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

[PedroTheFisherman66]

this. the politicians put their own interests over the country's, twas alus thus

and is there an uglier case of slanderous ad hominem in Parliamentary history (again, not against the rules!) than Johnson's attempt to smear Starmer with Savile (historical, while BJ's facing imminent charges of deriliction of duty)? anyone?

Which goes to show the system is not fit for purpose and needs a radical overhaul!!

[drillerpie]

Back in 1975 I was more interested in rusks than Tory leadership contests, but reading back I understand that many observers going into the leadership contest expected it to be an absolute walkover in Edward Heath’s favour … not least Edward Heath, who called it in order to re-assert his authority. Even when Margaret Thatcher announced she would stand, many still believed her support was minimal and that Heath would win easily, so the idea of Thatcher ‘waiting for the right moment’ isn’t necessarily accurate. She took a risk, put her beliefs and her neck on the line against the incumbent leader and won.

Thanks for reminding me of Starmer’s short spell as Shadow Minister for Immigration under Corbyn between 14th September 2015 and 27th June 2016. He resigned the position stating it was "simply untenable now to suggest we can offer an effective opposition without a change of leader". But just over three months later, on the 6th October 2016, Starmer accepted the role of Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union in the Shadow Cabinet of …. Jeremy Corbyn!

I could also point out the irony of Starmer accepting the Brexit job when he was a known Remainer, and Labour advocating Remain when Corbyn was a known Leaver, but there’s a risk of inconsistency overload!


Well yes, Starmer certainly went very quiet on his previous line that it was 'untenable' for Labour to provide effective opposition under Corbyn’s leadership, but I suppose he had to, having just crawled back into the Shadow Cabinet of the self-same guy!

I wouldn’t say I dislike Starmer personally. I tend to agree with BFP that he’s so dull and grey that it’s difficult to generate such a visceral reaction to him. I’d also say as a Conservative voter that Starmer’s politics are far closer to mine than Corbyn’s, even though I disagree with both.

My real dislike is for vacuous modern politicians who I believe are in politics primarily for the benefit of themselves and their careers, rather than a passionate vision and a desire to truly make a difference, whichever wing or party they come from. I would definitely describe Starmer as the vacuous, insincere type who is mainly in it for himself, but I’ll grant you there are many, many others.

Ok well we seem to be moving the goalposts quite a lot here, as well as widening the conversation to talk about Brexit and Corbyn.

Thatcher couldn't speak out against Heath in the cabinet because of collective responsibility - fair enough - but you say that doesn't apply to Starmer when he was in the shadow cabinet, even though he did actually resign in protest at Corbyn's leadership (which was your stated criteria of integrity until you found out/were reminded that he actually did that).

Thatcher also served in a shadow cabinet under Heath without publicly challenging him, which is fine.

Thatcher worked with Heath for a number of years without publicly challenging him, until the day he called a leadership contest which she entered and won, making her party leader and subsequently PM - we have to give her the benefit of the doubt that this was driven purely by conviction and in no way shows any consideration by her of furthering her career.

Starmer resigned and said he had no confidence in Corbyn, then ruled himself out of the leadership contest, so it's pretty clear there was no real benefit for him personally, but we should absolutely not take this as proof of his integrity. You also somehow know that he went, to quote your post, "crawling" back to Corbyn, implying that he somehow started pretending to be a Corbynite to ingratiate himself - something that I am sure is not true.

You say you have nothing against Starmer and this is your objective reading of the facts. I'll have to take your word for that, but the only way we can really find any common ground here is if we give
Thatcher the benefit of the doubt on everything and assume that Starmer is always a Machiavellian schemer, and I don't see why we should do that.

I obviously can't speak for anyone else but I personally have found your arguments as to why Starmer is, under the surface, not really any different to Boris, to be very unconvincing.

[BigFatPie]

I don't think you should presume anything about my background and nor should I make presumptions about you, beyond your declared 'progressive' political leaning and odd thing you've readily revealed about yourself on here in past debates.

The only presumption I made was about whether you’d been insulated from the catastrophes of 12 years of Tory government, it’s very simple, you either have or you haven’t. It’s got nothing to do with class or ‘student politics’ (whatever they are, I’d say students are affected by government policy just about more than any other sector in society, their input should be as valued as anyone else’s). I ask the same question of anyone irl who’s voted for the people in power.


