If Johnson didn't want the slur out there he could have drawn a line under it and apologised. Instead, we got a mealy-mouthed half apology in which he accepted Starmer was not the presiding lawyer over the case back in 2009, but was nevertheless responsible because he had been in position as CPS head for a year at that point. A factually accurate statement, yes, but one repeated to keep the smear alive. Was it worth it, now it proved too much even for Johnson's most loyal lackey to stomach? Johnson's still in position as of the time of writing, so for buying him a few extra days, yes.
The problem Johnson has is tonight's mobbing of Starmer is going to make more Tory MPs quesy as they hover on the brink of submitting a confidence letter. It's one thing for Johnson to say burqa-wearing Muslim women look like letter boxes and turn a blind eye as the resultant wave of Islamophobia rises up to harass and traduce the victims of the Prime Minister's pen, but quite another for an upstanding pillar of the British establishment to suffer the same fate. To underline the seriousness of the situation, cringingly loyal Lindsay Hoyle rebuked Johnson for his comments. And so, taken together it's quite likely Johnson's indulgence of a fashy talking point has probably made his position even weaker. Political bridges have been burnt while he's supposed to be mending them.
Is Johnson going to row back from this? I very much doubt it. His condemnation of the "protest" betrays not a scintilla of responsibility. This isn't just because of Johnson's entirely contrived chaos agent affectation, but it's embedded deeply in Tory statecraft. The concentration and exercise of authority in the person of the Prime Minister has characterised all governments for over 40 years, including Johnson's. Their semi-presidential style backed by untrammelled power, for as long as their parliamentary majority allows it, has led to a very rigid strategy. The legitimacy of institutions of state has become smothered by that conferred on (or claimed by) the PM, which encourages no turning back/I know best/never surrender behaviour. Tory PMs are usually fortunate in that their press won't highlight the multiple compromises any administration has to make, but on the big issues they like to dig their heels in. Compromise and climbdown hurts their authority, and as this is the most precious resource a Prime Minister possesses they jealously guard it to the point of absurdity.
We're at that point with Johnson now. Having set his face against so many issues these last two years - free school dinners, rescinding the National Insurance rise, and shielding the Met from criticism and accountability - the stock response is a shake of the head and a Churchillian evocation of beaches and landing grounds. When there is a climbdown, it's passed over quickly and with very little comment from his press allies. But since PartyGate broke, following his cack-handed defence of Owen Paterson on respect-my-authority grounds, Johnson has offered half- and non- apologies while telling Tory MPs, civil servants, donors, and favourite journalists that he thinks he's done nothing wrong. And in so doing, by sticking rigidly to the authoritarian play book inherited from his predecessors, he's making his position look increasingly untenable. There's a political rationality there, but as Max Weber might have observed, pursuing it instrumentally without other considerations can lead to irrational outcomes.
Johnson has survived up until now thanks to the question of timing. There are wiser heads in the Tory party than he. But there's only so much damage his party are willing to take for their leader, only so many MPs willing to risk their re-election for one man's overweening vanity and sense of entitlement. It could be that a ragtag mob shouting rude things and jostling Keir Starmer is the tipping point to finally bring this drama to a close.
Image Credit
20 comments:
So, your hope is that the Tory Party will remove its Prime Minister because some of his supporters attacked the leader of the Labour Party.
I agree that the attack on Starmer is silly (though not wholly without foundation -- he was at the time the final authority on prosecutions, after all) but this is precisely the kind of attack which gets the Tories traction.
A long time ago salesmen for the computer firm IBM used to win sales using the “FUD” tactic. Nobody got sacked for buying IBM machines so all they had to do was to create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about any competing products. It didn’t matter if the alternative computer was obviously superior to IBM’s, as long as you could introduce some worry into the decision the buyer wouldn’t risk it.
The FUD tactics work on politics as well. Most people don’t take too much attention to the details of any claim about a politician. Most people don’t remember the retraction, only the original claim. What remains is the vague idea behind the claim – “no smoke without fire”.
You only have to look at the effects of the claims against Corbyn. Most people have a vague belief that he is an antisemite despite all the specific claims been proved to be untrue. So if it worked for the Labour right against the left why wont in work for the Tories against the Labour right.
After Johnson has been deposed by his party the vague belief that Starmer is “soft on crime” will remain. The Tories will continue to trawl through DPP decisions to link Starmer with cases that can be used to prop up this belief. It won’t matter when it is later shown that Starmer did not to have any direct responsibility with the case. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt that Starmer can not be trusted on crime will remain.
