Definitely a few parallels. When Luciana Berger resigned from the party, she said she'd repeatedly requested meetings with Corbyn but he hadn't spoken to her for 13 months. That sounds familiar.
The differences are interesting. Lord knows I have criticisms of Corbyn. IMO a lot of his beliefs are bonkers, they've led him into alliances with pretty dodgy people, and he was far too prone to let the likes of Seumas Milne or Lindsey German do his thinking for him.
But this is a man who really did buy his vests from a market stall and had to be bullied into wearing a nice suit. And from my experience of Corbyn, he's one of the few people on the left who doesn't seem to bear grudges.
After he became leader I was speaking with someone who knows him well, and asked the question I often do about politicians - what would corrupt him? The answer was, he's not interested at all in money or the trappings of power. What will corrupt him is the adulation. I think that was true.
We know now Starmer is very interested in money and the trappings of power. I think he's a vain man who assumes that he's the smartest guy in the room, and he's allowed very few people into his inner circle who'll tell him what he doesn't want to hear.
Corbyn might be an elderly student union politician who never grew up, but he's got tons of experience in Parliament and in street level politics. I think Rosie hits the nail on the head about Starmer's lack of political skills. When he was touted for his brilliant legal mind, I think we were sold a pup.