‘What I'm effectively saying here is that we need to get rid of politicians who treat politics like a career game, or a soap opera if you like, where they change their storyline every week to cover their tracks or match the latest focus group outcome. When I talk about politicians entering Parliament with a passionate vision and a desire to truly make a difference, I'm talking about a positive difference to people's lives (beside their own!). And those people can come from the right or the left, or indeed centrists.’

None of this really chimes with what you’ve said previously. You’ve said you don’t mind politicians lying to you during election/referendum campaigns, you said that Trump was a conviction politician and you said Biden should adopt policies to appeal to Trump voters but when I asked for examples but you couldn’t think of any. Has Johnson made a positive difference to people’s lives? What about May? Or Cameron? Or any politician who’s been in power for the last 12 years? If not why do you continue to vote for them? How can the likes of Starmer demonstrate the qualities you want to see without being in power himself? (Apologies for the unclear quoting, my knowledge of the way to use quotes is sh!t at best)

[jackal2]

Thatcher couldn't speak out against Heath in the cabinet because of collective responsibility - fair enough - but you say that doesn't apply to Starmer when he was in the shadow cabinet, even though he did actually resign in protest at Corbyn's leadership (which was your stated criteria of integrity until you found out/were reminded that he actually did that).

Thatcher also served in a shadow cabinet under Heath without publicly challenging him, which is fine. Thatcher worked with Heath for a number of years without publicly challenging him, until the day he called a leadership contest which she entered and won, making her party leader and subsequently PM - we have to give her the benefit of the doubt that this was driven purely by conviction and in no way shows any consideration by her of furthering her career.

The moment Thatcher/Starmer agreed to join the Cabinets of Heath/Corbyn they had to accept collective responsibility as a starting point, and of course it stands to reason that anyone who enters a leadership contest could potentially benefit their career (or indeed blight it).

Like you say, neither of us can see inside the mind of a deceased woman and know for certain what she was thinking five decades ago, but based on her known character and style of leadership thereafter, I think it’s reasonable to contend that she would have been driven very strongly by her political differences with Heath and some personal acrimony too. Self-evidently she wanted the leadership as the next step in her career, but I think she wanted to be leader and then PM primarily to obtain the power to change the country in line with her strong political vision.

I think far too many modern day politicians seek party leadership and the keys to No.10 Downing Street as a career destination and end in itself. They seem to have no idea – or certainly no consistent idea – of what they want to achieve with the power when they get there, which is good news for unelected civil servants who want to ‘professionally manage’ them to change very little, but not good news for voters who want to know what these leaders believe in their hearts and to be confident that they would try to deliver those beliefs. I don’t see that conviction or integrity in Boris Johnson, Keir Starmer or many of the other would-be contenders.

Ironically, I did see that ‘old school’ passion and conviction in Jeremy Corbyn, even though the thought of him winning terrified me. I think he wanted to be PM to deliver his consistently-held Socialist political vision and that he would have been every bit as radical as Thatcher in trying to do it, albeit in the opposite direction. The irony is that the only time Corbyn appeared to sacrifice his beliefs, giving unenthusiastic support to Remain rather sticking to his guns as a Leaver, it may well have cost him his big chance!

Starmer resigned and said he had no confidence in Corbyn, then ruled himself out of the leadership contest, so it's pretty clear there was no real benefit for him personally, but we should absolutely not take this as proof of his integrity.

I think there’s a clear lack of integrity shown by Starmer resigning from Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet calling his leadership ‘untenable’, and then re-joining the same leader’s Shadow Cabinet only three months later. If the leader had changed to Owen Smith in the meantime it would have been a different matter, but that wasn’t the case. Even if we leave aside Starmer’s failure to ever challenge Corbyn directly for the leadership, I have to question why any politician of deep conviction would choose to return to ‘serve’ a leader they have no confidence in, unless it was a career-motivated move. Clever long-term political manoeuvring and patience that ultimately paid off for Starmer? Yes. Indicative of honesty, conviction and strong principles? No. Not for me anyway. That said, many other modern politicians play the same game, not least Boris!

You say you have nothing against Starmer and this is your objective reading of the facts.

I’ve definitely got something against Starmer, but no more than I’ve got against many others, including Boris. I think Keir’s a pleasant, polite enough guy in a bland sort of way, but I don’t think he’s sincere, and I think his political beliefs are watery. Others will disagree.

I obviously can't speak for anyone else but I personally have found your arguments as to why Starmer is, under the surface, not really any different to Boris, to be very unconvincing.