“Labour is soft on crime” has always been a key part of Tory propaganda..
The attack on Starmer was not "silly" Anonymous: though small it was thoroughly nasty and physically threatening, organised by the far right. Very worrying that some on the supposed "left" (you included?) are so blinded by hatred of Starmer that they seem to have some sympathy with these fascists.
I agree the attack is out of order, though given the economic realities, it would be naive to imagine that capitalism can or indeed should proceed peacefully and be totally santised.
This is the dream of woke hysterics, have a capitalist free market system that rewards 'effort' and 'success' and punishes 'laziness' and 'failure', all the while having no social issues whatsoever, or at least severely repressing anyone who exhibits behaviour not becoming to ultra woke conservatism.
And this is where woke perfectly parrots the far right. You only have to look at the woke overreaction to the Raith Rovers controversy to see woke hysterics weaponising sexual mores.
The difference between the far right and woke hysterics is that woke hysterics seem to have much much more success, and this is the reason why woke hysteria is even more pernicious than the far right.
Having said all that, I do wish the authorities would deal with these covid skeptics in a far harsher way than they are doing. It appears that the only people who have been locked up for protesting are those heroes of extinction rebellion, you know those who are protesting against climate destruction!
Yet people protesting against vital public health measures seem to be being treated with kid gloves.
It is like Cop26 never happened, or was some sort of a publicity stunt aimed at god knows what!
It is unthinkable that Starmer was not consulted on the decision to shelve the Savile case – what do they expect us to believe his role was, as head of the office, ordering the paperclips?
Despite the fact that he will turn 60 this year, Keir Starmer is facing for the first time in his life adversaries who were allowed to fight back. Everything that was shouted at him yesterday was factually correct. Starmer has failed to oppose the Government. He is an enemy of the working class. He has persecuted journalists in general and Julian Assange in particular, although he would be in far more serious trouble if the victims of Operation Elveden ever decided to come after him. I have no idea why they have not already done so.
And either Starmer took the decision not to prosecute Jimmy Savile, or at least when he had it then Director of Public Prosecutions was a purely ceremonial non-job that it was surprising that he could even be bothered to put on his CV. Starmer's "experience" as DPP is held up by his supporters as his qualification to be Prime Minister. Yet now they insist that it was a titular headship such as might have been given on an unpaid basis to a minor member of the Royal Family. Or, in his heyday, to Jimmy Savile.
Whether you see that as "unthinkable" or not, Anon, the actual facts suggest that was indeed the case.
He later took responsibility for, and apologised for, that outcome.
Sorry to make a personal comment, but when one is attacked by Jim Denham, one knows one has made a valid left-wing point.
The press goons seem to have overlooked the Assange reference that Johnson made at the same time. Strange.
I'm sure Starmer didn't have anything to do with any of that. Too busy organising office away days I'd wager.
I see the Red-Brown brigade is now breaking cover.
I consulted an old comrade, a lawyer, who worked in days gone by, in fairly junior role, for the coercive state agency Starmer so recently headed up, before Starmer's time it has to be admitted. He confirmed that EVERY ' high profile' case always went to the boss, the DPP , for a final sign off , before a prosecution could happen. It is totally implausible that Starmer, as DPP, did not have both a close ongoing progress watch and a final decision in the case of Saville, a serial lifelong pervert who had cunningly burrowed himself into the top layers of the UK establishment - being very pally with the likes of Thatcher and Price Charles, and so many other of the 'Great and the Good', and therefore untouchable by the police despite being caught many times in compromising situations with minors.
The role of DPP is profoundly political , and always has been. That a Deep State creature (and the only current MP to be an invited member of the globalist neoliberal Trilateral Commission), like Starmer could progress in five years on entering Parliamentary politics , to being Leader of the Labour Party , shows quite clearly that today the UK is no longer just a deeply flawed Bourgeois Democracy (the non-elected , party donators, and crony-filled, Second Chamber of our legislature, the House of Lords, has always put in doubt our claimed 'Democratic' credentials), But instead today the UK is actually what is called a 'facade democracy', like in Myanmar/Burma before the current coup, where the trappings of democracy are merely a stage set to fool the gullible that the superrich oligarchs don't really entirely run the show. One doesn't have to be a Alt Right anti vaxxer conspiraloon, just a socialist , to see clearly that Starmer is the one of the lead players in that stage act - ready at a moment's notice to replace the now collapsing Tory party with Nulabour2 , the traditional 'Reserve Party of UK Capitalism', now that the brief 2015 -2019 flirtation with mildly Left transformational politics under Corbyn has been utterly destroyed, mainly from within, by its own staff and corrupt rabble of Labour MPs.
