Sign in to follow this  
bohemian

they are all the same! politicians!

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Von Krolock said:

There are politicians with integrity. God knows why any decent person would want to enter politics now with unaccountable social media cynicism and keyboard warriors.
But thankfully here the cynical are allowed to debate  - unlike perhaps in Russia or Belarus or elsewhere.
A healthy democratic debate...
 

Unaccountable? That strikes me as entirely the wrong word. That a government would not totally suppress its citizens' voices in the style of e.g. Russia or China, is hardly a clear sign of democratic debate. Right now there are near unbridgeable chasms between groups of people because of very heavy disinformation campaigns. When you have that, you don't need to go about dropping nerve agent into people's food to stop them.

There are some politicians with integrity and not everything a politician does is played out around the centres of power, but their reach is limited by those power centres. This is why they sometimes disappoint, not because they are all necessarily bad people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CnoEvil said:

What evidence do you have for saying that?

Johnson, on the other hand, has made a career out of lying, cheating and showing incompetence - going right back to being fired from his first job at the Times for lying.

His House Master at Eton had him nicely summed up:  “Boris really has adopted a disgracefully cavalier attitude to his classical studies . . . Boris sometimes seems affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility (and surprised at the same time that he was not appointed Captain of the School for next half): I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else.”

Keir Starmer has been leader of the Labour party for how long? And what opportunities has he had for doing the same things that Mr Johnson has done since being Prime Minister? He is however the Top Man in his party, an achievement which does require a fair bit of political machination, even if it wasn't hard to argue that Mr Corbyn was not a good choice for the job. Mr Starmer is after all a politician, and I'm saying that only lack of opportunity has prevented him from showing his true colours in the same way that Mr Johnson has, but I suspect the capacity is still there (and maybe even the capability to cover it better than Mr Johnson has).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, audio_PHIL_e said:

Keir Starmer has been leader of the Labour party for how long? And what opportunities has he had for doing the same things that Mr Johnson has done since being Prime Minister? He is however the Top Man in his party, an achievement which does require a fair bit of political machination, even if it wasn't hard to argue that Mr Corbyn was not a good choice for the job. Mr Starmer is after all a politician, and I'm saying that only lack of opportunity has prevented him from showing his true colours in the same way that Mr Johnson has, but I suspect the capacity is still there (and maybe even the capability to cover it better than Mr Johnson has).

Your position relies on complete conjecture, with not a shred of evidence (that I can see) to back it up. Tarring everyone with the same brush, means you might as well assume I'm a "Thick Paddy", just because I come from Ireland. That assumption may of course be right - but not because I come from Ireland.

He has had a successful career:

"After qualifying for the bar, Starmer acted exclusively as a defence Lawyer specialising in human rights issues, before being appointed as a Queen's Council (QC) in 2002. In 2008, he became Director of Public prosecutions (DPP) and Head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), holding these roles until 2013. For his role as Director of Public Prosecutions, he was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of Bath (KCB) in the 2014 New Year Honours". He has got where is, on merit and hard work.

Johnson on the other hand, is an over-privileged, self entitled, philandering opportunist, who has not got where he has on merit - but through lying, wealth and privilege......and the evidence to back it up goes right back to his days at Eton College.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for Starmer, he has publicly contradicted his positions & also made some terrible decisions as head of public prosecutions at the CPS. He is recorded as saying that a 2nd ref was a no-go, then led and pushed hard for the disastrous 'people's vote'. The fallout for this was heaped on Corbyn. True enough that Corbyn's 'bad habit' of not being Machiavellian enough, reappointing minsters like Tom Watson and assuming his ministers will be honest and loyal, never served him. If that is what he is to be condemned for, it shines a very bad light on politics. He is old school and doesn't believe the leader should be a dictator, but when your (shadow) cabinet is stabbing you in the back at every turn...

My complaint about Starmer is he has proffered not a shred of policy. The argument emanating from the loyal CLPs has been that it's too early. This is nonsense. You put your policy out loud and clear, put your stamp on it, so that if the opposite party co-opts it this will be evident. As yet he's merely had his woefully incompetent shad-chancellor talking gibberish in a one-hour statement. These people are Blairites, does anyone really want that again?