Actually I think they are different. Starmer is politically much smarter than Boris and it has been evident particularly since Cummings left. Starmer is cunningly selective in his use of facts, like good lawyers are. Boris lies and gets found out.

But anyway, we’ve probably done this little debate to death. I totally respect your right to interpret politicians and events differently from me.

[magpie_mania]

The moment Thatcher/Starmer agreed to join the Cabinets of Heath/Corbyn they had to accept collective responsibility as a starting point, and of course it stands to reason that anyone who enters a leadership contest could potentially benefit their career (or indeed blight it).

Like you say, neither of us can see inside the mind of a deceased woman and know for certain what she was thinking five decades ago, but based on her known character and style of leadership thereafter, I think it’s reasonable to contend that she would have been driven very strongly by her political differences with Heath and some personal acrimony too. Self-evidently she wanted the leadership as the next step in her career, but I think she wanted to be leader and then PM primarily to obtain the power to change the country in line with her strong political vision.

I think far too many modern day politicians seek party leadership and the keys to No.10 Downing Street as a career destination and end in itself. They seem to have no idea – or certainly no consistent idea – of what they want to achieve with the power when they get there, which is good news for unelected civil servants who want to ‘professionally manage’ them to change very little, but not good news for voters who want to know what these leaders believe in their hearts and to be confident that they would try to deliver those beliefs. I don’t see that conviction or integrity in Boris Johnson, Keir Starmer or many of the other would-be contenders.

Ironically, I did see that ‘old school’ passion and conviction in Jeremy Corbyn, even though the thought of him winning terrified me. I think he wanted to be PM to deliver his consistently-held Socialist political vision and that he would have been every bit as radical as Thatcher in trying to do it, albeit in the opposite direction. The irony is that the only time Corbyn appeared to sacrifice his beliefs, giving unenthusiastic support to Remain rather sticking to his guns as a Leaver, it may well have cost him his big chance!



I think there’s a clear lack of integrity shown by Starmer resigning from Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet calling his leadership ‘untenable’, and then re-joining the same leader’s Shadow Cabinet only three months later. If the leader had changed to Owen Smith in the meantime it would have been a different matter, but that wasn’t the case. Even if we leave aside Starmer’s failure to ever challenge Corbyn directly for the leadership, I have to question why any politician of deep conviction would choose to return to ‘serve’ a leader they have no confidence in, unless it was a career-motivated move. Clever long-term political manoeuvring and patience that ultimately paid off for Starmer? Yes. Indicative of honesty, conviction and strong principles? No. Not for me anyway. That said, many other modern politicians play the same game, not least Boris!



I’ve definitely got something against Starmer, but no more than I’ve got against many others, including Boris. I think Keir’s a pleasant, polite enough guy in a bland sort of way, but I don’t think he’s sincere, and I think his political beliefs are watery. Others will disagree.



Actually I think they are different. Starmer is politically much smarter than Boris and it has been evident particularly since Cummings left. Starmer is cunningly selective in his use of facts, like good lawyers are. Boris lies and gets found out.

But anyway, we’ve probably done this little debate to death. I totally respect your right to interpret politicians and events differently from me.

I know you have said we have done this debate to death, but I am not sure that you can describe Starmer as cunningly selective without giving some examples.

Surely you are not saying that Starmer and Johnson are on a level when it comes to honesty? Perhaps you should compare the number of times each has been sacked for lying. That's a good marker.

You say that Boris lies but gets found out. Cummings described him well when he said that he knowingly lies but believes it's true at the same time.

[drillerpie]

The moment Thatcher/Starmer agreed to join the Cabinets of Heath/Corbyn they had to accept collective responsibility as a starting point, and of course it stands to reason that anyone who enters a leadership contest could potentially benefit their career (or indeed blight it).

Like you say, neither of us can see inside the mind of a deceased woman and know for certain what she was thinking five decades ago, but based on her known character and style of leadership thereafter, I think it’s reasonable to contend that she would have been driven very strongly by her political differences with Heath and some personal acrimony too. Self-evidently she wanted the leadership as the next step in her career, but I think she wanted to be leader and then PM primarily to obtain the power to change the country in line with her strong political vision.

Ok fair enough. While I disagree with your implication that she only became aware of the personal differences and personal acrimony at the point when Heath called the leadership contest, after working with him for around five years, I do think that is a fair assessment of Thatcher.

