Why has Starmer no right to remind Johnson of the Nolan principles? They are the standards expected of those in public life. Here's the test - would Johnson remind Starmer of them? Absolutely not - he simply couldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackal2
You talk about him attacking the PM - imo he has been quite restrained. It's Johnson who loses it at PMQs. I honestly believe that as PM Starmer would do a better, more honest job. Then again, so would most other MPs.
Johnson is a proven campaigner and election winner but he is not a particularly smart political operator or a man of strong ideology and conviction. He tells outright lies that are often easy and obvious to disprove, and he advocates policies in which he clearly does not always believe, as betrayed by his contradictory actions. Since Dominic Cummings left, these vulnerabilities have been much more apparent.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie_mania
Starmer, possibly due to his legal training, is smarter at the political game and is much more adept at concealing his various contradictions and disingenuous positions and creating the impression of honesty, but that's all it is - an image. The tactics he has adopted to move through the ranks and win the Labour leadership are cunning and politically astute, but they have very little to do with integrity. Essentially he's just better at the game of deception than the PM.
The antidote to these types will be a (Conservative or Labour) leader with strong and consistent political convictions who actually lives the life they preach to others, but bloody hell it’s tough identifying one of those amongst the current realistic contenders in either party.
Well said jackal2 ...Put into words much more eloquently than I could ! But...exactly my thoughtsQuote:
Originally Posted by jackal2
... OK mania ... BJ is not a leader, he's a writer with presentation skills. Now go and check how many MP's complete university with some useless degree, become a researcher/gofa/other support work, ie., no real world work experience, are then set up to fight an election as part of their grooming. The whole system is wrotten to the core.
'The tactics he has adopted to move through the ranks and win the Labour leadership are cunning and politically astute, but they have very little to do with integrity. Essentially he's just better at the game of deception than the PM.'Quote:
Originally Posted by jackal2
What were these tactics, and what deception has he shown?
How many times has he been sacked for lying? How many police investigations into his behaviour?
Far from it. I know someone who was a researcher for an MP who has far more world experience from doing that than most people. Out there, discovering where real people are and what they are thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBlackHorse
See post #1925 for my take on Starmer. I'm guessing you have a different one, which is fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by magpie_mania
QUOTE=jackal2;39964950]What you’re talking about is the notion of collective responsibility where members of a Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet are expected to publicly defend a policy position even if they’ve had disagreements behind closed doors. In that sense you’re absolutely right that even a conviction politician has to accept a certain degree of compromise and nuance if they’re ever going to be a member of any cabinet, because the chances of achieving unanimity with your leader or other cabinet colleagues on every issue are minimal. Sometimes those inner tensions can be substantial and yes, sometimes it will involve publicly advocating policies that you are not privately happy with. However, for a conviction politician there must come a breaking point where you can no longer accept that compromise, in which case the honourable thing to do is resign or challenge the leadership. In Thatcher’s case she challenged Heath. [/QUOTE]
Actually she didn't really challenge him, she waited for him to call a leadership contest and then put her name forward. She could've openly challenged him before that and put her name forward to lead a no confidence vote, but she didn't, she waited for the most advantageous time - a leadership contest. Either you want me to believe that she only realised that very same day what her real intentions were, which frankly I can't, or we can agree that she knew before that but bided her time and waited for the right moment - played political games, as you might say.
As I said before there was literally no difference between the way Thatcher came to power in the Conservative party and the way Starmer became leader of the Labour party, apart from the fact that Corbyn decided not to contest the leadership - something completely out of Starmer's control which in no way indicates a lack of integrity.
Apart from resigning from the Shadow cabinet in protest at Corbyn's leadership in 2016 you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by jackal2
This is nonsense. Do you really think Starmer was waiting outside Shadow Cabinet meetings with his donkey jacket and burning brazier pretending to be a Momentum member to curry favour with Corbyn?Quote:
Originally Posted by jackal2
He would've been selected for the Shadow Cabinet on the basis that he represented the moderate side of the Labour party, which like it or not makes up a significant section of the party and its voters. He presumably would've spoken against some of Corbyn's more extreme policies in the meetings, but done his best not to sabotage them in public.
This is perfectly normal in politics, and to give a footballing example is like a player who disagrees with the manager's tactics might say so in the dressing room, but rarely if ever in a public interview.
Again this is simply untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackal2
It's clear that you have a fairly intense dislike of Starmer personally, and of his political beliefs, and of his profession before entering politics, but I think you're letting this cloud your judgement of the facts here.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackal2
It's perfectly normal for all sides of a political party to be represented on the cabinet/shadow cabinet - to use another example from Mrs Thatcher's time she famously appointed 'the wets' and the 'big beasts' to her cabinet - politicians with whom she had had, and continued to have, some significant disagreements on important matters. This doesn't necessarily imply a lack of integrity on the part of any of them.
In fact it could be seen as healthy, as you might say it proves that those leaders were comfortable being around people who challenged their views, in contrast to the big baby who now resides at no. 10 and can only deal with people who have sworn their allegiance to him personally and to his most prominent policy.
It's also necessary for politicians to gain experience in these situations. If a politician couldn't serve in the cabinet/Shadow Cabinet of a leader with whom they disagreed, you would risk having leaders of political parties, or worse, leaders of the country, who had never chaired, or even been in, a cabinet meeting.
So yes, I think it's actually absurd that you are trying to imply that Starmer is the same as Johnson, just better at hiding it, when one has by your own criteria conducted himself with integrity (by resigning), and who by my reckoning has behaved in a very similar manner to a very straight-down-the-line conviction politician in Mrs T, and the other has always behaved completely irresponsibly, in his personal life, his journalistic life, and his political life.
The redacted Sue Gray report is out - pretty hard-hitting in the summation and in her comments to the press about its release.
Now its absolutely clear - Pfeffels cronies got wind of it so turned to their friends in the masons, sorry Met, to pull the rug out from under her to save him. So far refusing to face the consequences for treating the public's many sacrifices with contempt. No surprise there.
One rule for them, no rules for the others. Or should that be No rules for them, strict rules for the others? Dunno, take your pick