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

[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.