I have to say it makes me think of @Leon and his observation that the more you see of Rishi the more likeable he seems while the opposite is true of Starmer.
In fact, Sir Keir is in danger of seeming not just dull, but quite utterly charmless. And contrasting very much with his opponent in this respect.
Something Labour needs to watch out for. A weakness which may only become apparent during an election campaign when voters have to consider do they really want this man on my screen(s) morning, noon and night for the next 5 years.
Still, don't think it will stop him winning through.
I saw that interview and agree
Sunak v Starmer will be a very compelling battle at GE 24
You Tories are sucker for a public schoolboy with that paid for charm. Sadly, look beyond that charm and you find problems. I would have thought you might have learned by now.
Wins elections though.
Creates terrible governments though.
I take it you are referring to the government run by that Fettes-educated, public school charmer, Tony Blair?
Nice try, I win £5. The exception that proves the rule. 😉
After Dave, Boris and Rishi Rich we need someone with a rough edge, but some actual substance and grit.
So why are you offering us Sir Keir Starmer?
To irritate you ?
Having nobody to vote for will do that, it's true.
On of the reasons I support PR.
Wouldn't matter. Even under PR the choice of PM would still be the same.
If we had PR we would have completely different parties, so it wouldn't.
Would we? Certainly Labour and the Tories as the main parties of their respective sides would be smaller, but they'd still be the two biggest parties and their leaders would still be the only possible candidates for PM.
Why would you think that when it is not the case in most of the countries that have PR.
One final point on that horrible vandal farmer, his defense in court was - in part - that he is autistic, and therefore, presumably, can’t help doing this (a mad defense as most autistic people don’t destroy rivers, but there we are)
If we accept his defense then we would also have to say: OK you’re mentally incapable of looking after your land, so we will take it away from you, or you will do it again
So it is either jail, or he loses the property. Those were the only possible outcomes
I have to say it makes me think of @Leon and his observation that the more you see of Rishi the more likeable he seems while the opposite is true of Starmer.
In fact, Sir Keir is in danger of seeming not just dull, but quite utterly charmless. And contrasting very much with his opponent in this respect.
Something Labour needs to watch out for. A weakness which may only become apparent during an election campaign when voters have to consider do they really want this man on my screen(s) morning, noon and night for the next 5 years.
Still, don't think it will stop him winning through.
I saw that interview and agree
Sunak v Starmer will be a very compelling battle at GE 24
We joke about Raab looking like a rabbit in the headlights. I think the same is true with Starmer and even worse than Raaaab.
Starmer comes across as plastic because his eyes are so odd. Like Gordon Brown, his eyes look dead regardless of what the rest of his face is trying to do. Perhaps it is KC training at work, but he needs to be more expressive.
He just comes over as miserable, negative and charmless
I would add Raab resigning is an excellent result and he will not be missed
Sometimes people need to go to prison, because they keep ignoring rules even after they have been told to stop what they are doing. This is also quite common with unauthorised demolition and building work, people think they can just ignore the Council and court rulings, etc. The threat of prison is often the only thing that can influence them.
Yes and no. I’d rather see non-violent non-sex offenders given meaningful community punishments, rather than prison time. He wasn’t specifically found guilty of contempt of court, which yes should result in a custodial sentence.
I think the issue here was that he was repeatedly warned and carried on. I guess it could be because he is very rich, he has a fortune of £20 million. So community orders aren't going to have much effect. Something needs to happen to put him off. He could have alternatively been fined £20 million.
Most of the time with this prison thing, it just plays to a dark societal impulse driven by disgust - people hear about an offence and think 'jail them for decades', albeit without contemplating what that really means - the cost of imprisonment, the ruin of families, caring responsibilities, careers etc.
From another report it sounds like he did quite a lot of damage to trees and vegetation alongside the river so not just dredging.
I know the River Lugg very well. It is exquisite. This guy is a barbarian. He’s been attacking the riverscape for years - he got prison this time because he he’s broken the law - pointlessly tearing down trees etc - multiple times going back decades
From another report it sounds like he did quite a lot of damage to trees and vegetation alongside the river so not just dredging.
