Observer readers are doubtless, as your editorial states, "relying on Starmer to get Labour" into government, so isn`t it rather early to be getting the knives out (Competence and clarity are key, but Starmer needs a persuasive vision, 05.04.20). Andrew Rawnsley criticises him for "keeping it vague" during the campaign, yet a paragraph later, acknowledges that Starmer did issue "10 pledges" (Keir Starmer won the party handsomely. Now he must start convincing the nation, 05.04.20).. Perhaps the real problem is not that they lacked detail, but that they contained "a lot of Corbynite policy"?
Corbyn attracted much criticism from the media, including the Guardian and Observer, because his left-wing policies were seen to be too divisive. His replacement`s attempts to placate both sides of the party at least deserve a fair hearing! Corbyn`s critics stressed how his appearance affected his "electability", yet when his successor does "meet the conventional expectations of what a potential prime minister ought to look like" , this is deemed insufficient!
Rawnsley singles out "the optimists in Camp Starmer" for special mention, but at this time of crisis, that description should apply to us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment