borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188
|
Post by borgr0 on Sept 6, 2024 23:55:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by MrBenn on Sept 7, 2024 7:55:44 GMT
My responses to a poll like that would have rated.... Keir Starmer - Somewhat unfavourable. Nigel Farage - Very Unfavourable. Ed Davey - Somewhat Unfavourable Rishi Sunak - Very Unfavourable Carla Denyer - Very Favourable Adrian Ramsay - Dont Know Angela Raynor - Somewhat Favourable Rachel Reeves - Somewhat Unfavourable Yvette Cooper - Somewhat Unfavourable David Lammy - Somewhat Favourable But that's just me
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 7, 2024 8:39:42 GMT
Sadly for me this better reflects our general opinion of politicians. Can Labour and Kier reverse this? I don't know. On the one hand we want another erudite charismatic figure and on the other we want a steady government without the constant change and reset. We are schizophrenic.
|
|
|
Post by MrBenn on Sept 7, 2024 12:03:21 GMT
Sadly for me this better reflects our general opinion of politicians. Can Labour and Kier reverse this? I don't know. On the one hand we want another erudite charismatic figure and on the other we want a steady government without the constant change and reset. We are schizophrenic. My problem with Starmer is that I know he lied to me and many others in the party at the time to gain his position. There have been ample other examples of him being dishonest when it suits him, like at one time saying Corbyn would have made a great Prime Minister whilst later saying the exact opposite. Or at one time calling Corbyn a friend but later denying there was any such friendship. This does not make him a terrible person but does prove him to be just another typical politician, happy to lie when it is expedient to do so. And in that sense his word is no more trustworthy than that of most other politicians. This is inherent to the way politics works in this country and probably most others with a semblance of democracy too. I know that in the Labour party - and I suspect in all other serious parties too - anyone who stands by their principles or sticks to the truth when it is not politically expedient to do so is regarded with suspicion and as a trouble maker. The only ones that get on in a party and climb to higher positions are the ones who mostly do what they are told and toe the party line as handed down from on high, compromising on any principle or truth when it is necessary to do so. And it is these who are just the ones most likely to become MPs and ultimately possibly running the country. They have not gotten where they are by scrupulously sticking to their principles and not lying when it is felt necessary. Most of them joined whatever party they joined because they believed in something but in order to get to the top they would have been required to tell so many politically expedient untruths or distortions and compromise on so many of their principles that they come to regard truth and principle as biddable in pursuit of office. Many might still retain genuine feeling for the people they came in to parties to help in the first place, but never mistake this for honesty and integrity. You don't get anywhere in politics by adhering too strongly to principle, integrity and honesty. That is just a brutal fact and most of the population have woken up to that fact. How to solve it is almost impossible to say, under a system that punishes truth, honesty and integrity and rewards toeing the party line, however absurd. Because even at local level, the ones who gain influential positions are the ones who always do what they are told and they act as gatekeepers to the selection process for all other positions including MP candidates. If you are a principled trouble maker they will block you from any important position. In the Labour party there are still a few local parties in some places a majority of whose members are regarded as an awkward squad. In such cases the leadership tends to get the type of MP they want by parachuting in an outsider over the heads of the local membership. Democracy inside the Labour party is only acceptable if you vote the right way and for the right people as instructed by the ruling clique. Which is a bit Stalinesque. And power is far more important to the ones who get on than principle.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 8, 2024 15:16:13 GMT
Its a tricky one Benn. Especially as one persons "lie" is another's "changed his mind" and yet another's "pragmatism."
