.
British elite influence within the EU institutions prior to formal Brexit makes it not quite true that we were now obeying the rules while having no say over them. Unless everyone in the place has deleted all of those people’s numbers, then, while there is less British involvement than there used to be, there is not none.
Britain remains one of the largest economies that adhered to EU legislation, so of course there are channels across the Channel. That is not your influence or mine, but it never was. That was why we voted Leave, just as that was why they voted Remain, although the result made very little difference to them, as voting rarely or never does. They have other powers at their disposal.
Still, formal Brexit has embarrassed them, so they are going to reverse it. They know their trump card. “You have no one in the room,” they can say to us, although they can never say that of themselves. On immigration, they have two arguments, depending on the audience. One is, “It has gone up, anyway.” The other is, “The Stay Outers are still fighting a battle from 2016. Take out Don’t Knows, and of those who express an opinion, the majority now thinks, either that immigration is at the right level, or that it is too low.” Oh, and Nigel Farage has said on television that, “Brexit has failed.” How do we get out of that one?
Even if the pension age had gone up to a mere 68, the age at which my father died, then in a dozen years’ time come September, I would still be 10 years away from retirement. But Britain will already be back in the EU. Not just Margaret Thatcher’s Single Market and the Customs Union, but the eurozone and the Schengen Area. No referendum. A handful of votes against in the Commons. No division in the Lords. Royal Assent with one of those occasional Buckingham Palace statements which explicitly welcomed a political development. Thoroughly celebratory television coverage, largely of primary schools.
And then we are going to have to get on with trying to make it work. We should already be preparing for that. “There is no final victory, as there is no final defeat,” said Tony Benn. “There is just the same battle. To be fought, over and over again. So toughen up, bloody toughen up.”
True North for a politician is the path that leads to power. This is the one and only ethic. A politician without office is without power, and therefore no longer a politician. Principles take second place to power. Sometimes, silly people choose silly people to lead them.
Yes, I know – he is quite revolting and no more trustworthy than Boris Johnson. But it’s still not enough to make me vote for the Conservatives again.
Sorry. The betrayal has been too great. If we’re going to have Blairism whoever we elect, then let’s at least have the correct label on the tin, eh?
Starmer’s various positions can be explained perfectly sensibly as a consistent remainer. He campaigned for remain. Then he tried for a re-run, given that nobody had the faintest idea when they voted what Brexit was supposed to mean, and the mandate the Brexiteers had was for delivering the impossible – “having your cake and eating it”, “the easiest trade deal ever”, and such. This might bave been bad tactics – going for a soft Brexit and making a deal with Theresa May might have delivered a better result. But he hoped for better – and anyway, Corbyn and co. would never have made any kind of compromise. Their line was always to leave the Tories with all the responsibility and use it as an argument to get Corbyn in to do, well, whatever he might eventually decide to do. After the Boris was elected and the UK left the EU, the question is closed. No matter how much you think that Britain would be better off inside the EU, you can no longer argue that people might reconsider. They had the chance and did not take it. Anyway, the EU would only offer a much worse deal than last time – and even that will not be on the table for another decade or two, when there might be a UK consensus for coming back. Starmer may well think that leaving the EU was a tragic mistake – I do – but since the sh*t has long hit the fan and been spread all over us, there is no point trying to re-fight a long lost battle, and no shame in firmly promising not to try to reverse what cannot be reversed.
Certainly no point fighting the old battle on Brexit RF, although important for accountability those who promulgated it constantly reminded of it’s failure. And there is no doubt some form of dynamic alignment with EU going to be where we end up whether Lab or Con.
The thing though about many on the Right and Starmer is they are pitifully reduced to ‘playing the man not the ball’ because their record is so appalling and they know the ground on which Starmer is choosing now to fight also where the public is – cost of living, decent public services and housing. UnHerd of course will continue to create the impression that the only thing folks worry about is a strident Trans minority because it’s ratio of articles on that form of subject currently outweigh anything on Housing by 4:1. It’s no wonder the Right got itself in such a muddle but it will keep the subscriptions going for a while at least.
We agree on a lot, but “a strident Trans minority” misses the point. The problem is not that there is a strident minority – there are lots of those, from vegans to Muslims. The problem is that in the trans case companies, schools, universities, and official bodies of all kinds are falling over themselves to help that minority get what it wants, and anyone who stands up to them gets met by a very effective harassment campaign *and* the threat of a hate speech lawsuit. Fighting back may not help put a roof over your head or food on the table, but unless people do fight back, your ‘strident minority’ will be deciding how everybody must think and speak in the future. When the problem is real – and it is – saying that you should concentrate on a different problem instead is just a deflection tactic.
