Read on Twitter
It is fascinating watching the default defence of Starmer being an attack on Corbyn. At no point was Corbyn given a pass because of the disastrous electoral performances of Brown and Miliband, but Starmer supporters seem to expect their leader to be treated differently...
...of course the bottom line is excessive focus on the leader is infantile West Wing-watcher politics but it's the stock in trade of Westminster lobby which is what many of the Starmerites took their lines from.
I did say quite a while back now that I didn't think Starmer would make 2024 and it's increasingly likely I think that he won't. He reminded me so much of what happened in the LDs in late 2000s in terms of how his narrative was developed by the media.
The narrative about the LDs when I was CK's speechwriter has parallels. CK and Corbyn both 'unserious' leaders for different reasons, CK due to his illness (which was torn apart in the media as if it was some sort of game) and Corbyn due to not wearing a sharp suit etc.
Ming Campbell took over in LDs and I briefly worked for him before I went back to working for Charles (was employed by the leader's office so I stayed on when he was interim leader and left when he won the election).
Campbell was also a QC, was described as 'forensic' in press
Campbell was also a QC, was described as 'forensic' in press
Then in office got torn apart as uncharismatic; was argued that the barrister style wasn't suited to leadership. Then betrayed by those who backed him. The press pushed Clegg; he had only been in Parliament five minutes but was clearly the heir apparent, so the media felt.
Starmer had bits of both Campbell and Clegg; the 'forensic' stuff of the former, establishment credentials, the lack of experience of the latter but looked ok in a suit etc. Irony was Campbell was pretty clear that he was on the Grimondite centre left so knew his own politics
(Even if you can argue about whether Jo Grimond was ever really on the centre left)
TL;DR press built Campbell up with briefing from LD anti-Kennedy faction and then Clegg, for some of the same reasons that Starmer received backing.
But the bottom line is quite simple. Much was made of CK's illness, but the truth was he was too 'left'. He was no Jeremy Corbyn and though they agreed over Iraq and both spoke at the rally, they disagreed over many things.
But still, he was too 'left' in some nebulous way.
But still, he was too 'left' in some nebulous way.
So in the (lack of) personality politics of today, Starmer's what you get. And then it doesn't work, and then the cycle begins again.