Edited by Le Baron
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, CnoEvil said:

Your position relies on complete conjecture, with not a shred of evidence (that I can see) to back it up. Tarring everyone with the same brush, means you might as well assume I'm a "Thick Paddy", just because I come from Ireland. That assumption may of course be right - but not because I come from Ireland.

He has had a successful career:

"After qualifying for the bar, Starmer acted exclusively as a defence Lawyer specialising in human rights issues, before being appointed as a Queen's Council (QC) in 2002. In 2008, he became Director of Public prosecutions (DPP) and Head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), holding these roles until 2013. For his role as Director of Public Prosecutions, he was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of Bath (KCB) in the 2014 New Year Honours". He has got where is, on merit and hard work.

Johnson on the other hand, is an over-privileged, self entitled, philandering opportunist, who has not got where he has on merit - but through lying, wealth and privilege......and the evidence to back it up goes right back to his days at Eton College.

I don't disagree with your analysis of Mr Johnson, and I'm sure you are right about Mr Starmer's hard work as a lawyer. But what kind of "evidence" are you looking for? We all have the capacity for dishonesty, but some of us hide it better than others, and some have more (obvious) opportunities to display it. Come on, you don't get to be Top Dog in your party by being nice to people! 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Le Baron said:

Unfortunately for Starmer, he has publicly contradicted his positions & also made some terrible decisions as head of public prosecutions at the CPS. He is recorded as saying that a 2nd ref was a no-go, then led and pushed hard for the disastrous 'people's vote'. The fallout for this was heaped on Corbyn. True enough that Corbyn's 'bad habit' of not being Machiavellian enough, reappointing minsters like Tom Watson and assuming his ministers will be honest and loyal, never served him. If that is what he is to be condemned for, it shines a very bad light on politics. He is old school and doesn't believe the leader should be a dictator, but when your (shadow) cabinet is stabbing you in the back at every turn...

My complaint about Starmer is he has proffered not a shred of policy. The argument emanating from the loyal CLPs has been that it's too early. This is nonsense. You put your policy out loud and clear, put your stamp on it, so that if the opposite party co-opts it this will be evident. As yet he's merely had his woefully incompetent shad-chancellor talking gibberish in a one-hour statement. These people are Blairites, does anyone really want that again?

IMO. This is not the time to put out a detailed policy. It is time enough for that when we get near a GE. I think he has got the balance about right - supporting measures that are sensible and challenging ones that aren't.

His Party is as divided as the Tories - and pulling everyone together and reversing the Tory 80 seat majority is one hell of a task. Not taking any knee jerk risks seems sensible to me - and having a strong position on anti Semitism is good to see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CnoEvil said:

IMO. This is not the time to put out a detailed policy. It is time enough for that when we get near a GE. I think he has got the balance about right - supporting measures that are sensible and challenging ones that aren't.

His Party is as divided as the Tories - and pulling everyone together and reversing the Tory 80 seat majority is one hell of a task. Not taking any knee jerk risks seems sensible to me - and having a strong position on anti Semitism is good to see. 

It's a bit late near a GE. People need time to become properly accustomed. You need to know what to support. A lot of people have cancelled direct debits and left the Labour Party. If he wants to get them back he'll need to state his positions. It may mean some will stay away, but that's how it is. Pumping out policy near a GE is what causes all that noisy media circus with interview battles where they ask daft questions about 'costing'. This just overloads the voter in a short period before an election.

I haven't seen a single concrete policy statement from Starmer. Acting as some kind of managerial auditor to whatever policy the government is carrying out is not enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, audio_PHIL_e said:

I don't disagree with your analysis of Mr Johnson, and I'm sure you are right about Mr Starmer's hard work as a lawyer. But what kind of "evidence" are you looking for? We all have the capacity for dishonesty, but some of us hide it better than others, and some have more (obvious) opportunities to display it. Come on, you don't get to be Top Dog in your party by being nice to people! 

My position is simply not to prejudge anyone, until there is evidence to back it up....and he will have a long way to go before he matches Johnson.

We need a credible Opposition and that requires them to have a credible Leader. IMV Corbyn was not a credible leader.

