O/T:- ⚠️Impressed with the leadership [The UK Party Politics Thread]

[Maggie's Farm]

As I’ve said in my reply to Driller, Starmer may well be more adept at hiding or downplaying the lies and self-interest in his career than Boris, who has reached a level of cynicism where he barely makes a credible attempt to conceal it, but that doesn’t mean Starmer has any right to claim for himself the principles of ‘selflessness’ and ‘integrity’. I doubt if any of the top table politicians can.

lesson indelibly printed on me during the pandemic 1:

we the global peeps need to oust the whole effing political class and start again. not fit for purpose

[drillerpie]

You’ve said it yourself: when Mrs Thatcher reached the point where she felt Heath was leading the Conservatives in completely the wrong direction, she challenged and beat him. As a conviction politician you could do that, or resign in principle, but both courses of action show more integrity than pretending you continue to broadly support the leader when you know in your heart that you don’t.

Well if we make the hugely naive assumption that Mrs Thatcher was right behind everything Edward Heath did for however many years she was in his cabinet/shadow cabinet, until the moment the leadership of the Conservative party came up for grabs, at which time she had an epiphany, suddenly realised she wasn't a big Heath fan, and ran against him, then you're right.

But that isn't what happened. We know this as it is a matter of public record that she strongly disagreed with some of the policies she was forced to enact (including some of the ones she was most publicly associated with) but enacted them anyway. Does this mean Mrs Thatcher wasn't a conviction politician? By your logic it does.

The passage from Heath to Thatcher and the passage from Corbyn to Starmer are strikingly similar: in both cases a party leadership contest was held after a disappointing election result, and in both cases the contest was won by someone in the shadow cabinet who disagreed with quite a lot of what the ex leader did, and wanted to change direction. In fact the only real difference is that Heath contested the leadership while Corbyn didn't - apart from that they're basically two iterarions of the same event.

I acknowledge that we all tend to look back at the past through rose-tinted spectacles and I may be guilty of it here, but I think there were far more conviction politicians a few decades ago than there are today. I think there were more people who entered the fray because they primarily wanted to change the country and the world, rather than seek money and power for themselves. People more likely stick consistently to a core set of beliefs even if it carried an element of risk to their careers as well as the possibility of reward. Today there is often talk of ‘career politicians’, but I don’t recall that phrase even being used 30 or 40 years ago.

I think there are very few of the modern crop of senior politicians who can genuinely claim the moral high ground on integrity and principle. Neither Keir Starmer nor Boris Johnson come remotely close, and nor do their senior colleagues. Starmer may be more adept at downplaying the opportunism and contradictions in his career than Boris, who has reached a level of cynicism where he doesn't even try, but certainly none of them has the right to lord it over each other.

I agree with your general point, and the electorate's craving for authenticity is clear to see in many of the election results around the world in recent times, but going back to your original point about Johnson and Starmer, I really don't think it follows that if a politician serves in a cabinet or shadow cabinet under a leader that doesn't reflect their views, that they are lacking in integrity. They are there to represent their views and the the views of the their supporters in the party and make their views known and cabinet meetings. This is normal in politics, and always has been.

IMO the idea that in politics you can just go all guns blazing all the time, with no concessions to nuance or diplomacy, is unrealistic, and to use it as a stick to beat Keir Starmer with when comparing him to a pathological liar and lifelong chancer, just doesn't add up.

[OchPie]

I really disliked Corbyn but he won the right to lead in 2017 and I think it was fair for the Labour party to line up behind him and see where it would go. (To disaster was the answer, but such is life - I actually wonder whether Johnson would have won against a more mainstream Labour leader in 2019, which was about rejection of Corbyn more than approval of Johnson).

Politicians are going to politician, but Johnson is the most appalling chancer ever to get the PM role. He doesn't care about governing, only power for its own sake to feed his ego. I'd even take May back or approve of Sunak replacing him, he's that bad.

[BigFatPie]

BFP you’re pretty dismissive of any opinion that (even gently) contradicts your own view of the world, but I’ll give you your due, you’re as rigidly true to your beliefs as any poster on this board, which is exactly the kind of conviction I’m saying we’re missing from our politicians, so I can’t knock you for that!

.

Ouch. I suppose deflection is a decent way to defend a ridiculous position when you’ve run out of false equivalence and whataboutery.

Driller’s post above is good about why attacking Starmer for the reasons you have is a bit daft. Boring or unadventurous in opposition maybe, but lacking integrity? Nah.

[jackal2]

Well if we make the hugely naive assumption that Mrs Thatcher was right behind everything Edward Heath did for however many years she was in his cabinet/shadow cabinet, until the moment the leadership of the Conservative party came up for grabs, at which time she had an epiphany, suddenly realised she wasn't a big Heath fan, and ran against him, then you're right.

But that isn't what happened. We know this as it is a matter of public record that she strongly disagreed with some of the policies she was forced to enact (including some of the ones she was most publicly associated with) but enacted them anyway. Does this mean Mrs Thatcher wasn't a conviction politician? By your logic it does.

The passage from Heath to Thatcher and the passage from Corbyn to Starmer are strikingly similar: in both cases a party leadership contest was held after a disappointing election result, and in both cases the contest was won by someone in the shadow cabinet who disagreed with quite a lot of what the ex leader did, and wanted to change direction. In fact the only real difference is that Heath contested the leadership while Corbyn didn't - apart from that they're basically two iterarions of the same event.

I agree with your general point, and the electorate's craving for authenticity is clear to see in many of the election results around the world in recent times, but going back to your original point about Johnson and Starmer, I really don't think it follows that if a politician serves in a cabinet or shadow cabinet under a leader that doesn't reflect their views, that they are lacking in integrity. They are there to represent their views and the the views of the their supporters in the party and make their views known and cabinet meetings. This is normal in politics, and always has been.

IMO the idea that in politics you can just go all guns blazing all the time, with no concessions to nuance or diplomacy, is unrealistic, and to use it as a stick to beat Keir Starmer with when comparing him to a pathological liar and lifelong chancer, just doesn't add up.

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.

I find it difficult to believe that Starmer didn’t reach a point in the Corbyn Shadow Cabinet where he realised that the differences between him and Corbyn were beyond the point of tolerance or compromise, but at no point did he take any action. Therefore, his ‘official’ position, right up until the point Corbyn resigned, was that he supported the leader and the policies he had been advocating, even though we know from Starmer’s actions since that he certainly did not.

As sidders said in an earlier post, Starmer played the political game and won. Rather than challenge Corbyn or resign, both of which would have been highly risky strategies for his leadership ambitions, he waited until Corbyn quit and then entered the leadership contest. The fact that Starmer is now leader of the Labour Party would suggest his tactics were successful, and I don’t doubt that many other politicians would play the same game in the same circumstances. However, having done so, don't then pretend to represent all things virtuous and true. Don't suddenly lay claim to the principles of ‘integrity’, ‘selflessness’, ‘honesty’ and ‘openness’, which is exactly what Starmer has done on several occasions since. He is a trained liar (sorry, lawyer, same difference) who is just as willing to play the smoke and mirrors game for his own ends as anyone else in upper echelons of politics these days.

[sidders]

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.

I find it difficult to believe that Starmer didn’t reach a point in the Corbyn Shadow Cabinet where he realised that the differences between him and Corbyn were beyond the point of tolerance or compromise, but at no point did he take any action. Therefore, his ‘official’ position, right up until the point Corbyn resigned, was that he supported the leader and the policies he had been advocating, even though we know from Starmer’s actions since that he certainly did not.

As sidders said in an earlier post, Starmer played the political game and won. Rather than challenge Corbyn or resign, both of which would have been highly risky strategies for his leadership ambitions, he waited until Corbyn quit and then entered the leadership contest. The fact that Starmer is now leader of the Labour Party would suggest his tactics were successful, and I don’t doubt that many other politicians would play the same game in the same circumstances. However, having done so, don't then pretend to represent all things virtuous and true. Don't suddenly lay claim to the principles of ‘integrity’, ‘selflessness’, ‘honesty’ and ‘openness’, which is exactly what Starmer has done on several occasions since. He is a trained liar (sorry, lawyer, same difference) who is just as willing to play the smoke and mirrors game for his own ends as anyone else in upper echelons of politics these days.

Please position me in order that I can see all these boasts by Starmer about integrity, selflessness etc because I can't find them. He has certainly implied that he has more of these qualities than the present PM but then so does Dominic Cummings.
Your placing lawyers and trained liars in the same camp is offensive and says more about you than it does about any lawyer.
Conviction politicians|? You mean like Orban, Bolsonaro, Lukashenko, Putin. Many of whom should be convicted politicians. There's a hint of insanity in the eyes of those you term conviction politicians. In the modern age a bit of healthy personal doubt is a useful defence shield.

[magpie_mania]

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.

I find it difficult to believe that Starmer didn’t reach a point in the Corbyn Shadow Cabinet where he realised that the differences between him and Corbyn were beyond the point of tolerance or compromise, but at no point did he take any action. Therefore, his ‘official’ position, right up until the point Corbyn resigned, was that he supported the leader and the policies he had been advocating, even though we know from Starmer’s actions since that he certainly did not.

As sidders said in an earlier post, Starmer played the political game and won. Rather than challenge Corbyn or resign, both of which would have been highly risky strategies for his leadership ambitions, he waited until Corbyn quit and then entered the leadership contest. The fact that Starmer is now leader of the Labour Party would suggest his tactics were successful, and I don’t doubt that many other politicians would play the same game in the same circumstances. However, having done so, don't then pretend to represent all things virtuous and true. Don't suddenly lay claim to the principles of ‘integrity’, ‘selflessness’, ‘honesty’ and ‘openness’, which is exactly what Starmer has done on several occasions since. He is a trained liar (sorry, lawyer, same difference) who is just as willing to play the smoke and mirrors game for his own ends as anyone else in upper echelons of politics these days.

Collective responsibility is important, and most of the time it is better to try to influence from the inside than throw stones from the outside.

I haven't heard Starmer make the claims you said he has on several occasions. I can only base my thoughts on what I have seen and heard which is that Starmer appears honest while Johnson is the polar opposite.

[jackal2]

Please position me in order that I can see all these boasts by Starmer about integrity, selflessness etc because I can't find them. He has certainly implied that he has more of these qualities than the present PM but then so does Dominic Cummings.

I'll link you to one of many of the examples of the line of attack he's been using for some time:

https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/sta...70538075578368

As you say, it's usually in the context of attacking the PM's lack of these qualities, but the unavoidable implication is that Starmer lays claim to these principles himself, which in my opinion he has no particular right to do, given the political games he has played to get where he wanted to be. You might disagree, which is fair enough.

Your placing lawyers and trained liars in the same camp is offensive and says more about you than it does about any lawyer.

Are you a lawyer or are you just taking offence on behalf of others in that fine liberal/left-wing tradition? I should think most lawyers are wealthy and thick-skinned enough not to be offended by mildly tongue-in-cheek asides on the Notts County MAD Messageboard. Let’s just say lawyers are well-trained in constructing a case to present their clients in a best light that may not be entirely accurate.

[TheBlackHorse]

... don't be so sensitive Sidders. Parliament is full of lawyers/trained liars, which is why I would ban lawyers from becoming MP's. Furthermore, I wouldn't allow anyone to become an MP under the age of 35yrs in order to stop the career politicians who've never done a sound days work. These an other factors will become reality in our New Order. It's just that I haven't worked out how to complete the Revolution. Must ask Dominic ...

[magpie_mania]

... don't be so sensitive Sidders. Parliament is full of lawyers/trained liars, which is why I would ban lawyers from becoming MP's. Furthermore, I wouldn't allow anyone to become an MP under the age of 35yrs in order to stop the career politicians who've never done a sound days work. These an other factors will become reality in our New Order. It's just that I haven't worked out how to complete the Revolution. Must ask Dominic ...

Would you allow Johnson to become PM?

Proven liar multiple times.

This 'never done a sound day's work' is blatantly incorrect. As is your assessment of lawyers. We need younger MP's imo - a balance across the whole age range.

I don't care what they have done before if they are the right person, have the right qualities.