Scan barcode
pala_untamed's review
4.0
For the most part extremely interesting & good analysis. I particularly like the claim that Starmer is not merely a vacuous career politician but actually does have some politics, albeit ones that ought to terrify us: statist, socially conservative, and nigh-on authoritarian. Starmer's recent political shenanigans totally vindicate this.
This book does get a bit bogged down in trying to utterly vindicate Corbyn and blame his downfall on Starmer (certainly some truth in this, but hardly the whole truth). It also constructs a problematic hero of Corbyn meaning that it completely fails to engage with the genuine, if potentially overstated, problem of antisemitism in the labour party. At times, this reads like an old timey socialist manifesto in a way that doesn't feel very modern. Perhaps more importantly, it seems to switch focus from Starmer to Corbyn for too long in a book about Starmer - it's more of an obsession with vanquishing Corbyn's replacement.
Some other takeaways about his character: Starmer rarely sticks his neck out, speaks more of process than policy/ideology, and lives up to his boring status.
Particularly insightful is Starmer's deep ties to corporate interests, coercive state forces (police, MI5, armed forces) and Atlanticism and his subsequent utter disavowal of human rights. His record as CPP is frankly terrifying, completely failing to defend women, attacking women for making 'false rape cases', failing to deal with the spycops episode, failing to prosecute after the phone hacking scandal, and using his position to launch his political career. He has certainly been corrupted by power.
I would recommend to anyone who wants to know more about the apparent 'saviour' of Labour (not...) who seems tipped to be the next PM. Makes me hope for a hung parliament.
This book does get a bit bogged down in trying to utterly vindicate Corbyn and blame his downfall on Starmer (certainly some truth in this, but hardly the whole truth). It also constructs a problematic hero of Corbyn meaning that it completely fails to engage with the genuine, if potentially overstated, problem of antisemitism in the labour party. At times, this reads like an old timey socialist manifesto in a way that doesn't feel very modern. Perhaps more importantly, it seems to switch focus from Starmer to Corbyn for too long in a book about Starmer - it's more of an obsession with vanquishing Corbyn's replacement.
Some other takeaways about his character: Starmer rarely sticks his neck out, speaks more of process than policy/ideology, and lives up to his boring status.
Particularly insightful is Starmer's deep ties to corporate interests, coercive state forces (police, MI5, armed forces) and Atlanticism and his subsequent utter disavowal of human rights. His record as CPP is frankly terrifying, completely failing to defend women, attacking women for making 'false rape cases', failing to deal with the spycops episode, failing to prosecute after the phone hacking scandal, and using his position to launch his political career. He has certainly been corrupted by power.
I would recommend to anyone who wants to know more about the apparent 'saviour' of Labour (not...) who seems tipped to be the next PM. Makes me hope for a hung parliament.
nscoll's review
4.0
A very readable an believable insight into the thoroughly unlikable Sir Keir Starmer. One that poses some interesting questions for progressive political approaches to the future.
harryedmundson's review
informative
medium-paced
4.0
Ebooked it for commuting at end of last year and finally finished! What a positive future the parliamentary ‘left’ promises 🙃
unisonlibrarian's review
5.0
There are some people out there who would dismiss this book out of hand as it is published by Verso; well known in literary circles as a socialist publisher whose roster of authors generally have no time for the Blairite wing of the Labour party. It should be noted though that the book has received positive reviews from the likes of Simon Jenkins and Peter Oborne; men who identify as one-nation conservatives with Jenkins referring to it as a “balanced” study and indeed the opening pages identify a student and young lawyer heavily involved with progressive politics, writing articles for a publication called Socialist Alternatives which was the house magazine for International Revolutionary Marxist Tendency – not exactly a “moderate” or “centrist” political body. He worked at the human rights charity Liberty which subsequently grew to larger prominence under Shami Chakrabarti. He assisted with the famous McLibel trial, mostly pro-bono and argued their case for legal aid, successfully, in the European Court of Human Rights
A turning point in his personal politics seems to have come after becoming an advisor to the Northern Irish Policing Board (NIPB). During his time there he ignored complaints by the Catholic population of Ireland that the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) was still largely a tool of the British state engaged in oppressing communities based on religious belief. After a march was approved by police which resulted in unionist demonstrators carving their way through a catholic area, clashes unsurprisingly broke out at which point PSNI riot police attacked counter-demonstrators with water cannon and beating people with truncheons – in his report Starmer condoned the one-sided police brutality. When Sinn Fein requested the NIPB ban the use of tasers and plastic bullets against children Starmer threw the request in the bin earning praise from Ian Paisley Jr. who said that Starmer gave the force “legal cover” to do what they wanted.
