You are reading a single comment by @neu and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • I think Starmer's had an easy ride of it until Beergate, frankly. Principally because he's presenting himself as no danger to the status quo and offering little if any meaningful alternative to the current government beyond perhaps being more professional and 'competent' in carrying out policy.

    I think this is just warmed over 'they're all the same' cant but spoken eloquently and with a hint of 'the system always wins' 70s paranoia. The only people who benefit from such are genuinely unethical politicians like Johnson. There is a fundamental difference between politicians like Starmer and Rayner and Cooper, and politicians like Johnson and Raab and Patel. Competence is one of the metrics. But seriousness of purpose, ethics, and policy are equally important.

    I think in the 90s it was a legitimate criticism to say that a politician stood for the status quo, because the status quo - by which I mean the rule of law, rational self-interest, an independent judiciary, a respect for the truth, a respect for our obligations on the world stage - was not under constant and fundamental attack by our government. I think now that kind of invective is pure self-indulgence.

  • I think this is just warmed over 'they're all the same' cant but spoken eloquently and with a hint of 'the system always wins' 70s paranoia.

    Bit of a stretch.

About

Avatar for neu @neu started