I know the River Lugg very well. It is exquisite. This guy is a barbarian. He’s been attacking the riverscape for years - he got prison this time because he he’s broken the law - pointlessly tearing down trees etc - multiple times going back decades
A senior lawyer who used his daily jog to repeatedly flash schoolgirls has been struck off.
Mark Pittaway was a director of Thursfields Solicitors in the West Midlands when he regularly exposed himself over a three-year period to at least four girls, one of whom told the court he had flashed her more than 30 times.
Pittaway pulled his shorts to one side as he ran past the children while they were on their way to school or waiting at a bus stop.
The solicitor, whose running for charity regularly featured in the press, was charged with five counts of indecent exposure while jogging around the Portland area of Dorset.
He was also his firm’s compliance officer, and reported himself to the SRA in 2021. He informed the regulator that “Last Thursday I was charged with offences, all of which I deny, but which are likely to become public knowledge at some stage whereby both the reputation of my firm and that of the profession might be harmed. They are not fraud or dishonesty related but may attract media attention nonetheless”.
The solicitor claimed to police that if anyone had seen his genitals it was “purely accidental” and a result of him wearing short shorts.
When he was shown CCTV footage he conceded that his genitals were on display, but maintained that he must have been hitching up his shorts to “scratch his groin area”.
Four eyewitnesses gave evidence at his trial. One said that "nearly every day for two years, this man would flash his genitals to me. I was in school. Walking to and from school. lt was horrible. I would go to school scared and frightened of what will happen to me. I thought he would've raped me or done stuff to me. I have never been so scared in my life. lt has degraded me as a woman and I felt targeted. When it first happened I was fourteen years old. I was a child".
A second victim said, "This incident left me feeling so uncomfortable going into school. lt got to the point that I would always make sure I was with someone or get a lift....I would think about the other children who must have seen this. There must have been so many children”.
Convicted of all five charges, Pittaway was given a suspended 12 month sentence and a 12 week curfew between 9pm and 9am.
One has to wonder why the curfew wasn't timed to exclude school hours, rather than (mostly) times when school children wouldn't be around. It doesn't sound to me as though he would have been "scratching his groin" at throwing-out time from the pub.
I have to say it makes me think of @Leon and his observation that the more you see of Rishi the more likeable he seems while the opposite is true of Starmer.
In fact, Sir Keir is in danger of seeming not just dull, but quite utterly charmless. And contrasting very much with his opponent in this respect.
Something Labour needs to watch out for. A weakness which may only become apparent during an election campaign when voters have to consider do they really want this man on my screen(s) morning, noon and night for the next 5 years.
Still, don't think it will stop him winning through.
I saw that interview and agree
Sunak v Starmer will be a very compelling battle at GE 24
You Tories are sucker for a public schoolboy with that paid for charm. Sadly, look beyond that charm and you find problems. I would have thought you might have learned by now.
Getting worried?
Interesting isn't it. Sunak is in a different league to Starmer when it comes lo general likeability - the left could just admit this rather than resorting to silly jibes - they are going to win anyway.
I’m not going to admit something I don’t sincerely agree with. He’s as boring to me as Starmer. Just sounds like Blair with boring turned on
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
I have to say it makes me think of @Leon and his observation that the more you see of Rishi the more likeable he seems while the opposite is true of Starmer.
In fact, Sir Keir is in danger of seeming not just dull, but quite utterly charmless. And contrasting very much with his opponent in this respect.
Something Labour needs to watch out for. A weakness which may only become apparent during an election campaign when voters have to consider do they really want this man on my screen(s) morning, noon and night for the next 5 years.
Still, don't think it will stop him winning through.
I saw that interview and agree
Sunak v Starmer will be a very compelling battle at GE 24
We joke about Raab looking like a rabbit in the headlights. I think the same is true with Starmer and even worse than Raaaab.
Starmer comes across as plastic because his eyes are so odd. Like Gordon Brown, his eyes look dead regardless of what the rest of his face is trying to do. Perhaps it is KC training at work, but he needs to be more expressive.
Starmer appears to have suffered from a charisma bypass. Sunak seems studious but friendly.