He was effectively hand-picked by his predecessor Ken MacDonald for the role of Director of Public Prosecutions and it was here that his passion for restructuring and focusing on the minutiae of a bureaucratic machine came to prominence. Colleagues noticed however that he found it difficult to make decisions without them being run by several people and preferably focus groups first – this is an aspect of his personality that hasn’t changed and why he never comments quickly on a changing political scene – not useful in the world of 24 hour news where the narrative moves so quickly and with even the most obvious cases of right and wrong he is incapable of offering commentary. His period as DPP is something he is very proud of but some of the decisions he made and the prosecutions he went ahead with (not to mention those he didn’t) raise some difficult questions that have yet to be answered.
Under his tenure the office of the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) worked closely with the Cameron government on the early formulation of the “hostile environment” policy while at the same time was bankrolled by the American state thanks to the diplomatic assistance and approval regarding the ongoing War On Terror. Starmer was a regular visitor to Eric Holder, Obama’s attorney general who was given assurances that anyone he wanted for extradition to the US to face charges would be handed over no questions asked – this included Christopher Tappin who had sold some batteries online to someone in Iran which contravened a US sanctions regime on the Islamic republic – Tappin was sent packing to America, forced to leave behind a chronically ill wife and spend time in a jail in Pennsylvania. Starmer oversaw the case of Gary McKinnon, an autistic IT expert who had hacked into the remarkably insecure CIA database to look for evidence of UFO encounters – in this high profile case Starmer never wavered in his desire to extradite the man despite several medical professionals stating that McKinnon would likely commit suicide if removed from the country. When cornered by McKinnon’s mother who demanded an explanation and for the DPP to listen to her concern, as a mother, all Starmer could offer in reply was “speaking to you is making me uncomfortable”. It took Theresa May of all people as home secretary to personally refuse the extradition which apparently sent Starmer into a “rage” who booked the next flight to Washington to grovel at the seat of Holder. Even Boris Johnson, mayor of London at the time, stated that “to extradite a man diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome to America for trial would be extraordinarily cruel and inhumane”. Many other people were extradited under the flimsiest of excuses the were rooted in Starmer’s own Americophilia.
When such cases coupled with those of Julian Assange, personally overseen by Starmer and who tried to keep it going despite the lack of interest from the his opposite number in Sweden losing all interest, one can easily conclude that Starmer is an agent of the state (which state is open to question) – which isn’t a conspiratorial position. He is someone who follows the rules to the absolute tip of the point and will not be swayed from it – as long as it protects the state – he has no room for emotional response or moral pivot; he sees the security forces be they police, military or government as incapable of doing wrong because rules are rules. Under his tenure so called terrorists were suffering “extraordinary rendition”; one of those nonsense terms used by government because they don’t have the guts to call what they’re doing by the proper name – kidnap and torture.
The most questionable rulings by Starmer as DPP were probably those that involved British police officers. His predecessor refused to prosecute the police killers of Jean Charles de Menezes who was gunned down on the London Underground network. MacDonald was working on evidence available at the time but by the time Starmer was in post further evidence had become available including CCTV footage which completely contradicted the police narrative. Starmer changed nothing and no charges were ever brought. The famous case of Ian Tomlinson was similar and caused huge controversy at the time – Tomlinson was attacked by PC Simon Harwood during the G20 protests in London (Tomlinson wasn’t even part of the demonstration) and died subsequently. Starmer refused to prosecute the PC on grounds of “inconsistent medical evidence” despite the fact that two separate post-mortems recommended the charge of manslaughter. Jimmy Mubenga was killed by guards hired by the home office in a botched deportation, Starmer recommended no prosecution despite a later inquest ruling informal death. In a historical case brought forward with new evidence against the killers of Blair Peach in 1979 who were police officers, Starmer again concluded the medical reports were insufficient despite clear evidence of the teacher’s head being smashed open by multiple truncheon strikes.
