Some thoughts on @keirstarmermp for Labour leader. (thread)
First things first, the basic premise of this thread is that Labour have had a serious problem with antisemitism which has over time become more serious and probably institutional. If you don’t agree you won’t want to go further.
Labour’s anti-Jewish racism problem has been a real stain on this once-great party. It has persisted because of a culture of denial and an egregious failure by the leadership to take the difficult steps necessary to address it.
To my mind, this is particularly true of the three human rights lawyers in the shadow cabinet who should have known better: Shami Chakrabarti (who bears special responsibility), Emily Thornberry and yes Keir Starmer.
Now there are some qualifications in relation to Keir. This is I think the best case for his defence. First, Brexit was a matter of such importance it was necessary to stay and try and be the adult in the room.
Second, and I have some sympathy with this, Keir will have undoubtedly seen the writing on the wall in terms of the hard left takeover of the party. Crucially, nobody seen as standing up to Corbyn had a chance of being elected as next leader.
And the reality was, and is, that for Labour to be ‘saved’, become a mainstream party not controlled by conspiratorial cultists, the only hope was a centre left MP who kept enough distance from anti-Corbynism to become the next leader
That I think is probably Keir’s thinking. . I’m quite sympathetic to it, as it reflects my analysis of the state the party is in. It’s hardly heroic, but perhaps realistic
And it’s not as if Keir did nothing in antisemitism - he said occasional things, strong things, more so than Chakrabarti. Not as much as others, or enough. Compare how anti-hard Brexit Tories such as David Gauke behaved.
I like Keir and think he is the strongest candidate. He is the candidate I would be really enthusiastic about if he came from the back benches. I will probably vote for him. But it is with the reservation expressed above
One thing the election showed was that there is no realistic prospect of a third party emerging to rival Labour, so it is necessary for Labour to be revived as a progressive force. I think wily Keir has as good a chance as any to do this.
But if he is elected, and once the membership-wooing can end, he needs to roll his sleeves up, put his wellies on and show he can clean Labour of antisemitism.
One early test will be the EHRC report. He will potentially faced with the uncomfortable task of apologising for his own inaction and implementing recommendations. Perhaps that’s not a bad thing. But for me this is where he will have to prove his mettle.
So to conclude: I think Keir is the best candidate, but as tempting as it is to see him as coming on a white steed to save Labour it would be foolish to ignore the mountain he has to climb, both institutionally and personally.
You probably won’t see these reservations expressed by other human rights advocates or progressive lawyers generally who will be full steam for Keir. And for the purposes of this election maybe that’s good politics. But I can’t do it myself, for the reasons above.
I should emphasise (in this rather meandering way) that I think Kier brings a huge amount, both personally and professionally. I can’t see myself voting for anyone else. But that is partly pragmatic as I don’t see anyone else who can square the circle needed to safe the party
Seem to have messed up this thread - sorry. Before ‘and this is particularly true’ insert the following two tweets!
Personally, I think the major blame lies at Corbyn’s door and the coterie of advisors and hard left fellow travellers he surrounded himself with.
However. Anyone who stayed in the shadow cabinet is also implicated. They had a choice to resign as many did, or publicly sound the alarm about the leadership, but did not.
Sorry, no idea how I did that