Has anyone asked Boris Johnson why Saville wasn't prosecuted AT ANY POINT between 1963 and his death in 2011? Or about his connections to the Tory Party/government (particularly Thatcher), the monarchy (particularly Prince Charles), the police, etc?
Whatever the truth regarding Starmer, the implications of Saville's ability to commit these crimes with impunity (indeed while being honoured, rewarded, and enabled) are systemic. It seems a strange thread for a Tory Prime Minister to be pulling at. If the opposition and mainstream media aren't both entirely useless to the public, then he should be made to regret it.
Shia Masot
Johnson didn't mention Assange by name, so what makes you (and other left wing Starmer critics) so sure he was referring to him - and not his mates who were implicated in phone hacking?
@anon
Jonathan Cook is v good on the Assange angle:
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2022-02-07/boris-johnson-smears-starmer-corbyn/
Stating "very worrying that some on the supposed "left" (you included?) are so blinded by hatred of Starmer that they seem to have some sympathy with these fascists" as Jim Denham did, doesn't get away from the fact that Sir Keir might have been complicit in not prosecuting Saville, and wanting to discuss that and being critical of Sir Keir based on that doesn't equal being right wing - its like how Bush used to treat anyone critical of the 'war on terror' as being on the side of terrorists.
Having said that, its thoughtless of Boris using it for political points (clearly hes not thinking of survivors here), as well as massively hypocritical of him given Savilles links with Thatcher.
Anonymous, the always over-excitable Jim Denham, of the supposedly Trotskyist AWL, ( nowadays an entirely middle class careerist mainstay of the nowadays utterly supine Momentum group, and promoter of the ludicrous idea that Starmer is somehow 'of the Left') , thinks anyone who opposed the entirely neoliberal capitalism enforcement machine of the EU , even from a principled Marxist, or Bennite, Left position, is nevertheless automatically a signed up member of a mythical 'Red/Brown Front' , (ie they are knuckle-dragging neo Fascists), a fantasy that he and a handful of uncritical Starmerite Lefties , particularly on the niche 'Tendance Coatesy' site, constantly promote - to endless bemusement , and amusement, from serious radical socialists, who haven't forgotten their socialist ABC.
Jim Denham, and his daft middle class , actually merely Left Liberal, not socialist, ilk (despite their 'Revolutionary Trotskyist' pretensions) will keep on totally uncritically, without any analysis, defending Starmer, until there isn't a serious socialist left in the Labour Party , membership has fallen back to its Blair nadir of circa 200,000, and the Party is financially, as well as politically, bankrupt. Tragic.
«until there isn't a serious socialist left in the Labour Party , membership has fallen back to its Blair nadir of circa 200,000, and the Party is financially, as well as politically, bankrupt»
These are massive achievements for Starmer and his supporters: they must be well chuffed that in less than two years they have got rid of so many entrysts from the Labour Party, who had been attempting to take over their party.
"Anonymous, the always over-excitable Jim Denham, of the supposedly Trotskyist AWL, ( nowadays an entirely middle class careerist mainstay of the nowadays utterly supine Momentum group, and promoter of the ludicrous idea that Starmer is somehow 'of the Left') , thinks anyone who opposed the entirely neoliberal capitalism enforcement machine of the EU , even from a principled Marxist, or Bennite, Left position, is nevertheless automatically a signed up member of a mythical 'Red/Brown Front' , (ie they are knuckle-dragging neo Fascists), a fantasy that he and a handful of uncritical Starmerite Lefties , particularly on the niche 'Tendance Coatesy' site, constantly promote - to endless bemusement , and amusement, from serious radical socialists, who haven't forgotten their socialist ABC."
The AWL, I've heard of them. Aren't they also apologists for imperialism ? Im sure even maverick George Galloway has criticized them.
As for the financial situation of the labour party, theres been talk about Unite pulling funding, and the possibility of more unions following (the Bakers Union have already done it).
Anonymous (and no wonder you use that monika): there's a saying that applies to you very well: You're not even wrong.
I note that "Anonymous"'s comments originate from "Old Trot". I tend to have more respect for people who don't hide behind pseudonyms, but ... Hiya Arthur - the Sect Of One !
Post a Comment