Starmer was entirely comfortable with the actions of what are now known as Spycops – police officers who go deep undercover to infiltrate what they call subversive networks, which in reality are environmental groups and trade unions to name a few. They were and still are sanctioned to engage in deceit on behalf of the state to the point where some officers had sexual relationships resulting in children with left-wing peaceful activists. One case resulted in 114 activists being arrested prior to a planned demonstration at a power station – Starmer’s prosecutors withheld evidence from the defendants which ultimately led to their exoneration. Despite this Starmer refused to review cases which involved illegally gained undercover testimony which could exonerate hundreds, maybe thousands of falsely convicted people. Starmer asked Sir Christopher Rose to look into what happened in the case and appeared later, confidently on the news stating that the report found no systematic failings at the office of the DPP; of course it didn’t because Starmer set the terms of reference for the review which removed the ability to declare failings at his office and refused to countenance a look into the wider aspect of undercover policing. In short it was a whitewash, arranged by Starmer.
Starmer was lobbied during his time as DPP by womens groups on why the number of people charged with rape had fallen under his tenure by 14% despite a three per cent rise in reported cases. Starmer committed to look into it but he shouldn’t have needed to look very far; in 2011 he issued new guidance on rape which gave more power to the police to determine the credibility of victims. He advised that police should not even submit a case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) unless it met his evidential tests. There was a similar drop in prosecutions for domestic violence cases during his time in office which leads the reader to question, does Starmer have a blind spot when it comes to the safety of women? It certainly shows why he saw no hesitation in stating that the response to the murder of Sarah Everard at the hands of a serving Met Police officer should be “more police on the streets”. One area where prosecutions did rise in his term was for those women who apparently falsely accused men of rape, a significant proportion of which were overturned on appeal.
Starmer’s conduct during the and after the demonstrations in London after the murder of Mark Duggan demonstrate neatly why he fails to understand minority communities and ended up referring to Black Lives Matter as a “moment” in time as opposed to the global movement it really is. Over 4000 people were arrested in the aftermath of the civil disobedience. Prior to this he showed his authoritarian instincts while prosecuting peaceful demonstrators at the 2009 G20 in London. Among them were Harvie Brown who had been kettled and assaulted by police resulting in two head injuries and dental trauma for which he was charged with violent disorder carrying a maximum penalty of five years in prison. The same charge was used for people who stole a policeman’s helmet or threw a placard down in an empty street. Alfie Meadows was assaulted by a police officer to the extent that he had to undergo emergency brain surgery – Starmer prosecuted him three times. The DPP also drew up guidance to make it easier to charge and jail peaceful protesters if their actions “caused disruption to people or businesses” – this is the man who as Labour leader now is supposed to be opposing the current Police and Crime Bill which contains exactly the kind of thing he promoted in his previous employment. In response to Duggan demonstrators Starmer brought in 24 hour court sittings and encouraged the most extreme sentencing responses to the most trivial offences. Children as young as 13 were being brought into court at 4am for cross examination. The same children were remanded in custody before sentencing in contravention of the Bail Act 1976. Starmer claimed he had made decisions to increase the speed of sentencing rather than the severity but this simply makes no sense when heard alongside the fact that Starmer ordered cases to be moved from magistrates to courts to crown courts, with the latter usually reserved for more serious offences and carrying weightier prison terms. He also declared that people taking simple items from shops previously broken into by someone else – water for instance or a chocolate bar – should be charged with burglary rather than theft which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. His predecessor Ken MacDonald, by now questioning his original decision to headhunt Keir Starmer called the handling of these cases “a collective loss or proportion” and lacking “humanity or justice”.
One way in which Starmer dissembles is that he attempts to take credit for things that were ultimately forced upon him and turned out to be right such as the phone hacking cases. At the time Starmer was making recommendations to charge so called “benefits cheat” under the Fraud Act (maximum sentence 10 years) he was doing all he could to absolve tabloids of all guilt in relation to phone hacking allegations. Starmer had attended the Times Christmas party and been taken to lunch by Sun editor Rebekah Brooks when he was appointed DPP; later when credible allegations of phone hacking came to light Starmer refused to authorise prosecution of any Murdoch journalist despite the CPS having a litany of evidence – this cannot be put down to an error as he refused to authorise prosecutions on three separate occasions. Starmer’s explanation was that he was told by Met assistant commissioner John Yates that in his judgement there was no case to answer and that he simply took that at face value. Yates was a close friend of News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis and had come to his conclusion after weighing up 11,000 pages of evidence in eight hours. It was only later when public pressure became unbearable that Starmer flipped – as a consequence of his prevarication he was censured by a parliamentary select committee and yet now he consistently claims that he stood up to the Murdoch press and was responsible for prosecuting the wrong-doers; in reality in had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the courts.
