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.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

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.)

Vive le Roy!

That"s a lot of people people! A re you wearing your low waisters today?

My wife spoke to him yesterday as part of a couple of web chats he did in Scotland and was very impressed with him. He answered all the questions put to him, albeit they were previously submitted, and came across as engaging and committed.

Here's a fun fact of the day.

Since WWII three labour leaders have won general elections.

Attlee, Wilson, and Blair.

All 3 were of the moderate left.

All 3 studied at Oxford at some point with Attlee and Blair studying law going on to become barristers.

Starmer is Moderate left and a former barrister who also studied at Oxford.

Jeremy Corbyn dropped out of the North London Polytechnic as he didn't agree with the sylibus.

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.

rubbish: Cameron was more bought and paid for than Starmer - this is bordering on paranoia, he's just smarter than you'd like him to be and Bojo is more stupid than you'd like him to be - get over it. Starmer may have calculated Corbyn as a no hoper and was waiting his moment, but this isn't back satbbing ambition, he knows he's competent and electable and Corbyn was neither. So the liberal elite have manufactured a scenario where Bojo gets called out for being cr*p? Do me a favour - how much would Rudi pay for that piece of polemic I'd like to know!

not rubbish: your analysis of labour's two wings was spot on - the ones who don't fit into that dichotomy tend to be the good 'uns, like the late John Smith, maybe Lisa Nandy or Andy Burnham would be examples now.

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'?

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Not until they fly a red flag over Downing street and open it up to house the homeless

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

don't you mean Buckingham Palace?

Perhaps it is paranoia but the more I research (and yes I am that sad) the run up to Labour changing their policy on a second referendum the more it stinks. Beyond stinking in fact. Almost beyond comprehension. Utter insanity on their part. Guaranteeing that they lose in one simple policy swap and they knew it. Their own polling experts told them that they simply could not win the seats in England they needed to if they adopted it as a policy. Ian Lavery (ex Labour Chairman) said as much.

And Starmer is always there, always pushing for the change. Speaking at the conference. Going against what had already been agreed as a joint position. Now he would have had access to the polling data and would have been more than aware that a second referendum position would condemn Labour to defeat. Yet still pushes and pushes for this change. Why? Only two options. Extreme stupidity or treachery. No other options offer themselves.

As to Johnson, I don't like the man. I believe him to be as venal and opportunistic as people on the left claim him to be. But this notion that somehow Starmer is this breath of fresh air in the British political scene is beyond laughable. He is as shallow as f***. And is being manipulated from far beyond the Labour Party.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.