|
|
Post by justin124 on May 31, 2021 10:46:29 GMT
Any comparison of someone, whoever they may be, with a leading member of the Third Reich is totally unacceptable and, I'm afraid, displays that the author is unaware of history.
As I have posted elsewhere on this site, my father was a translator at trials after the war (not Nuremburg). I will add, on this occasion, that he was taken prisoner 81 years ago this week and spent the next 4 and half years in different camps of varying horror but at least he lived to tell the tale-just. My comments are as polite as I can manage. I am well read re- the Third Reich and fully accept that Herman Goering was a thoroughly nasty piece of work. He was not,however, the worst of the Nazi leaders - ie Hitler, Himmler , Heydrich et al - and had he been Germany's leader it is much less likely that we would have seen World War 2 at all. He was opposed to the attack on Poland in 1939 and the invasion of the USSR in June 1941. None of that exonerates him from obeying Hitler's orders subsequently. Lord Halifax was happy enough to go shooting with him on his Karinhall estate, and it is well known that there were a significant number of Nazi sympathisers in the Tory party of the time which extended well beyond the MP Archibald Ramsey who was actually locked up. I have never contended that there is anything remotely Nazi about Johnson in terms of his political views and outlook - notwithstanding his many obvious flaws and the fact that he is widely viewed as a pretty unpleasant piece of work himself.I go no further than stating that he 'reminds me' of this person - it happens to be a fact that he does so! - and have no wish to suggest that others should feel the same way despite being aware of others who see the behavioural similarity re the 'clownish demeanour'. I write as a member of the Jewish Labour Movement. |
|
|
|
Post by robert1 on May 31, 2021 11:19:34 GMT
Luke ch. 23 v. 34
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on May 31, 2021 12:10:27 GMT
Something else will need to happen to remove the teflon. Classical scholar Boris has what the Romans called auctoritas and dignitas. The usual simple translation of those words into English - authority and dignity - are hopelessly inadequate (and are in fact quite misleading) in describing what the Romans meant by those words. Boris is quite widely perceived to have an authenticity that hardly any other senior politician is seen to share. But Boris' opponents simply don't perceive Boris that way at all, leading to attacks on Boris which, even when "successful", have no impact on Boris' popularity, because they're attacking an element of Boris that many people perceive quite differently from the political cognoscenti. Some opponents of Boris try to explain this by saying that Boris' 'flaws' and 'mistakes' are "baked in" to many people's perceptions of Boris. And whilst that analysis adequately describes what is happening, it fundamentally fails to address why it is happening. People recognise authenticity when they see it - and very many people see that authenticity in those very 'flaws' and 'mistakes' that opponents seek to exploit. I'm reminded of that (remarkably recent) adage: in politics, sincerity is everything; it you can fake that, you've got it made. Few people credit just how intelligent Boris is. Intelligence, of course, isn't everything. For an exceptionally busy and productive person, Boris is inherently lazy. His buffoonery is a cover covering another cover. But until his opponents appreciate Boris' positives and accept them for what they are, their analysis of Boris' so-called "teflon" nature will continue to start from the wrong perspective entirely and will continue to leave them wondering why he's not brought down by what they correctly perceive would bring down almost every other UK politician. I'd credit Johnson with intelligence. He's an effective, fast and versatile writer and a sometimes amusing but often insubstantial speaker. He's able to laugh at himself (to an extent). Critically he has developed a reasonable understanding of what he's bad at. Both of those are really useful. I have described him in the past as having "authenticity". That doesn't mean that he is authentic. A large part of what he does is an act (something very common in politics). But it's a very effective act, compared to any others on the contemporary British scene. His virus personal experience strengthened his public image. It's always worth remembering how little time most of the electorate devotes to considering politics. Impressions are vital. Substance is often unrewarded.
Obviously his appeal is far from universal. There are many who will have distaste for his personal life and his casualness with both truth and language. However, many of those accept him because, if they are Conservatives, they want a winner.
I'm not one who wonders why his faults haven't brought him down. As one of my posts said, he isn't unique and there have been others who have coasted through adversities (or even exploited them). However this kind of politician remains vulnerable. They tend to travel light and can lose touch with their ideological friends. Obviously no politicians, however semi-detached they try to play it (Thatcher was a classic - she appeared occasionally as opposition leader to her own government) can dodge manifest substantial policy failure. And when something happens that doesn't fit the public's perceived personal narrative that can be very harmful. He looks as if he dodged what could have been one of those, over his flat. Signs of greed and a very forceful reminder of how far his lifestyle is from those he seeks to influence can be bad news.