My other half thinks Starmer always looks like he is suffering from trapped wind.
On topic, possibly: Years ago, I read of a man in Silicon Valley, who was productive, but so unpleasant to work with that his company rented a private office for him, so other workers could avoid him. Perhaps Raab should have been treated similarly?
(I know little about the man, other than that some commenters here don't much like him.)
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Recall that some declared their readiness to "wade through blood" to win again. Perhaps not the most objective of judges.
FWIW, neither Starmer nor Sunak come close to meeting the beer test - though I suppose one of them does at least drink beer.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
On topic, possibly: Years ago, I read of a man in Silicon Valley, who was productive, but so unpleasant to work with that his company rented a private office for him, so other workers could avoid him. Perhaps Raab should have been treated similarly?
(I know little about the man, other than that some commenters here don't much like him.)
The comparison would work quite well if only productive and so incompetent he didnt know Calais-Dover was important to trade meant the same thing.
On topic, possibly: Years ago, I read of a man in Silicon Valley, who was productive, but so unpleasant to work with that his company rented a private office for him, so other workers could avoid him. Perhaps Raab should have been treated similarly?
(I know little about the man, other than that some commenters here don't much like him.)
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Recall that some declared their readiness to "wade through blood" to win again. Perhaps not the most objective of judges.
FWIW, neither Starmer nor Sunak come close to meeting the beer test - though I suppose one of them does at least drink beer.
Don't mention a beer (or a curry) in this company!
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
Worth looking at the chart because it shows what has happened since the last election.
Then the Government + Support got 53.7% of the votes now they are on 43%...
There are two polls coming up in Turkey on the 14th May: *) A presidential election, which appears to be fairly close between Erdogan and Kılıçdaroğlu (1): *) A parliamentary election, where Erdogan's ruling AKP have a generally increasing gap after the earthquake (2):
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
On the pub test: Sunak every day. Starmer would probably complain that I was infringing the beermat's rights by placing my pint glass on it.
I'm still far more likely to vote for Starmer's party than Sunak's, though, and I expect Starmer to be a poor PM. It's not just the leader, it's the people around them, and the Conservative Party has a very shallow talent pool. So might Labour, but their lack of depth is less immediately visible.
Trump surges to 13-point lead over DeSantis: poll https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3962483-trump-surges-to-13-point-lead-over-desantis-poll/ Former President Trump has flipped the field against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in a possible 2024 GOP primary matchup, surging to a 13-point lead according to a new Wall Street Journal poll. Trump trailed DeSantis by 14 points as recently as December, but Trump’s solid lead now points to signs that DeSantis’s not-yet-announced campaign may be losing momentum. In a head-to-head matchup, GOP voters said they would back Trump 51 percent to 38 for DeSantis, the poll found. Even in a more crowded field, with a poll that includes other announced candidates like former UN ambassador Nikki Haley, Trump still takes 48 percent of the vote to DeSantis’s 24 percent support. There, Haley took 5 percent support and Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.) 3 percent. All other candidates received 2 percent support or less and 13 percent were undecided....
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
I'd go for 10% sortition for the commons, and 25% for the lords.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
A senior lawyer who used his daily jog to repeatedly flash schoolgirls has been struck off.
Mark Pittaway was a director of Thursfields Solicitors in the West Midlands when he regularly exposed himself over a three-year period to at least four girls, one of whom told the court he had flashed her more than 30 times.
Pittaway pulled his shorts to one side as he ran past the children while they were on their way to school or waiting at a bus stop.
The solicitor, whose running for charity regularly featured in the press, was charged with five counts of indecent exposure while jogging around the Portland area of Dorset.
He was also his firm’s compliance officer, and reported himself to the SRA in 2021. He informed the regulator that “Last Thursday I was charged with offences, all of which I deny, but which are likely to become public knowledge at some stage whereby both the reputation of my firm and that of the profession might be harmed. They are not fraud or dishonesty related but may attract media attention nonetheless”.
The solicitor claimed to police that if anyone had seen his genitals it was “purely accidental” and a result of him wearing short shorts.
When he was shown CCTV footage he conceded that his genitals were on display, but maintained that he must have been hitching up his shorts to “scratch his groin area”.