We agree on a lot, but “a strident Trans minority” misses the point. The problem is not that there is a strident minority – there are lots of those, from vegans to Muslims. The problem is that in the trans case companies, schools, universities, and official bodies of all kinds are falling over themselves to help that minority get what it wants, and anyone who stands up to them gets met by a very effective harassment campaign *and* the threat of a hate speech lawsuit. Fighting back may not help put a roof over your head or food on the table, but unless people do fight back, your ‘strident minority’ will be deciding how everybody must think and speak in the future. When the problem is real – and it is – saying that you should concentrate on a different problem instead is just a deflection tactic.
Certainly no point fighting the old battle on Brexit RF, although important for accountability those who promulgated it constantly reminded of it’s failure. And there is no doubt some form of dynamic alignment with EU going to be where we end up whether Lab or Con.
The thing though about many on the Right and Starmer is they are pitifully reduced to ‘playing the man not the ball’ because their record is so appalling and they know the ground on which Starmer is choosing now to fight also where the public is – cost of living, decent public services and housing. UnHerd of course will continue to create the impression that the only thing folks worry about is a strident Trans minority because it’s ratio of articles on that form of subject currently outweigh anything on Housing by 4:1. It’s no wonder the Right got itself in such a muddle but it will keep the subscriptions going for a while at least.
Starmer’s various positions can be explained perfectly sensibly as a consistent remainer. He campaigned for remain. Then he tried for a re-run, given that nobody had the faintest idea when they voted what Brexit was supposed to mean, and the mandate the Brexiteers had was for delivering the impossible – “having your cake and eating it”, “the easiest trade deal ever”, and such. This might bave been bad tactics – going for a soft Brexit and making a deal with Theresa May might have delivered a better result. But he hoped for better – and anyway, Corbyn and co. would never have made any kind of compromise. Their line was always to leave the Tories with all the responsibility and use it as an argument to get Corbyn in to do, well, whatever he might eventually decide to do. After the Boris was elected and the UK left the EU, the question is closed. No matter how much you think that Britain would be better off inside the EU, you can no longer argue that people might reconsider. They had the chance and did not take it. Anyway, the EU would only offer a much worse deal than last time – and even that will not be on the table for another decade or two, when there might be a UK consensus for coming back. Starmer may well think that leaving the EU was a tragic mistake – I do – but since the sh*t has long hit the fan and been spread all over us, there is no point trying to re-fight a long lost battle, and no shame in firmly promising not to try to reverse what cannot be reversed.
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake” – Napoleon Bonaparte. Starmer knows that the right wing media, the Murdoch papers, the Mail, GB News, owned by the elite who support the Tories regardless, because they know they will run the country to further their interests, not to benefit the general public, are ready to lie, mischaracterise and generally stir the s*it to prevent a Labour government that might threaten those interests. So he says nothing that can be used, and lets the Tories continue to fight like rats in a sack.
As a result I have formed no opinion about him, but know if the people who cheerleadered for austerity, Brexit, Johnson, Truss and Austerity 2.0 don’t like him he can’t be all bad.
Missing the point. The press don’t need to lie about Starmer. Just reporting the facts will do enough damage in his case.
Not sure why you think that The Times (a Murdoch paper) is pro-Tory. It isn’t. It’s still Blairite.
Since Tony Gallagher became editor? I don’t think so, and are you seriously saying the Tory press reports news objectively? You must know that’s not remotely true!
Projection and deflection. I said nothing at all about the Tory press.
The Times is most definitely not “Tory Press” and has certainly been anti-Tory for at least 8 years.
Projection and deflection. I said nothing at all about the Tory press.
The Times is most definitely not “Tory Press” and has certainly been anti-Tory for at least 8 years.
Since Tony Gallagher became editor? I don’t think so, and are you seriously saying the Tory press reports news objectively? You must know that’s not remotely true!
If you are interested in which media will “lie and stir the sh*t to change the government” you really ought to be mentioning the BBC.
Missing the point. The press don’t need to lie about Starmer. Just reporting the facts will do enough damage in his case.
Not sure why you think that The Times (a Murdoch paper) is pro-Tory. It isn’t. It’s still Blairite.
If you are interested in which media will “lie and stir the sh*t to change the government” you really ought to be mentioning the BBC.
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake” – Napoleon Bonaparte. Starmer knows that the right wing media, the Murdoch papers, the Mail, GB News, owned by the elite who support the Tories regardless, because they know they will run the country to further their interests, not to benefit the general public, are ready to lie, mischaracterise and generally stir the s*it to prevent a Labour government that might threaten those interests. So he says nothing that can be used, and lets the Tories continue to fight like rats in a sack.
As a result I have formed no opinion about him, but know if the people who cheerleadered for austerity, Brexit, Johnson, Truss and Austerity 2.0 don’t like him he can’t be all bad.