Who is Keir Starmer?
JVL Introduction
We preface this post with two contrasting clips of Keir Starmer talking about war crimes: with a gung-ho rush to judgment on Ukraine and coy, pussy-footing caution on Gaza.
In the article below, Oliver Eagleton (in an op-ed in the New York Times), takes Starmer for what he is – and doesn’t like what he sees.
His primary instinct, argues Eagleton, is loyalty to the British state, displaying “a deeply authoritarian impulse, acting on behalf of the powerful. He is now set to carry that instinct into government.”
Reviewing Starmer’s career before and after he became Director of the Crown Prosecution Service, Eagleton presents an extensive catalogue of actions and interventions which should shock even those prepared for now to give him the benefit of the doubt.
His ” repressive reflex”, believes Eagleton, “reveals a fundamental truth about Mr. Starmer… [His] nebulous invocation of growth and change, without any clear route to secure either, is a feature, not a bug.”
RK
This article was originally published by the New York Times on Wed 3 Jul 2024. Read the original here.
Britain’s next Prime Minister has shown us who he Is, and It’s not good
Loading article text…
Starmer is what he has always been . He is a man with little empathy . A strong authoritarian tendency . He has always been intersted in Power not values or indeed real change. He was never going to rock the boat was he that is why he has the keys to Downing street. After the choas of Tories the establishment wanted anothersafe pair of hands. That is what they have got. It is time those that voted for him woke up to what this man is up to.
Two thirds of the electorate did not vote for this dangerous hypocrite Starmer.
The election was won with a much smaller share of the popular vote than achieved by Corbyn in 2017– 40% for Corbyn, 35% for Starmer. half the new cabinet are LFI members and a further 5 are supporters of the settler-colonial regime accused of war-crimes.
Two-thirds of the electorate which voted didn’t vote for him; about 80% of the total electorate didn’t vote for him.
In my personal observation, over many years, though skipping detail, and focussing on his career as an MP, Keir Starmer is a very unsavoury person. Keir Starmer is observably without normal principles. Being out for himself is indeed Keir Starmer’s guiding principle. I dispute some of the arguments made in this article that Starmer made wrong decisions whilst at the CPS but I all the more so dispute that Keir Starmer puts our country first. Starmer’s patriotism is, like all else about him, a false front. Starmer is for himself and basically only for himself. Keir Starmer has shown himself to be nasty in his activities within the Labour Party. Keir Starmer is exceptionally hypocritical. Keir Starmer has been a disaster for the Labour Party. I fear that Keir Starmer will go on to be disastrous for our country and for people across the world.
Some readers may want to recall how resistant Starmer was to a prosecution of PC Simon Harwood in relation to the death of news vender Ian Tomlinson. There was actual footage of Harwood striking from him behind with a Baton. Harwood had resigned from a police force 5 years earlier rather than face disciplinary proceedings for road rage against a civilian, then later joined the Met. The Met later sacked him for gross misconduct even after the Tomlinson manslaughter prosecution had failed. So arguable had less regard for him that Starmer who still a year after Tomlinson’s demise was adamantly “‘not altering’ decision over Ian Tomlinson death”. See BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11544777
In seeking to get to the truth about something one looks for patterns. There are two strands to Starmer’s career: adherence to the powerful and gross self interest. Both of these reflect an insidious narcissism. He always takes the side of the “winner”, the powerful, aligns himself with it and acts on its behalf. His time in CPS is evidence for that. He overrides the interest of others for his own interest. In particular, he works against those he perceives as a sort of “threat” to his persona, this can clearly be seen in the case of Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott, where his desire for petty vengeance has seemed obsessive. It should be noted that his party front bench contains no threat to him. No rivalry. Compare this to Clement Attlee. Would Starmer have tolerated “big beasts” like Aneurin Bevin? Really? There seem to be no truths for Starmer, just a preoccupation with himself and his success. He is a hollow man, shabby and worthless, seeking to make up for that hollowness in the wider world.
In addition to Starmer’s unpleasant contribution to future policy, it’s now clear that the Blair/Mandelson backroom team has been busy
deciding policy direction in areas for which Starmer has no past experience. Alan Millburn chosen to ensure that NHS privatisation continues unhindered, and a Tory to ensure that social housing will be privately built. The future looks very grim indeed.
Starmer is a self declared “Zionist “without qualification”. We must assume that he supports (mainly US) Christian Zionist-sponsored ethnic cleansing and Genocide in Palestine.