I am not looking for this Leader to be "nice", per se, but competent, effective, credible, straightforward, honest and have the best interests of the Country and People at heart. In her own way, I thing even T. May tried to do the best for the Country, given the obstacles in her Party.

IMO. Johnson is by far the most self serving PM in my lifetime.

There have been Politicians who I fundamentally disagreed with - but still respected. 

Edited by CnoEvil
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Le Baron said:

I haven't seen a single concrete policy statement from Starmer. Acting as some kind of managerial auditor to whatever policy the government is carrying out is not enough.

This is no different to what any other Opposition Party has done.

To my mind, coming out with concrete policies, in the current climate, where everything keeps changing and where you can't implement any of them - just gives the Tories something to attack, with no real gain.

You can glean a fair amount by listening to Labour's views on various issues, from Brexit, to the Economy and Covid 19.

His job is to hold the Govt to account and not make too many gaffs......and gradually try and heal the damage to his Party, which is a long slow process - that has to be handled with kid gloves.

Edited by CnoEvil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CnoEvil said:

This is no different to any other Opposition Party has done.

To my mind, coming out with concreter policies, in the current climate, where everything keeps changing and where you can't implement any of them - just gives the Tories something to attack, with no real gain.

His job is to hold the Govt to account and not make too many gaffs......and gradually try and heal the damage to his Party, which is a long slow process - that has to be handled with kid gloves.

I wouldn't say the job is easy, but it does have known steps. Certain policy directions are unaffected by general circumstances which are always changing. People need to know there is an alternative or it feeds the very concept of this thread: that they are all basically the same. The Tories will always attack the opposition's policy (and vice-versa), it is Starmer's job to forcefully present and defend it with conviction. There's little doubt that the people who swelled the party from 2015 will not vote for Blairism, because the shift from it is what motivated them in the first place.

A missed trick for Labour has been to present a solid Brexit alternative. They could have been setting out for voters how total control of fiscal tools (which will appeal to the 'taking back control' crowd) can eliminate the miserable austerity everyone has suffered. To announce a job guarantee scheme linked to re-provisioning public services, dilapidated infrastructure and green energy/environmental management. It would hammer the Tories' policy of mere expansion of bank reserves (QE) which is going into corporate pockets and the NAIRU unemployment policy leaving people on that crazy universal credit disaster. Starmer is playing it too safe, he needs to step up and say that the standard approach is broken and failed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Le Baron said:

I wouldn't say the job is easy, but it does have known steps. Certain policy directions are unaffected by general circumstances which are always changing. People need to know there is an alternative or it feeds the very concept of this thread: that they are all basically the same. The Tories will always attack the opposition's policy (and vice-versa), it is Starmer's job to forcefully present and defend it with conviction. There's little doubt that the people who swelled the party from 2015 will not vote for Blairism, because the shift from it is what motivated them in the first place.

A missed trick for Labour has been to present a solid Brexit alternative. They could have been setting out for voters how total control of fiscal tools (which will appeal to the 'taking back control' crowd) can eliminate the miserable austerity everyone has suffered. To announce a job guarantee scheme linked to re-provisioning public services, dilapidated infrastructure and green energy/environmental management. It would hammer the Tories' policy of mere expansion of bank reserves (QE) which is going into corporate pockets and the NAIRU unemployment policy leaving people on that crazy universal credit disaster. Starmer is playing it too safe, he needs to step up and say that the standard approach is broken and failed.

People know there is an alternative - as the contrast between Starmer and Johnson couldn't be more stark - and are, if they have been following, aware of how Labour would handle the big issues of our day - namely Brexit and Covid.

The people will only get an alternative when they can vote for one - which is 3.5 years away. Laying out their stall now, would not be wise imv, as they will only be accused of switching direction, when things change.