Four eyewitnesses gave evidence at his trial. One said that "nearly every day for two years, this man would flash his genitals to me. I was in school. Walking to and from school. lt was horrible. I would go to school scared and frightened of what will happen to me. I thought he would've raped me or done stuff to me. I have never been so scared in my life. lt has degraded me as a woman and I felt targeted. When it first happened I was fourteen years old. I was a child".
A second victim said, "This incident left me feeling so uncomfortable going into school. lt got to the point that I would always make sure I was with someone or get a lift....I would think about the other children who must have seen this. There must have been so many children”.
Convicted of all five charges, Pittaway was given a suspended 12 month sentence and a 12 week curfew between 9pm and 9am.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
I'd go for 10% sortition for the commons, and 25% for the lords.
The House of Lords changed to be the 100 living non-legitimate descendants of Charles II
Their titles would be variations on bastard - getting simpler as they gain in rank.
- Right Honourable and Noble Bastard - Right Honourable Bastard - Right Bastard
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
Starmer is what he is. An old friend of mine is a Labour member in Holborn and St Pancras, and was on the CLP committee there for a while. He said Starmer never gives anything away. He is totally enclosed. I suspect it's got a lot to do with his background and what it took to get where he did in the law. It's never been easy for him and that has just shut him down.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
I have to say it makes me think of @Leon and his observation that the more you see of Rishi the more likeable he seems while the opposite is true of Starmer.
In fact, Sir Keir is in danger of seeming not just dull, but quite utterly charmless. And contrasting very much with his opponent in this respect.
Something Labour needs to watch out for. A weakness which may only become apparent during an election campaign when voters have to consider do they really want this man on my screen(s) morning, noon and night for the next 5 years.
Still, don't think it will stop him winning through.
I saw that interview and agree
Sunak v Starmer will be a very compelling battle at GE 24
You Tories are sucker for a public schoolboy with that paid for charm. Sadly, look beyond that charm and you find problems. I would have thought you might have learned by now.
Getting worried?
Interesting isn't it. Sunak is in a different league to Starmer when it comes lo general likeability - the left could just admit this rather than resorting to silly jibes - they are going to win anyway.
Labour are going to win - least I hope so - but I doubt the left are. The 2 things appear mutually exclusive in Brexit Britain (sadly from my pov).
Now the farmer under 25? If so, he can claim he wasn’t responsible, surely?
Only in Scotland.
You’re probably a bit out of the loop on what the Tory governments of the last 13 years have been up to, but no, not only in Scotland.
No, there are completely different legal systems in England and Scotland. The advise with regard to offenders under 25, was very specifically from the Scottish government to the Scottish judiciary. If only the councel for the prosecution frequented this forum.
Yeah, yeah..
Do you have an actual link to an actual case, rather than what looks like a doctorered-up facsimile of the BBC website?
Jeezo, do you PB Tories need everything done for you?
I get the deterrent aspect of the sentences, but the examples of the disruption given (a pregnant woman delayed, someone missing a funeral, a business losing revenue) seem a bit…meh. The upcoming coronation or the London Marathon will, I’m sure, cause delays on a similar scale.
I’m not particularly defending the actions of the protestors, but I do find the confected horror that a protest has caused some disruption a bit pathetic. Anything out of the ordinary in day to day life causes disruption and to cite this sort of thing in a tone of horror is…unconvincing.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
I get the deterrent aspect of the sentences, but the examples of the disruption given (a pregnant woman delayed, someone missing a funeral, a business losing revenue) seem a bit…meh. The upcoming coronation or the London Marathon will, I’m sure, cause delays on a similar scale.
I’m not particularly defending the actions of the protestors, but I do find the confected horror that a protest has caused some disruption a bit pathetic. Anything out of the ordinary in day to day life causes disruption and to cite this sort of thing in a tone of horror is…unconvincing.
Particularly when the Dartford Crossing is a notorious source of delays.
Just Stop Oil protesters Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker, who scaled a bridge on the Dartford Crossing forcing police to close it to traffic, have been sentenced to three years in prison, and two years and seven months in prison respectively for causing a public nuisance.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
I'd go for 10% sortition for the commons, and 25% for the lords.