I think far too many modern day politicians seek party leadership and the keys to No.10 Downing Street as a career destination and end in itself. They seem to have no idea – or certainly no consistent idea – of what they want to achieve with the power when they get there, which is good news for unelected civil servants who want to ‘professionally manage’ them to change very little, but not good news for voters who want to know what these leaders believe in their hearts and to be confident that they would try to deliver those beliefs. I don’t see that conviction or integrity in Boris Johnson, Keir Starmer or many of the other would-be contenders.

Ironically, I did see that ‘old school’ passion and conviction in Jeremy Corbyn, even though the thought of him winning terrified me. I think he wanted to be PM to deliver his consistently-held Socialist political vision and that he would have been every bit as radical as Thatcher in trying to do it, albeit in the opposite direction. The irony is that the only time Corbyn appeared to sacrifice his beliefs, giving unenthusiastic support to Remain rather sticking to his guns as a Leaver, it may well have cost him his big chance!

Again here I agree with the general sentiment, but I don't think that it is a hard and fast rule that holding moderate views or even changing your views are dishonourable behaviours - some people do genuinely have moderate political views and some people, I might even say the best people, change their minds after reflecting on events and circumstances. I don't think it even follows that people who hold radical views and never change their minds should automatically be seen as honourable, selfless or acting with integrity, and when dealing with large numbers of people/organisations as a party leader, I don't think a 'my way or the highway' approach is always productive or desirable. In the end, it was exactly that attitude towards the Poll Tax with which Mrs Thatcher brought about her own downfall, in what was an unmitigated disaster for herself, her party and the country.

Corbyn was almost certainly a Leaver, but with the people who finance his party pushing him to support remain, and a large chunk of his party supporting remain, he weight it up and decided to become an unenthusiastic remainer. Had he stayed a Leaver, it might have been his big chance as you say, but most probably he would have just pushed most of the remain vote over to the Lib Dems and led his party to even worse election results than he actually did.

In the same way, I think most people know that Starmer would prefer for the UK to be inside the EU, but he has decided to move on from the issue of Brexit and focus on other things. You might see that as cowardice or scheming, but I see it as good leadership.

Having said that, Starmer did go against the grain by taking an unpopular (in the parliamentry Labour party and the politically correct left) stance on trans issues, which was a bold move.

I think there’s a clear lack of integrity shown by Starmer resigning from Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet calling his leadership ‘untenable’, and then re-joining the same leader’s Shadow Cabinet only three months later. If the leader had changed to Owen Smith in the meantime it would have been a different matter, but that wasn’t the case. Even if we leave aside Starmer’s failure to ever challenge Corbyn directly for the leadership, I have to question why any politician of deep conviction would choose to return to ‘serve’ a leader they have no confidence in, unless it was a career-motivated move. Clever long-term political manoeuvring and patience that ultimately paid off for Starmer? Yes. Indicative of honesty, conviction and strong principles? No. Not for me anyway. That said, many other modern politicians play the same game, not least Boris!



I’ve definitely got something against Starmer, but no more than I’ve got against many others, including Boris. I think Keir’s a pleasant, polite enough guy in a bland sort of way, but I don’t think he’s sincere, and I think his political beliefs are watery. Others will disagree.

I don't see why it would've been more honourable to martyr himself by not accepting the cabinet position. Everyone knew his views, including Corbyn himself.

Actually I think they are different. Starmer is politically much smarter than Boris and it has been evident particularly since Cummings left. Starmer is cunningly selective in his use of facts, like good lawyers are. Boris lies and gets found out.

I don't really understand the undertones of mistrust towards Starmer here. Is it unusual for a politician of any kind, including ones like Corbyn or Thatcher, to selectively use facts that support their argument? Is that not what we are doing ourselves in this debate? Isn't that what Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher do on Sky? Why should it be 'cunning' or lawyer-esque when Starmer does it. Thatcher also trained and practiced as a barrister by the way, as many politicians do, although no doubt it will be somehow different in her case.

But anyway, we’ve probably done this little debate to death. I totally respect your right to interpret politicians and events differently from me.

Ok great, that's unexpected in that I thought it was a given, but obviously I respect your right to do the same. I'll reply to messages for as long as I find it interesting and have time write, but I completely understand if you don't.

[sidders]

Ok fair enough. While I disagree with your implication that she only became aware of the personal differences and personal acrimony at the point when Heath called the leadership contest, after working with him for around five years, I do think that is a fair assessment of Thatcher.




