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

[magpie_mania]

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.



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.

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.

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.

[jackal2]

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.

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.

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.

[americanpie]

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.

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 thoughts

[TheBlackHorse]

... 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.

[magpie_mania]

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.

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.

'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.'

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?

[magpie_mania]

... 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.

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.

[jackal2]

'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.'

What were these tactics, and what deception has he shown?

See post #1925 for my take on Starmer. I'm guessing you have a different one, which is fine.

[drillerpie]

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.

[drillerpie]

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.

Apart from resigning from the Shadow cabinet in protest at Corbyn's leadership in 2016 you mean?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Again this is simply untrue.

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

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.

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_anticlough]

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