The House of Lords changed to be the 100 living non-legitimate descendants of Charles II
Their titles would be variations on bastard - getting simpler as they gain in rank.
- Right Honourable and Noble Bastard - Right Honourable Bastard - Right Bastard
Surely there needs to be a post of Complete and Utter Bastard? If only for Dominic Raab....
Now the farmer under 25? If so, he can claim he wasn’t responsible, surely?
Only in Scotland.
You’re probably a bit out of the loop on what the Tory governments of the last 13 years have been up to, but no, not only in Scotland.
No, there are completely different legal systems in England and Scotland. The advise with regard to offenders under 25, was very specifically from the Scottish government to the Scottish judiciary. If only the councel for the prosecution frequented this forum.
Yeah, yeah..
Do you have an actual link to an actual case, rather than what looks like a doctorered-up facsimile of the BBC website?
Jeezo, do you PB Tories need everything done for you?
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
On the pub test: Sunak every day. Starmer would probably complain that I was infringing the beermat's rights by placing my pint glass on it.
I'm still far more likely to vote for Starmer's party than Sunak's, though, and I expect Starmer to be a poor PM. It's not just the leader, it's the people around them, and the Conservative Party has a very shallow talent pool. So might Labour, but their lack of depth is less immediately visible.
Which could primarily be because they're in opposition.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
Starmer is what he is. An old friend of mine is a Labour member in Holborn and St Pancras, and was on the CLP committee there for a while. He said Starmer never gives anything away. He is totally enclosed. I suspect it's got a lot to do with his background and what it took to get where he did in the law. It's never been easy for him and that has just shut him down.
“I’m piecing this together,” says Starmer at one point, to Humphrey and Hughes. “That thing Angela said about undersharing - the intensity of mum’s illness meant there wasn’t much emotional space in our household for much else…So I hold things in, that if I was Angela I’d probably share.” His biggest regret is visiting his dad in hospital, sensing that it was for the last time, and not telling him that he loved him, and he was proud of him. He cries when he talks about this. (Rodney Starmer died in 2018).
Starmer never mentions enjoyment or pleasure or satisfaction in the interview, just duty and responsibility and privilege. He talks a lot about how tough the job is on him and his family. He talks about how resilient he needs to be to recover from moments like Hartlepool (“like being punched in the stomach”), and how hard he works at shutting out criticism and abuse; he says that after a setback he “goes in on himself”, adopting a protective crouch, absorbing the blow, searching for the will to go on. “They are the low moments in politics,” he muses, and just when you think he is going to mention the highs, says, “There are many other times when it’s certainly not that bad.”
Starmer moves slowly and cautiously because he is, as psychoanalysts like to say, strongly defended, having formed a thick carapace of tortoiseshell to hide his vulnerabilities. A strong defence tends to slow you down. Starmer is like Arsenal in the heyday of Tony Adams under George Graham - solid, hard to beat, rather dull. The analogy is not totally gratuitous; Starmer is a committed Arsenal fan. He will know that the Arsenal of that era did not reach its full potential until Arsène Wenger built flair and creativity on top of the team’s defensive foundation.
There's stuff there that I can find very relatable. And it does make his choice to do politcs as a career rather odd. But here we all are. I doubt that he will ever be the Prime Minister we want, and it's surprising that he's the Prime Minister we are likely to get. But he may be the Prime Minister we need, and if he's lucky the voting public may accept him on those terms.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
The reaction of Raab's apologists could scarcely be more absurd.
OK. If you want to take a "political correctness gone mad" stance and make out that real men should be made of sterner stuff and take it on the chin with a stiff upper lip and so on, then fair enough.
The tragedy for people who think like that is that their brave hero didn't take that line. He accepted the whole thing without qualification and promised to abide by its conclusions. It's no good whatsoever for either him or his pals to bleat about it now. He's brought the whole thing on himself, whatever you think of the rights and wrongs.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
If you want interesting and charming, why look beyond Boris?