And hubris is the enemy of all leading politicians. The old supposed Roman advice to generals in triumph, "Look behind you. Remember you are a man." has always been excellent guidance.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on May 31, 2021 15:46:28 GMT
Classical scholar Boris has what the Romans called auctoritas and dignitas. The usual simple translation of those words into English - authority and dignity - are hopelessly inadequate (and are in fact quite misleading) in describing what the Romans meant by those words. Boris is quite widely perceived to have an authenticity that hardly any other senior politician is seen to share. But Boris' opponents simply don't perceive Boris that way at all, leading to attacks on Boris which, even when "successful", have no impact on Boris' popularity, because they're attacking an element of Boris that many people perceive quite differently from the political cognoscenti. Some opponents of Boris try to explain this by saying that Boris' 'flaws' and 'mistakes' are "baked in" to many people's perceptions of Boris. And whilst that analysis adequately describes what is happening, it fundamentally fails to address why it is happening. People recognise authenticity when they see it - and very many people see that authenticity in those very 'flaws' and 'mistakes' that opponents seek to exploit. I'm reminded of that (remarkably recent) adage: in politics, sincerity is everything; it you can fake that, you've got it made. Few people credit just how intelligent Boris is. Intelligence, of course, isn't everything. For an exceptionally busy and productive person, Boris is inherently lazy. His buffoonery is a cover covering another cover. But until his opponents appreciate Boris' positives and accept them for what they are, their analysis of Boris' so-called "teflon" nature will continue to start from the wrong perspective entirely and will continue to leave them wondering why he's not brought down by what they correctly perceive would bring down almost every other UK politician. I'd credit Johnson with intelligence. He's an effective, fast and versatile writer and a sometimes amusing but often insubstantial speaker. He's able to laugh at himself (to an extent). Critically he has developed a reasonable understanding of what he's bad at. Both of those are really useful. I have described him in the past as having "authenticity". That doesn't mean that he is authentic. A large part of what he does is an act (something very common in politics). But it's a very effective act, compared to any others on the contemporary British scene. His virus personal experience strengthened his public image. It's always worth remembering how little time most of the electorate devotes to considering politics. Impressions are vital. Substance is often unrewarded.
Obviously his appeal is far from universal. There are many who will have distaste for his personal life and his casualness with both truth and language. However, many of those accept him because, if they are Conservatives, they want a winner.
I'm not one who wonders why his faults haven't brought him down. As one of my posts said, he isn't unique and there have been others who have coasted through adversities (or even exploited them). However this kind of politician remains vulnerable. They tend to travel light and can lose touch with their ideological friends. Obviously no politicians, however semi-detached they try to play it (Thatcher was a classic - she appeared occasionally as opposition leader to her own government) can dodge manifest substantial policy failure. And when something happens that doesn't fit the public's perceived personal narrative that can be very harmful. He looks as if he dodged what could have been one of those, over his flat. Signs of greed and a very forceful reminder of how far his lifestyle is from those he seeks to influence can be bad news.
And hubris is the enemy of all leading politicians. The old supposed Roman advice to generals in triumph, "Look behind you. Remember you are a man." has always been excellent guidance.
I think Carrie will have to keep a low profile. The Press are capable of turning on her (as they have on Meghan) if she keeps saying things through her "friends" as she has today in the Daily Mail, where she is gloating that her marriage is a triumph over Dominic Cummings. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Jun 16, 2021 17:06:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsir on Jun 16, 2021 18:10:30 GMT
I don’t think that can be blamed on Starmers position on Israel/Palestine (or Kashmir). |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 16, 2021 18:17:18 GMT
I don’t think that can be blamed on Starmers position on Israel/Palestine (or Kashmir). I do. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2021 20:08:46 GMT
I don’t think that can be blamed on Starmers position on Israel/Palestine (or Kashmir). I do. I'm not sure there are many people thinking "Labour seem a bit anti-Palestine recently - I know, I'll vote Tory" |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 16, 2021 20:12:54 GMT
I'm not sure there are many people thinking "Labour seem a bit anti-Palestine recently - I know, I'll vote Tory" Of course not. They just don't vote Labour, or for anyone. If you don't think some of Labour's Muslim support are unhappy with the shift away from criticism of Israel and less fulsome support for the Palestinians then you're not being honest. And this is down to Starmer. Why are Labour so keen to keep him in post? |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 17, 2021 4:49:32 GMT
I don’t think that can be blamed on Starmers position on Israel/Palestine (or Kashmir). I do. Not solely, but maybe in part. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 17, 2021 4:59:44 GMT
Of course not. They just don't vote Labour, or for anyone. If you don't think some of Labour's Muslim support are unhappy with the shift away from criticism of Israel and less fulsome support for the Palestinians then you're not being honest. And this is down to Starmer. Why are Labour so keen to keep him in post? Well there could be a leadership challenge if he loses Batley. I don't know if it will happen yet. I think many who voted for him really did think he was going to be "the answer". The situation was always much more complicated than some on both right and left saw it. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 17, 2021 5:10:09 GMT
Well there could be a leadership challenge if he loses Batley. I don't know if it will happen yet. I think many who voted for him really did think he was going to be "the answer". The situation was always much more complicated than some on both right and left saw it. True, but circumstances haven't helped him. Having said that I can't put forward a positive reason to keep him as leader. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jun 17, 2021 8:12:21 GMT