I have focused heavily here on the first third of the book. It feels like the most important section as it throws a light on Starmer’s career before becoming a politician, since when his life has been much more well documented. The next chapters are broken down into his early political career, campaigning to become an MP in the safe seat of Holborn and St Pancras and his time in the Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Brexit Minister where is Machiavellian instincts are revealed expertly by Eagleton before the final chapter which details his underhanded campaign to become Labour leader; positioning himself as a continuity candidate in terms of socially progressive policy making but also as someone who could unite the Party. In fact two years down the line the Party is more divided than ever, a Stalinist purge has been carried out on socialists, while black and Asian voters have been turned off by the apparent racism of Starmer and his manoeuvring of Labour. Trade Unions are pulling their funding as Starmer seeks endorsement from the most socially irresponsible businesses in the country and his bureaucracy has unfairly targeted left-wing Jewish people for expulsion from the party more than any other demographic. All of this is explained in great detail and points to Starmer one day being remembered, at best, as an arcane pub quiz answer. His tale is one of what could have been but he is a man singularly incapable for grasping the moment. In response to a global pandemic and the most criminal government in the history of the UK was to support them in many of their policies and abstain in areas where no Labour MP should ever abstain. This book deserves to be read widely, not only to let the light in on who Starmer really is, but to show how our media propagandise their chosen politicians, painting them as somebody honest and sincere when their words and actions tell an entirely different story.
A turning point in his personal politics seems to have come after becoming an advisor to the Northern Irish Policing Board (NIPB). During his time there he ignored complaints by the Catholic population of Ireland that the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) was still largely a tool of the British state engaged in oppressing communities based on religious belief. After a march was approved by police which resulted in unionist demonstrators carving their way through a catholic area, clashes unsurprisingly broke out at which point PSNI riot police attacked counter-demonstrators with water cannon and beating people with truncheons – in his report Starmer condoned the one-sided police brutality. When Sinn Fein requested the NIPB ban the use of tasers and plastic bullets against children Starmer threw the request in the bin earning praise from Ian Paisley Jr. who said that Starmer gave the force “legal cover” to do what they wanted.
He was effectively hand-picked by his predecessor Ken MacDonald for the role of Director of Public Prosecutions and it was here that his passion for restructuring and focusing on the minutiae of a bureaucratic machine came to prominence. Colleagues noticed however that he found it difficult to make decisions without them being run by several people and preferably focus groups first – this is an aspect of his personality that hasn’t changed and why he never comments quickly on a changing political scene – not useful in the world of 24 hour news where the narrative moves so quickly and with even the most obvious cases of right and wrong he is incapable of offering commentary. His period as DPP is something he is very proud of but some of the decisions he made and the prosecutions he went ahead with (not to mention those he didn’t) raise some difficult questions that have yet to be answered.
Under his tenure the office of the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) worked closely with the Cameron government on the early formulation of the “hostile environment” policy while at the same time was bankrolled by the American state thanks to the diplomatic assistance and approval regarding the ongoing War On Terror. Starmer was a regular visitor to Eric Holder, Obama’s attorney general who was given assurances that anyone he wanted for extradition to the US to face charges would be handed over no questions asked – this included Christopher Tappin who had sold some batteries online to someone in Iran which contravened a US sanctions regime on the Islamic republic – Tappin was sent packing to America, forced to leave behind a chronically ill wife and spend time in a jail in Pennsylvania. Starmer oversaw the case of Gary McKinnon, an autistic IT expert who had hacked into the remarkably insecure CIA database to look for evidence of UFO encounters – in this high profile case Starmer never wavered in his desire to extradite the man despite several medical professionals stating that McKinnon would likely commit suicide if removed from the country. When cornered by McKinnon’s mother who demanded an explanation and for the DPP to listen to her concern, as a mother, all Starmer could offer in reply was “speaking to you is making me uncomfortable”. It took Theresa May of all people as home secretary to personally refuse the extradition which apparently sent Starmer into a “rage” who booked the next flight to Washington to grovel at the seat of Holder. Even Boris Johnson, mayor of London at the time, stated that “to extradite a man diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome to America for trial would be extraordinarily cruel and inhumane”. Many other people were extradited under the flimsiest of excuses the were rooted in Starmer’s own Americophilia.