But that's a bit like jumping at the chance of an offer of "may you live in interesting times". No thanks.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
Starmer is what he is. An old friend of mine is a Labour member in Holborn and St Pancras, and was on the CLP committee there for a while. He said Starmer never gives anything away. He is totally enclosed. I suspect it's got a lot to do with his background and what it took to get where he did in the law. It's never been easy for him and that has just shut him down.
“I’m piecing this together,” says Starmer at one point, to Humphrey and Hughes. “That thing Angela said about undersharing - the intensity of mum’s illness meant there wasn’t much emotional space in our household for much else…So I hold things in, that if I was Angela I’d probably share.” His biggest regret is visiting his dad in hospital, sensing that it was for the last time, and not telling him that he loved him, and he was proud of him. He cries when he talks about this. (Rodney Starmer died in 2018).
Starmer never mentions enjoyment or pleasure or satisfaction in the interview, just duty and responsibility and privilege. He talks a lot about how tough the job is on him and his family. He talks about how resilient he needs to be to recover from moments like Hartlepool (“like being punched in the stomach”), and how hard he works at shutting out criticism and abuse; he says that after a setback he “goes in on himself”, adopting a protective crouch, absorbing the blow, searching for the will to go on. “They are the low moments in politics,” he muses, and just when you think he is going to mention the highs, says, “There are many other times when it’s certainly not that bad.”
Starmer moves slowly and cautiously because he is, as psychoanalysts like to say, strongly defended, having formed a thick carapace of tortoiseshell to hide his vulnerabilities. A strong defence tends to slow you down. Starmer is like Arsenal in the heyday of Tony Adams under George Graham - solid, hard to beat, rather dull. The analogy is not totally gratuitous; Starmer is a committed Arsenal fan. He will know that the Arsenal of that era did not reach its full potential until Arsène Wenger built flair and creativity on top of the team’s defensive foundation.
There's stuff there that I can find very relatable. And it does make his choice to do politcs as a career rather odd. But here we all are. I doubt that he will ever be the Prime Minister we want, and it's surprising that he's the Prime Minister we are likely to get. But he may be the Prime Minister we need, and if he's lucky the voting public may accept him on those terms.
Only having read your excerpt, he does rather sound like the PM we need. A bit of staid, stolid resilience and lack of emotion sounds really quite appealing after the nonsense of the past few years.
I have never understood this argument that we need our politicians to be charismatic in office. On campaign, sure, but that might not be necessary this time.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
Starmer is what he is. An old friend of mine is a Labour member in Holborn and St Pancras, and was on the CLP committee there for a while. He said Starmer never gives anything away. He is totally enclosed. I suspect it's got a lot to do with his background and what it took to get where he did in the law. It's never been easy for him and that has just shut him down.
Yes that sounds right. I like politicians who don't project "personality" (it's often a sign of humility) but it will be a handicap for the GE. Probably going to cost a few seats.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
SCS is pretty senior (10+ years). As explained in the report, almost everyone who works with Raab is not SCS.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Bang on
His resignation is ridiculous and it means any civil servants can now go mob handed, claim they were all “undermined” and then that’s that. The minister has to go. No objective evidence needed nor adduced
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
Starmer is what he is. An old friend of mine is a Labour member in Holborn and St Pancras, and was on the CLP committee there for a while. He said Starmer never gives anything away. He is totally enclosed. I suspect it's got a lot to do with his background and what it took to get where he did in the law. It's never been easy for him and that has just shut him down.
Yes that sounds right. I like politicians who don't project "personality" (it's often a sign of humility) but it will be a handicap for the GE. Probably going to cost a few seats.
A better politician than SKS would have made a lot more of his life story. I'm pretty well-informed, I think, and I didn't know most of it.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
Apart from the disputed example of Raab, do you have any evidence of that at all ?
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
SCS is pretty senior (10+ years). As explained in the report, almost everyone who works with Raab is not SCS.
It was a vaguely defined 'network' involving some of his private office, and some policy makers.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
I’m quite certain it would make a difference...
It would also improve the social standing of teachers if an education were a gateway to getting the vote.
