I posted my worries about a Starmer dictatorship yesterday based on the early reports on radio bulletins and the occasional Facebook message. Journalists are trained to personalise their reports so it was understandable that the reaction of the newspapers online was to ascribe the suspension to Starmer alone. Since then, Labour party sources were at pains on Radio 4's PM programme and on Channel 4 News to stress that the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from membership was not ordered by the new leader but by a disciplinary panel. One has to wonder about the quick turn-round time - was the panel selected, primed and ready to respond to a reaction to the ECHR report on the very day of publication? - but must take the party's word for it.
However, even after the Labour briefings to the contrary during the afternoon, BBC TV News was in no doubt that the initiative was Starmer's. Why the difference? I can only surmise. The radio reporting was led by Chris Mason of the BBC's political staff and someone who is said to be close to the Labour party. The corporation's political editor, Laura Kuenssberg was clearly in charge of the TV reportage and may have had a different take on events or access to sources at a higher level.
A further thought: who is next for the chop? Several Labour dissidents have in public either implicitly or explicitly shared Corbyn's view of the ECHR report. Will they be suspended? How about Shami Chakrabarti whose inquiry in 2016 was largely seen as a whitewash? One thing is certain: Keir Starmer's governance of the Labour party is not going to be all sweetness and light.
No comments:
Post a Comment