When such cases coupled with those of Julian Assange, personally overseen by Starmer and who tried to keep it going despite the lack of interest from the his opposite number in Sweden losing all interest, one can easily conclude that Starmer is an agent of the state (which state is open to question) – which isn’t a conspiratorial position. He is someone who follows the rules to the absolute tip of the point and will not be swayed from it – as long as it protects the state – he has no room for emotional response or moral pivot; he sees the security forces be they police, military or government as incapable of doing wrong because rules are rules. Under his tenure so called terrorists were suffering “extraordinary rendition”; one of those nonsense terms used by government because they don’t have the guts to call what they’re doing by the proper name – kidnap and torture.
The most questionable rulings by Starmer as DPP were probably those that involved British police officers. His predecessor refused to prosecute the police killers of Jean Charles de Menezes who was gunned down on the London Underground network. MacDonald was working on evidence available at the time but by the time Starmer was in post further evidence had become available including CCTV footage which completely contradicted the police narrative. Starmer changed nothing and no charges were ever brought. The famous case of Ian Tomlinson was similar and caused huge controversy at the time – Tomlinson was attacked by PC Simon Harwood during the G20 protests in London (Tomlinson wasn’t even part of the demonstration) and died subsequently. Starmer refused to prosecute the PC on grounds of “inconsistent medical evidence” despite the fact that two separate post-mortems recommended the charge of manslaughter. Jimmy Mubenga was killed by guards hired by the home office in a botched deportation, Starmer recommended no prosecution despite a later inquest ruling informal death. In a historical case brought forward with new evidence against the killers of Blair Peach in 1979 who were police officers, Starmer again concluded the medical reports were insufficient despite clear evidence of the teacher’s head being smashed open by multiple truncheon strikes.
Starmer was entirely comfortable with the actions of what are now known as Spycops – police officers who go deep undercover to infiltrate what they call subversive networks, which in reality are environmental groups and trade unions to name a few. They were and still are sanctioned to engage in deceit on behalf of the state to the point where some officers had sexual relationships resulting in children with left-wing peaceful activists. One case resulted in 114 activists being arrested prior to a planned demonstration at a power station – Starmer’s prosecutors withheld evidence from the defendants which ultimately led to their exoneration. Despite this Starmer refused to review cases which involved illegally gained undercover testimony which could exonerate hundreds, maybe thousands of falsely convicted people. Starmer asked Sir Christopher Rose to look into what happened in the case and appeared later, confidently on the news stating that the report found no systematic failings at the office of the DPP; of course it didn’t because Starmer set the terms of reference for the review which removed the ability to declare failings at his office and refused to countenance a look into the wider aspect of undercover policing. In short it was a whitewash, arranged by Starmer.
Starmer was lobbied during his time as DPP by womens groups on why the number of people charged with rape had fallen under his tenure by 14% despite a three per cent rise in reported cases. Starmer committed to look into it but he shouldn’t have needed to look very far; in 2011 he issued new guidance on rape which gave more power to the police to determine the credibility of victims. He advised that police should not even submit a case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) unless it met his evidential tests. There was a similar drop in prosecutions for domestic violence cases during his time in office which leads the reader to question, does Starmer have a blind spot when it comes to the safety of women? It certainly shows why he saw no hesitation in stating that the response to the murder of Sarah Everard at the hands of a serving Met Police officer should be “more police on the streets”. One area where prosecutions did rise in his term was for those women who apparently falsely accused men of rape, a significant proportion of which were overturned on appeal.