We probably couldn't get there in one bound, so it would take a series of reform acts to gradually restrict the franchise to only the most enlightened.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
If you want interesting and charming, why look beyond Boris?
But that's a bit like jumping at the chance of an offer of "may you live in interesting times". No thanks.
Neither interesting or charming are particularly high on my electoral wishlist but I accept they are important from a political betting point of view. Boris, interesting, sure at least at first, charming, not for me, but was to too many for some reason.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Tories wont stop Torying; it's what they do. You might as well go complain about the Pope sh*tting in the woods.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
I’m quite certain it would make a difference...
It would also improve the social standing of teachers if an education were a gateway to getting the vote.
We probably couldn't get there in one bound, so it would take a series of reform acts to gradually restrict the franchise to only the most enlightened.
I don’t know…I mean, we accept golden visas for rich foreigners. Why not golden casting votes that the rich can buy in each constituency?
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
I’m quite certain it would make a difference...
Labour landslide if the franchise is restricted to graduates. Bring it on. 🙂
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
If you want interesting and charming, why look beyond Boris?
But that's a bit like jumping at the chance of an offer of "may you live in interesting times". No thanks.
Neither interesting or charming are particularly high on my electoral wishlist but I accept they are important from a political betting point of view. Boris, interesting, sure at least at first, charming, not for me, but was to too many for some reason.
You wouldn’t, I understand, have called Attlee ‘charismatic’. But he was a very good Prime Minister, chairman of the board.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
If you want interesting and charming, why look beyond Boris?
But that's a bit like jumping at the chance of an offer of "may you live in interesting times". No thanks.
Neither interesting or charming are particularly high on my electoral wishlist but I accept they are important from a political betting point of view. Boris, interesting, sure at least at first, charming, not for me, but was to too many for some reason.
The Germans are much more willing to vote for boring competence than we Brits. It stems from our political system where reputations are made in the bearpit of lively but ultimately futile debating in the chamber, whereas German politicians become known for their assiduous constituency and solid committee work.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
SCS is pretty senior (10+ years). As explained in the report, almost everyone who works with Raab is not SCS.
It was a vaguely defined 'network' involving some of his private office, and some policy makers.
Not sure your point. You said they were "low level officials" but the opposite of SCS is not "low level". As set out the report, the evidence was from: 1. Two members of the SCS (relating the experience of others); and 2. Others who worked with Raab on a day to day basis.
It's clear Raab isn't the devil incarnate, but he clearly has a lot to learn.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Bang on
His resignation is ridiculous and it means any civil servants can now go mob handed, claim they were all “undermined” and then that’s that. The minister has to go. No objective evidence needed nor adduced
Doesn't the report effectively accuse Raab of lying about not being talked to about his behaviour by the Permanent Secretary at the Justice Department?
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
I’m quite certain it would make a difference...
Labour landslide if the franchise is restricted to graduates. Bring it on. 🙂
Corbyn would have been Prime Minister if the franchise was restricted to graduates.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
If you want interesting and charming, why look beyond Boris?
But that's a bit like jumping at the chance of an offer of "may you live in interesting times". No thanks.
Neither interesting or charming are particularly high on my electoral wishlist but I accept they are important from a political betting point of view. Boris, interesting, sure at least at first, charming, not for me, but was to too many for some reason.
You wouldn’t, I understand, have called Attlee ‘charismatic’. But he was a very good Prime Minister, chairman of the board.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
I’m quite certain it would make a difference...
Labour landslide if the franchise is restricted to graduates. Bring it on. 🙂
Corbyn would have been Prime Minister if the franchise was restricted to graduates.
No he wouldn't. He isn't a graduate so would have been barred from standing.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
I’m quite certain it would make a difference...
It would also improve the social standing of teachers if an education were a gateway to getting the vote.
We probably couldn't get there in one bound, so it would take a series of reform acts to gradually restrict the franchise to only the most enlightened.
Incidentally I thought it was rather ironic that on a day when a minister was fired for allegations of what appears to be fairly low-level bullying being upheld, OFSTED, against who, there have been literally countless allegations of bullying, fraud, and even safeguarding breaches against children, announced it would not change any of its behaviours despite their bullying literally killing people.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
I’m quite certain it would make a difference...