Well there could be a leadership challenge if he loses Batley. I don't know if it will happen yet. I think many who voted for him really did think he was going to be "the answer". The situation was always much more complicated than some on both right and left saw it. The impression I got from the outside was that R L-B was Continuity Corbyn and therefore written off by anyone noticing how JC had gone down on the doorstep, while Starmer was offering safe managerial efficiency (and it's worth remembering just how bloody lazy Corbyn was) while promising to stick to the Corbynite policy agenda which genuinely got traction in 2017. I'm not sure that isn't the answer, because I don't see he's done either. He hasn't carried on addressing the worries of young voters about affording a home or getting value for their education or e.g. come up with a radical solution to social care. He's been smart enough to avoid elephant traps on statues and Rejoin but hasn't looked energetic like early Blair (even up against Johnson who makes Corbyn look Stakhanovite). Covid has made life hard for him and easier for Johnson (who can do what he does best i.e. nothing while others do the work/carry the can) |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 17, 2021 8:27:14 GMT
I don't know if it will happen yet. I think many who voted for him really did think he was going to be "the answer". The situation was always much more complicated than some on both right and left saw it. The impression I got from the outside was that R L-B was Continuity Corbyn and therefore written off by anyone noticing how JC had gone down on the doorstep, while Starmer was offering safe managerial efficiency (and it's worth remembering just how bloody lazy Corbyn was) while promising to stick to the Corbynite policy agenda which genuinely got traction in 2017. I'm not sure that isn't the answer, because I don't see he's done either. He hasn't carried on addressing the worries of young voters about affording a home or getting value for their education or e.g. come up with a radical solution to social care. He's been smart enough to avoid elephant traps on statues and Rejoin but hasn't looked energetic like early Blair (even up against Johnson who makes Corbyn look Stakhanovite). Covid has made life hard for him and easier for Johnson (who can do what he does best i.e. nothing while others do the work/carry the can) I don't entirely agree. It's a question of whether you thought the policies or Corbyn the individual was the issue. If it was perceived as just the latter then R L-B didn't have any of the "baggage" (little interest in foreign policy, relatively new to party politics etc). I think for her it was more the blatantly obvious reluctance that she had to do the job. I also do t think Corbyn was lazy at all, but he wasn't interested in the sort of party management issues which fascinate some and preferred to be out and about motivating the party, which he was excellent at doing - whereas Starmer is the exact opposite. He couldn't motivate anyone to do anything. I don't think that people realise exactly how many people, even those who have stayed in the party, are simply not doing anything practical. A councillor I know well said to me that she ended up delivering the vast majority of her own leaflets. This is a safe Labour ward but I have no reason to think, given my contacts across the country, that this isn't happening everywhere. Left wing party members are just not doing the work they were doing before. I can't honestly give an unbiased view of Starmer. For me, he is wrong on almost every issue, and has the appeal of a bucket of congealed vomit. I don't want him as PM and won't vote for him. The Rejoin issue would not have even been a possibility if we had done what we should have done and make it clear that the referendum had voted for us to leave. Corbyn was absolutely right to call for an immediate passing of article 50 and that would have heightened the pressure on May to get moving with a sensible cross party approach. And I do blame Starmer for the move towards a second referendum. Corbyn should certainly have been stronger - but as I have said before, leaving the EU was inevitable given public attitudes and the fact no-one was prepared to promote political union. I've heard nothing positive from Starmer. His position on Covid has been for me, worse than the Government. He appears to have nothing to say. He appears as incapable of challenging Johnson as the left in general, who can't get to grips with why some people like him - but the Being Boring strategy of Starmer certainly isn't the way forward. And he isn't capable of being anything other. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,009
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 17, 2021 10:39:01 GMT
I'm not sure there are many people thinking "Labour seem a bit anti-Palestine recently - I know, I'll vote Tory" Of course not. They just don't vote Labour, or for anyone. If you don't think some of Labour's Muslim support are unhappy with the shift away from criticism of Israel and less fulsome support for the Palestinians then you're not being honest. And this is down to Starmer. Why are Labour so keen to keep him in post?Is this *really* your current impression? |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 17, 2021 12:17:32 GMT
Of course not. They just don't vote Labour, or for anyone. If you don't think some of Labour's Muslim support are unhappy with the shift away from criticism of Israel and less fulsome support for the Palestinians then you're not being honest. And this is down to Starmer. Why are Labour so keen to keep him in post?Is this *really* your current impression? I don't hear the same sort of comments made about JC from the PLP. They are comfortable with him though probably bemused at the lack of success |
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,732
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jun 17, 2021 16:17:22 GMT
Whilst it is undoubtedly fair to say that the pandemic has screwed up Starmer's first year, he should really be much better at challenging the government in a way that is understandable to the voter. Being forensic is not enough if nobody can be bothered watching you. The real problem is that he is absolutely an establishment figure who will have no deep interest in challenging the same establishment. My reasons for opposing him as leader cane from my knowledge of him as DPP when I worked in the High Security Estate, and it made me distrust him.