If I tell the board of directors I intend to expand the business by X but a year later decide that consolidation is a better choice, does that make me
A liar Changed his mind A pragmatist.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Sept 8, 2024 15:57:13 GMT
good example, people use the 'liar' slur far too quickly/ignorantly
|
|
|
Post by MrBenn on Sept 8, 2024 17:14:27 GMT
Its a tricky one Benn. Especially as one persons "lie" is another's "changed his mind" and yet another's "pragmatism." If I tell the board of directors I intend to expand the business by X but a year later decide that consolidation is a better choice, does that make me A liar Changed his mind A pragmatist. The thing is, those of us who kind of knew he was lying to us - or shall we simply say strongly believed that he was - have seen him do after gaining his position everything we said he would do. This kind of reinforces and cements in place our belief that he was lying. Also, is it really credible that he actually believed Corbyn would make a great Prime Minister in 2017, and that he has since changed his mind? I simply don't find that credible. I think he was lying through his teeth when he was praising Corbyn simply because it was politically expedient to do so at the time. There are indeed a great many pragmatists in parliament. Lying to achieve this or that is often an expression of it. But we the people are not dumb. We know most of them are lying bastards when it suits. They wouldn't be where they are if they were not. Starmer would indeed never have won the Labour leadership if he had told the truth about what he really thought. Which is why he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by MrBenn on Sept 8, 2024 17:33:36 GMT
good example, people use the 'liar' slur far too quickly/ignorantly It is rarely a slur where most politicians are concerned. How many of you have actually been inside a party and seen first hand how their power structures work and how they think? From the inside? Because I have. Put it this way. Imagine someone starts telling you and your mates that if you back him for a promotion, he will give you all a pay rise but you think he is lying and actually plans to sack half of you, because that is what those backing him want. Then when he gets the promotion there is indeed no pay rise and half your mates do indeed get sacked, are you likely to conclude that he merely changed his mind? No you will feel vindicated and that he did indeed lie to you. Your suspicions would have been totally confirmed. And that's where I am with Starmer. I am not naive like some of you are being. I don't think he is a bad man and is probably a much better one than most of the Tories, and quite probably means well. But please don't give him a free pass on the honesty front because you like his politics. He is like most other politicians in lying when he has to. He probably views it in pragmatic terms as a necessary evil to get him into a position to be able to do good. But that means the rest of us having to work out what constitutes doing good in his eyes, because he will say and promise whatever he has to to get into a position to be able to do whatever that good supposedly is.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 8, 2024 17:53:01 GMT
Its a tricky one Benn. Especially as one persons "lie" is another's "changed his mind" and yet another's "pragmatism." If I tell the board of directors I intend to expand the business by X but a year later decide that consolidation is a better choice, does that make me A liar Changed his mind A pragmatist. The thing is, those of us who kind of knew he was lying to us - or shall we simply say strongly believed that he was - have seen him do after gaining his position everything we said he would do. This kind of reinforces and cements in place our belief that he was lying. Also, is it really credible that he actually believed Corbyn would make a great Prime Minister in 2017, and that he has since changed his mind? I simply don't find that credible. I think he was lying through his teeth when he was praising Corbyn simply because it was politically expedient to do so at the time. There are indeed a great many pragmatists in parliament. Lying to achieve this or that is often an expression of it. But we the people are not dumb. We know most of them are lying bastards when it suits. They wouldn't be where they are if they were not. Starmer would indeed never have won the Labour leadership if he had told the truth about what he really thought. Which is why he didn't. I would put the Corbyn comment under pragmatism, no point in being objectionable if it achieves nothing and does harm. You might call it expediency, but truth is most of us feigning we like someone to save trouble and hostility. The rest of your post is opinion, it may be right but its based on your personal history of not getting what you desired.
|
|
|
Polling
Sept 8, 2024 19:08:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by dappy on Sept 8, 2024 19:08:12 GMT
It is one of UK politics great mysteries - Mr Benn. How on earth did momentum lose control of the Labour Party when they seemingly had complete control?
To be honest I don’t find your assertion that Starmer conned the Labour electorate about his views and wouldn’t have won otherwise. It was a fairly politically savvy electorate after all and I - not a close follower of Labour internal politics - certainly knew he was very much a centrist.
Momentum supported Long-Bailey as I recall - essentially perhaps Corbyn without the charisma. Out of interest Mr Benn in an alternative universe where she became leader instead of Starmer back then, who do you think would be Prime Minister today?
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Sept 8, 2024 19:09:26 GMT
good example, people use the 'liar' slur far too quickly/ignorantly It is rarely a slur where most politicians are concerned. . . Maybe you just hung around the dodgy ones, maybe you just remember the dodgy ones. This 'all politicians are bad people' trope may be popular but in my experience it's false. They're human and human beings do at times make mistakes and to their credit change their minds and plans when presented with new evidence.
