Starmer ‘ignored’ calls to investigate MP accused of bullying
Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of ignoring repeated calls to investigate a Labour MP accused of bullying and harassment.
When he was still leader of the opposition, Sir Keir was warned in writing that Dan Norris had been accused of bullying and harassment in June last year. Mr Norris would go on to win Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg’s seat at the general election.
We could shorten that headline and make it into a much more general way of banging out media stories, because Starmer is good at ignoring. The basic headline would be -
Then add whatever he has been ignoring lately. Almost anything topical will do, from the incompetence of Rachel from Accounts to Ed Miliband's deficiencies to the activities of the social media police.
Starmer ‘ignored’ calls to investigate
7 comments:
That seems to be one of Starmer's main issues - the way he locks on to a particular issue and blanks out all other considerations. Regarding Norris, if he was of help in purging the Corbynites, Starmer would have turned a blind eye to any nastiness.
There is a positive aspect to this, in that Starmer's blind spots include how others see him. He's not deterred from unpopular policies and actions, because he can't see how they come across to others. Hopefully that will eventually lead to his downfall.
And people wonder how wrong'uns like Jimmy Saville, Jeffery Epstein, and grooming gangs glide under the radar for so long. The radar is deliberately set to ignore uncomfortable details.
I wonder if some brave soul could build a list of all the 'scandals'? Difficult to work within the limits of the law perhaps, unless restricted to eventually prosecuted instances.
And therein lies the whole issue, AKH ... it's no way to run a country ... in fact it's most concerning, almost fraud.
I wish I could ignore Starmer.
Sam - Starmer seems to have the blind spot issue to an extreme degree. Would he become aware of his own downfall? Eventually perhaps, when nobody opens the door of No.10.
DJ - ignoring scandals seems to be the default reaction, depending on the prominence of those concerned. It's always been that way, so maybe what we are seeing is greater transparency. Not dramatically greater, but significant.
James - I agree, it's no way to run a country.
Tammly - he's useful for blogging though.
@AKH
But I'd argue that the greater transparency arises from reduced control of 'the news' and its escape into the Interweb Wilds. Not some principled reaction by 'our betters'.
DJ - I agree, the transparency isn't theirs, they are going to great lengths to stifle it.
Post a Comment