People will vote for Labour for several reasons:

- They always vote Labour

- They think Starmer will be a more credible Leader than Johnson

- They never vote Tory

- They have been betrayed by Tories, due to how the Tories have governed/betrayed their trust

- What Labour put in their manifesto prior to the next GE

None of the above will really be helped by putting forward policies that they can't implement - and will be forgotten or changed by May 2024.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Le Baron said:

Not all extremists, but among that 19 million many thoroughly misguided as to why those particular Tories (plus the entryists from UKIP etc) gunned for that Brexit. To give balance I also think a goodly number of dedicated remainers have a completely naive and rose-tinted view of the EU, especially economically. I live in mainland Europe so politically/socially Brexit is a disaster for me. But I have long been a critic of EU economic policy. However, what is EU economic policy? It is exactly the same neoliberalism Thatcher wheeled out (total deregulation of capital mobility; NAIRU approach to unemployment - a flawed theory which trades misery & death for so-called inflation control; ever less public expenditure), which is why she loved the EU's main architect Jacques Delors so much.

The EU economic approach has put the priorities of capital and corporations above any of the needs of citizens and serves a particular group: highly mobile professionals with financial freedom. Its idealism has taken good ideas like labour mobility (because its good to bring people to places where there is work & also to bring workers to places that need industry/services) and turned them into a nightmare where everything is sucked out of certain communities at the expense of others. The Euro is an obvious failure, it's simply impossible to have one central bank making decisions about very different national economies and setting idiotic rules about fixed tiny deficits which blocks fiscal expansion in times of demand collapse.

However, this is also roughly the same methodology everywhere. Promoted by the IMF/World Bank among others and driven by power blocs like the U.S. EU. including the UK as part of it. This is why Brexit is really a sham and especially so under the mendacious Tories. The UK has currency sovereignty and even had it as an EU member. It also had no opt-in to the EU's growth and stability pact and so during Thatcher, Major, Blair, Cameron, May and now this blonde fool they could have been doing everything in their power to alleviate the misery of the left-behind in areas who fell for the bald lie that economic misery in the 'red wall' areas was "all because of Brussels". Let's be clear, many of these people have been pursuing EU withdrawal for a very long time. As far back as the late James Goldsmith who spent a career as an asset-stripper promoting all the tenets of monetarism, neoliberalism, privatisation... then saw how destructive its powerful personification was in the EU. The red-turned-blue wall have had a very hard lesson about how a Tory Brexit govt is not going to save it from economic austerity, which was the very reason it has been stagnant for about 40 years.

Anyone can read Rory Stewart's vote record on https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24964/rory_stewart/penrith_and_the_border/votes. It's compiled from HoC records. It's not all that different from most Tory voting records.

Agree with a lot of what you have written.  But the more remote governance is from the people, then Democracy is less effective.  So add 27 other groups of mendacious people to the Tories.  Then domestically we had the Blair/ Brown Labour Government.  Who out Toried the Tories.  'Prudence' Brown what a joke!  Sold off our gold reserves at a rock bottom price.  Then we had the NHS & Education PFI binge.  Financial bulemia and we are still vomiting up money to pay for it.  City centre schools and hospitals sold off to property speculators.  Norwich as an example, hospital bed numbers crashed and the replacment hospital is situated on the southern outskirts of Norŵich.  Difficult for many older and poorer people to access.  So you can go on as much as you want about mendacious Tories.  Don't like them, but experience has taught me the Labour Party are even worse.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think @CnoEvil may be assuming a 2-horse race (please forgive me if that isn't true). You could switch the words Tory and Labour around in the list above likewise the names Johnson and Starmer. I still say the correct choice is neither. I have never voted for a Big Party in a GE, I know that one of the Big Two has always taken power but they've never done it with my vote. I've always been in a tiny minority in the past but it is my hunch that the number of voters that think like me is increasing (although I may be wrong).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, audio_PHIL_e said:

I think @CnoEvil may be assuming a 2-horse race (please forgive me if that isn't true). You could switch the words Tory and Labour around in the list above likewise the names Johnson and Starmer. I still say the correct choice is neither. I have never voted for a Big Party in a GE, I know that one of the Big Two has always taken power but they've never done it with my vote. I've always been in a tiny minority in the past but it is my hunch that the number of voters that think like me is increasing (although I may be wrong).

It's always a 2 horse race - and where the 2 main horses are very even, you get a coalition.

IMV. Until First Past the Post system is ditched - it will continue to be a 2 horse race, with a coalition when there isn't a clear majority for one of them.

Again, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.