Do you think performing well in public appearances equates to good performance?

I think the two are increasingly conflated, rightly or wrongly. Example being the Chief Medical Offer who would seem to be a good fit for the job, considering he’s a virologist. But he was mugged off for having a crap haircut and terrible presentation skills.

(He does need a better haircut, to be fair.)

In the midst of all the drama, one decision made by Starmer last week is, I think, incredibly significant.

He came out and renounced Labour's previous position on Kashmir, which was to condemn the Indian government's actions there.

Now it is clear he did so to appease Indian Labour voters, many of whom didn't vote for Corbyn specifically because of this reason.

This may seem incredibly trivial, but actually, it is a clear indication of his political instincts, and even as a sceptic of his, it surprised me.

Kashmir is one of the largest human rights issues in the world. People have been arrested without trial, communication has been blacked out, and the Indian military have been shown to be committing numerous atrocities throughout the region.

Now you could argue that it isn't Labour's position to take a stand on these things and winning power is more important than far off conflicts. But remember, Starmer was a human rights lawyer. He, more than most, will know what is happening in Kashmir, and his decision to ignore it must have been done in spite of his knowledge.

It raises the question: if the human rights lawyer is willing to overlook human rights abuses, what does he actually stand for? Until that is answered, no number of breezy dispatches of Johnson at PMQs is likely to win poeple over.

excellent point in the main, Starmer is Blair mark 2, but I think that pragmatism is likely to appeal rather than deter, Johnson has charisma Starmer has gravitas, his picking on the peak in testing on the last day of the month is an example of his spot on strategy, why can't it be that way every day? you can accuse him of playing politics, and maybe he is, but that's irrelevant, it was a point that needed to be made so he made it and got maximum political capital out of it and was immune to the charge of disloyalty - Johnson must go into depression at the sight of Starmer, that's forgetting that Johnson isn't fully human of course.

Really they represent the two seperate sides of the Labour party. The moderates, who work for social justice within the current social economic system. And the extremist, who just bitch and moan about life being unfair and craving a failed system of tryanny, corruption, and repression.

Or the one side who are cosily part of the Establishment and continue to allow the usual types to get richer at the expense of everybody else.

On somebody who truly wanted to shake up Britain so that everybody else got a fair deal.

Look, I would never vote for Corbyn if my life depended on it but something pretty f***ed up is going on. Never bought much into this Deep State nonsense but something is nagging away at me now.

Maybe it is the lockdown getting to me but I am increasingly uncomfortable with what is going on at the moment.

Starmer engineered a situation in which Corbyn was guaranteed to lose the General Election. No ifs or buts. And now gets presented by the likes of the BBC as this sensible hand on the tiller.

Something stinks in British politics at the moment, it really does. Starmer is bought and paid for.

Policies which Corbyn's Labour first proposed:

Green New deal

Renationalise utilities and rail

Free high speed broadband

National Education Service

Rent controls

Increase corporation tax

Now staggeringly, 2 of these are already in place, and it seems highly likely that a couple more are not far off. And remember, we now know that had Party HQ not intervened, we almost certainly would've seen a Labour minority government in 2017.

So which of those policy proposals do you consider 'craving a failed system', and other than those policies, what will Starker offer that is more in line with trying to achieve 'social justice'?