Starmer’s conduct during the and after the demonstrations in London after the murder of Mark Duggan demonstrate neatly why he fails to understand minority communities and ended up referring to Black Lives Matter as a “moment” in time as opposed to the global movement it really is. Over 4000 people were arrested in the aftermath of the civil disobedience. Prior to this he showed his authoritarian instincts while prosecuting peaceful demonstrators at the 2009 G20 in London. Among them were Harvie Brown who had been kettled and assaulted by police resulting in two head injuries and dental trauma for which he was charged with violent disorder carrying a maximum penalty of five years in prison. The same charge was used for people who stole a policeman’s helmet or threw a placard down in an empty street. Alfie Meadows was assaulted by a police officer to the extent that he had to undergo emergency brain surgery – Starmer prosecuted him three times. The DPP also drew up guidance to make it easier to charge and jail peaceful protesters if their actions “caused disruption to people or businesses” – this is the man who as Labour leader now is supposed to be opposing the current Police and Crime Bill which contains exactly the kind of thing he promoted in his previous employment. In response to Duggan demonstrators Starmer brought in 24 hour court sittings and encouraged the most extreme sentencing responses to the most trivial offences. Children as young as 13 were being brought into court at 4am for cross examination. The same children were remanded in custody before sentencing in contravention of the Bail Act 1976. Starmer claimed he had made decisions to increase the speed of sentencing rather than the severity but this simply makes no sense when heard alongside the fact that Starmer ordered cases to be moved from magistrates to courts to crown courts, with the latter usually reserved for more serious offences and carrying weightier prison terms. He also declared that people taking simple items from shops previously broken into by someone else – water for instance or a chocolate bar – should be charged with burglary rather than theft which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. His predecessor Ken MacDonald, by now questioning his original decision to headhunt Keir Starmer called the handling of these cases “a collective loss or proportion” and lacking “humanity or justice”.
One way in which Starmer dissembles is that he attempts to take credit for things that were ultimately forced upon him and turned out to be right such as the phone hacking cases. At the time Starmer was making recommendations to charge so called “benefits cheat” under the Fraud Act (maximum sentence 10 years) he was doing all he could to absolve tabloids of all guilt in relation to phone hacking allegations. Starmer had attended the Times Christmas party and been taken to lunch by Sun editor Rebekah Brooks when he was appointed DPP; later when credible allegations of phone hacking came to light Starmer refused to authorise prosecution of any Murdoch journalist despite the CPS having a litany of evidence – this cannot be put down to an error as he refused to authorise prosecutions on three separate occasions. Starmer’s explanation was that he was told by Met assistant commissioner John Yates that in his judgement there was no case to answer and that he simply took that at face value. Yates was a close friend of News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis and had come to his conclusion after weighing up 11,000 pages of evidence in eight hours. It was only later when public pressure became unbearable that Starmer flipped – as a consequence of his prevarication he was censured by a parliamentary select committee and yet now he consistently claims that he stood up to the Murdoch press and was responsible for prosecuting the wrong-doers; in reality in had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the courts.
I have focused heavily here on the first third of the book. It feels like the most important section as it throws a light on Starmer’s career before becoming a politician, since when his life has been much more well documented. The next chapters are broken down into his early political career, campaigning to become an MP in the safe seat of Holborn and St Pancras and his time in the Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Brexit Minister where is Machiavellian instincts are revealed expertly by Eagleton before the final chapter which details his underhanded campaign to become Labour leader; positioning himself as a continuity candidate in terms of socially progressive policy making but also as someone who could unite the Party. In fact two years down the line the Party is more divided than ever, a Stalinist purge has been carried out on socialists, while black and Asian voters have been turned off by the apparent racism of Starmer and his manoeuvring of Labour. Trade Unions are pulling their funding as Starmer seeks endorsement from the most socially irresponsible businesses in the country and his bureaucracy has unfairly targeted left-wing Jewish people for expulsion from the party more than any other demographic. All of this is explained in great detail and points to Starmer one day being remembered, at best, as an arcane pub quiz answer. His tale is one of what could have been but he is a man singularly incapable for grasping the moment. In response to a global pandemic and the most criminal government in the history of the UK was to support them in many of their policies and abstain in areas where no Labour MP should ever abstain. This book deserves to be read widely, not only to let the light in on who Starmer really is, but to show how our media propagandise their chosen politicians, painting them as somebody honest and sincere when their words and actions tell an entirely different story.
More...