Again here I agree with the general sentiment, but I don't think that it is a hard and fast rule that holding moderate views or even changing your views are dishonourable behaviours - some people do genuinely have moderate political views and some people, I might even say the best people, change their minds after reflecting on events and circumstances. I don't think it even follows that people who hold radical views and never change their minds should automatically be seen as honourable, selfless or acting with integrity, and when dealing with large numbers of people/organisations as a party leader, I don't think a 'my way or the highway' approach is always productive or desirable. In the end, it was exactly that attitude towards the Poll Tax with which Mrs Thatcher brought about her own downfall, in what was an unmitigated disaster for herself, her party and the country.

Corbyn was almost certainly a Leaver, but with the people who finance his party pushing him to support remain, and a large chunk of his party supporting remain, he weight it up and decided to become an unenthusiastic remainer. Had he stayed a Leaver, it might have been his big chance as you say, but most probably he would have just pushed most of the remain vote over to the Lib Dems and led his party to even worse election results than he actually did.

In the same way, I think most people know that Starmer would prefer for the UK to be inside the EU, but he has decided to move on from the issue of Brexit and focus on other things. You might see that as cowardice or scheming, but I see it as good leadership.

Having said that, Starmer did go against the grain by taking an unpopular (in the parliamentry Labour party and the politically correct left) stance on trans issues, which was a bold move.




I don't see why it would've been more honourable to martyr himself by not accepting the cabinet position. Everyone knew his views, including Corbyn himself.




I don't really understand the undertones of mistrust towards Starmer here. Is it unusual for a politician of any kind, including ones like Corbyn or Thatcher, to selectively use facts that support their argument? Is that not what we are doing ourselves in this debate? Isn't that what Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher do on Sky? Why should it be 'cunning' or lawyer-esque when Starmer does it. Thatcher also trained and practiced as a barrister by the way, as many politicians do, although no doubt it will be somehow different in her case.




Ok great, that's unexpected in that I thought it was a given, but obviously I respect your right to do the same. I'll reply to messages for as long as I find it interesting and have time write, but I completely understand if you don't.

Grammar police here, squire. Like to point out that practiced is an American term. In Blighty we go by practised as in practice is a noun and practised is a verb. Otherwise, interesting points raised, squire. PC El Sid

[Notts78]

Grammar police here, squire. Like to point out that practiced is an American term. In Blighty we go by practised as in practice is a noun and practised is a verb. Otherwise, interesting points raised, squire. PC El Sid

Surely the grammar police would notice what is wrong with the start of the 2nd sentence. As you are correcting someone, then surely the second sentence should start with ‘I would’ or ‘I’d’? 😬

[sidders]

Surely the grammar police would notice what is wrong with the start of the 2nd sentence. As you are correcting someone, then surely the second sentence should start with ‘I would’ or ‘I’d’? 😬

I was employing an informal, jocular form of address, 78, not writing an essay.

[jackal2]

You’ve said you don’t mind politicians lying to you during election/referendum campaigns.

I do mind, but I recognise it happens, especially during election/referendum campaigns when politicians on all sides are desperate for your vote and are most tempted to push the boundaries. Most of the time it’s ‘spin’ rather than outright untruths, but without doubt there are some easily disprovable claims.

This discussion was years ago around the time of the referendum but I think my point was that it is ultimately down to voters to do their homework on the various claims being made and determine for themselves what is true or untrue, and which side of the argument they ultimately accept.

I think the politicians of thirty or forty years ago were generally less likely to ‘spin’ than they are today. Many say the New Labour project changed political culture. Peter Mandelson was one of the first to be labelled a ‘spin doctor’, but to be fair you could credit him for realising how the media environment was changing, with the advent of 24-hour news, and realising the ever increasing importance of presentation and style, perhaps at the expense of substance. Labour had got nowhere under the Red Flag for a quarter of a century, but they re-branded to a Red Rose and hey presto, banked a load of soft Tory votes!

You said that Trump was a conviction politician and you said Biden should adopt policies to appeal to Trump voters

I said that there would be millions of Trump/Republican voters who are not racists and Q Anon conspiracy theorists, and that Biden would need to engage with as many of those disillusioned voters as he possible, rather than dismissing them or denigrating them. Mind you, Biden’s got his work cut out at the moment trying to retain the voters who did support him, let alone worrying about those who didn’t.