|
|
|
Post by MrBenn on Sept 8, 2024 21:45:02 GMT
The thing is, those of us who kind of knew he was lying to us - or shall we simply say strongly believed that he was - have seen him do after gaining his position everything we said he would do. This kind of reinforces and cements in place our belief that he was lying. Also, is it really credible that he actually believed Corbyn would make a great Prime Minister in 2017, and that he has since changed his mind? I simply don't find that credible. I think he was lying through his teeth when he was praising Corbyn simply because it was politically expedient to do so at the time. There are indeed a great many pragmatists in parliament. Lying to achieve this or that is often an expression of it. But we the people are not dumb. We know most of them are lying bastards when it suits. They wouldn't be where they are if they were not. Starmer would indeed never have won the Labour leadership if he had told the truth about what he really thought. Which is why he didn't. I would put the Corbyn comment under pragmatism, no point in being objectionable if it achieves nothing and does harm. You might call it expediency, but truth is most of us feigning we like someone to save trouble and hostility. The rest of your post is opinion, it may be right but its based on your personal history of not getting what you desired. No, it is about me knowing he was lying to me, knowing what he really intended to do, and then seeing him doing it. Tends to confirm the accuracy of my belief that he was lying to me in the first place. That is my personal history of being lied to, nothing more. After all, if his lie about liking Corbyn, and Corbyn making a great prime minister was motivated by a desire not to be objectionable, curious that this desire not to be objectionable disappeared when Corbyn was no longer his leader isn't it, and when he no longer needed the votes of members? Is it a sign of moral integrity to only avoid being objectionable to those with power over you? Not in my book it isn't. That is just self serving dishonesty, or what you might call pragmatism. Yet in your naivete you are making such silly excuses for him. Still I suppose as long as you get what you desire, in the continuation of zero hours contracts and suchlike, and a preparedness to vote Tory if someone threatens it, maybe it doesnt matter if someone is honest or not. Which I guess makes you the ultimate pragmatist. Starmer is just another typical politician, who has told the necessary lies, and toed the necessary party lines to get where he wants to be, just like most others. Don't put a halo on his head. It doesn't fit very well.
|
|
|
Post by MrBenn on Sept 8, 2024 22:13:32 GMT
It is one of UK politics great mysteries - Mr Benn. How on earth did momentum lose control of the Labour Party when they seemingly had complete control? To be honest I don’t find your assertion that Starmer conned the Labour electorate about his views and wouldn’t have won otherwise. It was a fairly politically savvy electorate after all and I - not a close follower of Labour internal politics - certainly knew he was very much a centrist. Momentum supported Long-Bailey as I recall - essentially perhaps Corbyn without the charisma. Out of interest Mr Benn in an alternative universe where she became leader instead of Starmer back then, who do you think would be Prime Minister today? In your alternative universe it is impossible to know the answer to that. The centrists would of course have continued to tear the party apart and I doubt whether she would have had the necessary ruthlessness against them. But Tory popularity would still have been in freefall. I suspect Labour would have won with a much smaller majority or we might have had a hung parliament. But a lot would have depended upon the performance and policy agenda of Long Bailey. But who can know with any certainty. What ifs prove nothing. And you overrate the political sophistication of the Labour membership. Many were fairly new party members. Quite probably unlike you I have sat in party meetings with room fulls of them. I know them better than you. There were many of us who knew Starmer was lying to us. Just the company he kept made it obvious. We never supported him because of it. The centrists also knew he was lying to us which is why they supported him so solidly. But inside the party he was being touted as the unity candidate, who could deliver our 2017 policies under a new more electable leadership. That is what the Ten Pledges were about. And the praise for Jeremy Corbyn. And enough Labour members were prepared to believe this to give him the votes he needed. None of them had any difficulty in seeing the Tories as lying bastards, but quite a few were naively reluctant to believe they were being systematically lied to by their own. Many after all were fairly new members inexperienced in such things. For a couple of years after Starmer became leader I still posted on party supporting forums before being asked to leave on the not unreasonable grounds that I no longer supported the party. It became a frequent refrain to hear some of those who voted for him regretting their decision once his true colours were out in the open.
|
|
|
Post by MrBenn on Sept 8, 2024 22:17:52 GMT
It is rarely a slur where most politicians are concerned. . . Maybe you just hung around the dodgy ones, maybe you just remember the dodgy ones. This 'all politicians are bad people' trope may be popular but in my experience it's false. They're human and human beings do at times make mistakes and to their credit change their minds and plans when presented with new evidence. I am not saying that all politicians are bad. But most of them do need to compromise on their principles, be economical with the truth when necessary, and toe the party line most of the time to get where they are. Some might call that pragmatism. Most of the public see it as dishonesty and an unwillingness to answer a straight question honestly.
|
|
|
Polling
Sept 8, 2024 22:36:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by dappy on Sept 8, 2024 22:36:01 GMT
I understand you are sad and maybe bitter that those advocating the policies you wish have lost control of the Labour Party perhaps for ever.
I don’t think your analysis is defendable. I as a non-party member knew that Starmer was more centrist. In the party election he got more than twice the number of votes that Long-Bailey got. It beggars belief that so many people interested enough in politics to become party members allegedly didn’t know his broad political standing.
FWIW I think there is a strong chance that had Long Bailey won, the Tories would have been less prepared to risk killing off Johnson and the electorate less willing to vote out the Tories. Just as Corbyn facilitated Brexit with all the harm that has done to our country, I suspect that Long Bailey would have facilitated more self harm by keeping Johnson in power.
By the way do you not take some pleasure that the currently decent albeit so far untested Fred Thomas is now your MP rather than the loathsome Mercer?
|
|