PMQs just exposed Starmer’s complete lack of principles
It’s fair enough if you’ve given up watching Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) recently. Because the previous few weeks have been dire to say the least. But a question from Keir Starmer to Boris Johnson over the 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants cast a light on another big story. And it shows the Labour leader is devoid of principles.
PMQs: Starmer rebelling?
As BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg tweeted, Starmer might be about to ‘rebel’ against Johnson:
Getting tricky for govt – fair number of Tory MPs might vote against the 10pm curfew next week – Labour supported it initially but by asking for the evidence to back it, Starmer paving the way for party to change position next week – if they do so changes the numbers a lot https://t.co/5J1uKifhjX
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) October 7, 2020
Read on...
Support us and go ad-freeShe was not the only one who spotted it:
Johnson put Starmer in awkward position over Lab not voting for the Rule of 6 despite Lab leader saying he supports it
But vote 10pm curfew shaping up to be battle next wk. Starmer asking for scientific basis for the rule. If Lab withdraw support, govt could face defeat #PMQs
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) October 7, 2020
As we said last week, Boris Johnson may have negotiated a compromise over the renewal of coronavirus powers but the rebellion hasn’t gone away.
With Labour preparing the way to vote against the 10pm rule next week, the PM is heading for another showdown with his own side in days
— Sam Coates Sky (@SamCoatesSky) October 7, 2020
So, it seems Starmer could tell his MPs to vote against the 10pm rule. But this is particularly damning given the bills he’s asked MPs to abstain on. What a shame he couldn’t do the same over, say – the potential torture and murder of people by UK government actors?
A ‘covert’ bill
The covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) bill has hit the news this week. LabourList said it:
aims to give legal protection for a previously secret power – ‘the third direction’ – allowing MI5, police forces and other specified public bodies to authorise agents and informants to commit criminal offences.
Amnesty UK has warned that ‘this bill could end up providing informers and agents with a licence to kill’ and stressed that it ‘does not explicitly prohibit MI5 and other agencies from authorising crimes like torture and killing’.
Essentially, as the Guardian reported, the:
bill confirm[s] MI5’s right to let informants commit crimes in pursuit of intelligence material.
Or, as the Morning Star summed up:
Even the equivalent legislation in the United States rules out torture and murder, yet nothing is ruled out in this Bill. We are assured only that law-breaking will be limited to specific, internally approved cases.
Abstaining: the centrist way
On Monday 5 October, there was a vote on the bill in parliament. Starmer, though, had told his MP’s to abstain. But 20 MPs, including Jeremy Corbyn, voted against the bill. And Starmer’s decision caused outrage:
We are disgusted that Keir Starmer a human rights lawyer whipped Labour to abstain against the #CHISBill, abstaining is appeasing this regime.
If Labour had voted against the bill would not have passed.
Thank you to those who voted against this heinous bill.🍥
— TRUST🍥 (@ReclaimTRUST) October 5, 2020
Hugely disappointed with how Keir Starmer is failing to shape up. Inexcusable to whip to abstain on morally abhorrent bills. We all know what happens when the good do nothing
— Mag Worden (@mag_worden) October 6, 2020
But Labour abstaining on massive issues is nothing new. Starmer previously sacked Nadia Whittome from the front bench for not abstaining (and voting against) another bill. Centrist leaders have a track record of forcing MPs to abstain. Not least during repeated votes on welfare issues.
The CHIS bill has still got more stages to pass through. The Canary will be publishing more analysis on the implications of the bill. But Starmer’s whipping on it sums up his leadership entirely: devoid of principle and pandering to right-wing rhetoric.
Featured image via BBC iPlayer – screengrab
Support us and go ad-freeWe know everyone is suffering under the Tories - but the Canary is a vital weapon in our fight back, and we need your support
The Canary Workers’ Co-op knows life is hard. The Tories are waging a class war against us we’re all having to fight. But like trade unions and community organising, truly independent working-class media is a vital weapon in our armoury.
The Canary doesn’t have the budget of the corporate media. In fact, our income is over 1,000 times less than the Guardian’s. What we do have is a radical agenda that disrupts power and amplifies marginalised communities. But we can only do this with our readers’ support.
So please, help us continue to spread messages of resistance and hope. Even the smallest donation would mean the world to us.
-
Show Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to leave a comment.Join the conversationPlease read our comment moderation policy here.
Labour should make Starmer centre forward on their football team.
He shifts position so often he would be a nightmare for defenders to mark.
Stammer the spammer isn’t fit to wear a red tie this man is just a Tory in the labour party untill the day these creatures are given the boot
Sanctimonious Corbyn worshiper. Steve Topple seems to hate Starmer more than the Conservatives. Get over yourself.
The only reason I would now vote Labour is if I lived in Islington or Hackney (And a few other places with decent non-centrist candidates). There is no way in hell I can square voting for Starmer with my conscience.
McDonnell and Corbyn should not have quit.
But they did. :'(
I don’t quite understand this article’s angle, given thecanary.co is (I think) independent and anti-plutocracy.
In a general election, if one was choosing between centre-left Starmer and socialist-left Corbyn it’d be a genuine choice between two politicians with different ideologies but same aim i.e. to make a better country for all the people who live in it.
But an election with either Starmer or Corbyn versus deregulate-and-grift Boris Johnson is not a genuine real-world choice. Boris isn’t aiming to make a better country for all the people who live in it. His focus is on enriching his inner circle, while giving away as little as possible to everyone else.
And this is where I don’t quite understand thecanary.co. By sniping at Starmer, it’s not helping the socialist-left and it undermines the chance of a united opposition necessary to wrest power from the Tories. It plays into the hands of the Boris Johnson cabal. Plutocracy thrives on divide-and-rule.
I guess you could say “every opportunity to state one’s principles unadulterated matters more than winning elections; if the election can only be won by compromising them”. Is that the reasoning? I’d like to understand, if possible.
I think it comes from the wonderful political freedom that we have for not being American. You see, those poor saps only HAVE two choices. “Lesser evilism” ensures they never have to count above two. Stupidity and apathy are rampant.
However, here in the UK, we have more than two parties. There is Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, Greens, SNP, NI Religious Dinosaurs, hell even the Liberal Party.
Why exactly should we all “Line up behind The Dear Leader” – especially when he is neither dear (except in cost to principles), nor leads in the direction we want to go?
You see the problem here?
And now perhaps you understand.