I feel for Rebecca Long-Bailey as she was promoted too soon. With more time on the back-benches, she would have built up her knowledge base. Nonetheless, if she had been somewhat less cavalier with her use of social media, she would still be on the front bench and developing as a significant figure. As it is, she is now invisible, not even a supportive critic.
The party seems bereft of political heavyweights, from any ideological wing, and that is a real weakness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 16:27:31 GMT
Whilst it is undoubtedly fair to say that the pandemic has screwed up Starmer's first year, he should really be much better at challenging the government in a way that is understandable to the voter. Being forensic is not enough if nobody can be bothered watching you. The real problem is that he is absolutely an establishment figure who will have no deep interest in challenging the same establishment. My reasons for opposing him as leader cane from my knowledge of him as DPP when I worked in the High Security Estate, and it made me distrust him. I feel for Rebecca Long-Bailey as she was promoted too soon. With more time on the back-benches, she would have built up her knowledge base. Nonetheless, if she had been somewhat less cavalier with her use of social media, she would still be on the front bench and developing as a significant figure. As it is, she is now invisible, not even a supportive critic. The party seems bereft of political heavyweights, from any ideological wing, and that is a real weakness. Possibly a discussion for the Labour Party room, but I think part of the problem is having too many MPs straight from university or lawyer/banker/accountant type jobs and too many MPs with too little experience of lower levels of government. Personally I think we should include a rule that any candidate in a target seats has to have sat on a district, county or unitary council for a minimum of one full term before being selected to make sure we get more MPs with more experience of being in some level of government, a stronger connection to the local party and stronger roots in the local area |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jun 17, 2021 16:33:18 GMT
Whilst it is undoubtedly fair to say that the pandemic has screwed up Starmer's first year, he should really be much better at challenging the government in a way that is understandable to the voter. Being forensic is not enough if nobody can be bothered watching you. The real problem is that he is absolutely an establishment figure who will have no deep interest in challenging the same establishment. My reasons for opposing him as leader cane from my knowledge of him as DPP when I worked in the High Security Estate, and it made me distrust him. I feel for Rebecca Long-Bailey as she was promoted too soon. With more time on the back-benches, she would have built up her knowledge base. Nonetheless, if she had been somewhat less cavalier with her use of social media, she would still be on the front bench and developing as a significant figure. As it is, she is now invisible, not even a supportive critic. The party seems bereft of political heavyweights, from any ideological wing, and that is a real weakness. Possibly a discussion for the Labour Party room, but I think part of the problem is having too many MPs straight from university or lawyer/banker/accountant type jobs and too many MPs with too little experience of lower levels of government. Personally I think we should include a rule that any candidate in a target seats has to have sat on a district, county or unitary council for a minimum of one full term before being selected to make sure we get more MPs with more experience of being in some level of government, a stronger connection to the local party and stronger roots in the local area Ah, so noone who lives in a Tory area could ever be a Labour MP? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2021 16:45:31 GMT
Possibly a discussion for the Labour Party room, but I think part of the problem is having too many MPs straight from university or lawyer/banker/accountant type jobs and too many MPs with too little experience of lower levels of government. Personally I think we should include a rule that any candidate in a target seats has to have sat on a district, county or unitary council for a minimum of one full term before being selected to make sure we get more MPs with more experience of being in some level of government, a stronger connection to the local party and stronger roots in the local area Ah, so noone who lives in a Tory area could ever be a Labour MP? Anybody who lives in an area that's so strongly Tory there are no Labour councillors isn't in a winnable seat anyway |
|
