Starmer's vision quest

[bobzmyunkle]

"Run of the mill"? Compared to the current crop of 'professionals', NCAP is at Paxman/Snow levels! 😂

Which way are we supposed to read that?

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

A good bit of writing from Marie le Conte

https://www.thenewworld.co.uk/marie-le-conte-i-didnt-rate-starmer-as-pm-so-why-do-i-feel-so-sad/

On Morgan McSweeney:

"We’d worked together before, and I’d found him to be both incompetent and quite unpleasant to deal with, and his appointment felt like a bad omen."

Not surprising that he is likely a complete k***head.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Which way are we supposed to read that?

Whichever way you fancy!

I would say however, that you are far more likely to get a fairly well thought out analysis on here which actually makes some attempt to explain various political scenarios in a manner that puts the likes of Chris Mason/ Laura Kuenssberg and your average Telegraph columnist to shame.

 

[secretsqirrel]

Whichever way you fancy!

I would say however, that you are far more likely to get a fairly well thought out analysis on here which actually makes some attempt to explain various political scenarios in a manner that puts the likes of Chris Mason/ Laura Kuenssberg and your average Telegraph columnist to shame.

That’s because we are at liberty to make sense and not drive clicks and appease pay masters.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

That’s because we are at liberty to make sense and not drive clicks and appease pay masters.

Fair point!

 

[briantrumpet]

But even though all run of the mill commenters like us could see that even before he became prime minister, hardly any opinion pieces or mainstream commentators go there. Why?

I think that before he was PM, there was the hope that he was keeping his cards close his chest so he'd get elected without scaring off a very fickle electorate. Instead of which it seems he'd handed over his cards to McSweeney to manage as he saw fit, and McSweeney thought he was an electoral genius because he'd delivered Starmer a whopping majority, without considering that a lot of those voters just wanted rid of the Tories primarily.

The UK press is a bit of a mess, not least as the loudest voices are brazenly partisan, and the RW press seems to be able to set the agenda - vide the reporting of a Muslim with a small ceremonial knife being 'justification' for 'protests' (aka rioting by RW thugs), but a white man with a big knife attacking Muslims being an 'isolated incident' demoted to the bottom of a long list of 'other news'.

 

[briantrumpet]

Fair point!

FWIW, CS's extremely long thread on Brexit was continually much more perceptive than any of the usual press sources, and you could go back to the pre 2016 pages and see all the potential pitfalls and inconsistencies has been identified early on, not least the Northern Ireland and GFA problem that Johnson could only lie about years later. There was the occasional joke that we'd have done better than the politicians at sorting stuff out.

 

[C R]

I think that before he was PM, there was the hope that he was keeping his cards close his chest so he'd get elected without scaring off a very fickle electorate. Instead of which it seems he'd handed over his cards to McSweeney to manage as he saw fit, and McSweeney thought he was an electoral genius because he'd delivered Starmer a whopping majority, without considering that a lot of those voters just wanted rid of the Tories primarily.

The UK press is a bit of a mess, not least as the loudest voices are brazenly partisan, and the RW press seems to be able to set the agenda - vide the reporting of a Muslim with a small ceremonial knife being 'justification' for 'protests' (aka rioting by RW thugs), but a white man with a big knife attacking Muslims being an 'isolated incident' demoted to the bottom of a long list of 'other news'.

Um, sikh, not muslim. No quibble otherwise.

 

[spen666]

Reportage this morning is that Burnham would have liked a much longer handover with KS in 'caretaker' role until September.

The much shorter period, assuming no other candidate is nominated, is a stitch up by Starmer who has effectively said if you want me out I'm offski soonest.

To be fair to Starmer ( and any other resigning PM), once they announce they are going, they become a PM with no authority or power. They cannot make any real decisions as no one will pay attention knowing the decision maker is leaving.
He can do little on international stage for same reason.

Once the decision is made to go, then they sooner they go the better.


If Burnham is not capable of stepping up to take over now, then that says more about him than about Starmer.
For once, I think Starmer acted correctly and did what the majority of the nation wanted.

Its up to Burnham now to show he is the leader he wants us to think he is [ Assuming there is no one else standing as leader)

 

[briantrumpet]

Um, sikh, not muslim. No quibble otherwise.

Oops, sorry, ignorance on my part.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

FWIW, CS's extremely long thread on Brexit was continually much more perceptive than any of the usual press sources, and you could go back to the pre 2016 pages and see all the potential pitfalls and inconsistencies has been identified early on, not least the Northern Ireland and GFA problem that Johnson could only lie about years later. There was the occasional joke that we'd have done better than the politicians at sorting stuff out.

There was a piece in the Guardian yesterday that was speaking to Leave voting areas and how they felt about their decision 10 years on. Several worked in the fishing industry and they said (as many of us pointed out pre and post the vote) that is was disastrous. The thing I will never understand is why people involved in industries that were so obviously going to be badly affected did not do even the most basic research around tariffs/quotas/trade deals/export changes etc.? I understand the argument that people want unicorns and believe in anyone that will try and sell them one, but that just simply isn't a valid excuse for anyone who now says "we were lied to". Yes you were, but you were also complicit and foolish in not doing your homework, particularly when there was so much evidence available for any given industry and the likely negative impact.

 

[briantrumpet]

There was a piece in the Guardian yesterday that was speaking to Leave voting areas and how they felt about their decision 10 years on. Several worked in the fishing industry and they said (as many of us pointed out pre and post the vote) that is was disastrous. The thing I will never understand is why people involved in industries that were so obviously going to be badly affected did not do even the most basic research around tariffs/quotas/trade deals/export changes etc.? I understand the argument that people want unicorns and believe in anyone that will try and sell them one, but that just simply isn't a valid excuse for anyone who now says "we were lied to". Yes you were, but you were also complicit and foolish in not doing your homework, particularly when there was so much evidence available for any given industry and the likely negative impact.

I think there's the psychological phenomenon of actually wanting to be lied to to justify one's prejudices, and that blinds people to blindingly obvious counter arguments... hence conspiracy theories.

 

[briantrumpet]

I think there's the psychological phenomenon of actually wanting to be lied to to justify one's prejudices, and that blinds people to blindingly obvious counter arguments... hence conspiracy theories.

PS, obviously I'm aware of the irony of my prejudices affecting what I post here.