It would also improve the social standing of teachers if an education were a gateway to getting the vote.
We probably couldn't get there in one bound, so it would take a series of reform acts to gradually restrict the franchise to only the most enlightened.
Indeed.
The DfE out first...
Good suggestion. It should apply to all civil servants to reflect their political neutrality.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
I’m quite certain it would make a difference...
It would also improve the social standing of teachers if an education were a gateway to getting the vote.
We probably couldn't get there in one bound, so it would take a series of reform acts to gradually restrict the franchise to only the most enlightened.
Indeed.
The DfE out first...
Good suggestion. It should apply to all civil servants to reflect their political neutrality.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
I’m quite certain it would make a difference...
It would also improve the social standing of teachers if an education were a gateway to getting the vote.
We probably couldn't get there in one bound, so it would take a series of reform acts to gradually restrict the franchise to only the most enlightened.
Indeed.
The DfE out first...
I haven’t got a first degree, but I have got a Masters. Does that count?
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
I’m quite certain it would make a difference...
It would also improve the social standing of teachers if an education were a gateway to getting the vote.
We probably couldn't get there in one bound, so it would take a series of reform acts to gradually restrict the franchise to only the most enlightened.
Indeed.
The DfE out first...
I haven’t got a first degree, but I have got a Masters. Does that count?
Good point.
As Oxford and Cambridge graduates do not get proper degrees, instead being given paid for Masters, would they count?
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
I’m quite certain it would make a difference...
It would also improve the social standing of teachers if an education were a gateway to getting the vote.
We probably couldn't get there in one bound, so it would take a series of reform acts to gradually restrict the franchise to only the most enlightened.
Indeed.
The DfE out first...
I haven’t got a first degree, but I have got a Masters. Does that count?
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
Starmer is what he is. An old friend of mine is a Labour member in Holborn and St Pancras, and was on the CLP committee there for a while. He said Starmer never gives anything away. He is totally enclosed. I suspect it's got a lot to do with his background and what it took to get where he did in the law. It's never been easy for him and that has just shut him down.
“I’m piecing this together,” says Starmer at one point, to Humphrey and Hughes. “That thing Angela said about undersharing - the intensity of mum’s illness meant there wasn’t much emotional space in our household for much else…So I hold things in, that if I was Angela I’d probably share.” His biggest regret is visiting his dad in hospital, sensing that it was for the last time, and not telling him that he loved him, and he was proud of him. He cries when he talks about this. (Rodney Starmer died in 2018).
Starmer never mentions enjoyment or pleasure or satisfaction in the interview, just duty and responsibility and privilege. He talks a lot about how tough the job is on him and his family. He talks about how resilient he needs to be to recover from moments like Hartlepool (“like being punched in the stomach”), and how hard he works at shutting out criticism and abuse; he says that after a setback he “goes in on himself”, adopting a protective crouch, absorbing the blow, searching for the will to go on. “They are the low moments in politics,” he muses, and just when you think he is going to mention the highs, says, “There are many other times when it’s certainly not that bad.”
Starmer moves slowly and cautiously because he is, as psychoanalysts like to say, strongly defended, having formed a thick carapace of tortoiseshell to hide his vulnerabilities. A strong defence tends to slow you down. Starmer is like Arsenal in the heyday of Tony Adams under George Graham - solid, hard to beat, rather dull. The analogy is not totally gratuitous; Starmer is a committed Arsenal fan. He will know that the Arsenal of that era did not reach its full potential until Arsène Wenger built flair and creativity on top of the team’s defensive foundation.
There's stuff there that I can find very relatable. And it does make his choice to do politcs as a career rather odd. But here we all are. I doubt that he will ever be the Prime Minister we want, and it's surprising that he's the Prime Minister we are likely to get. But he may be the Prime Minister we need, and if he's lucky the voting public may accept him on those terms.
Only having read your excerpt, he does rather sound like the PM we need. A bit of staid, stolid resilience and lack of emotion sounds really quite appealing after the nonsense of the past few years.
I have never understood this argument that we need our politicians to be charismatic in office. On campaign, sure, but that might not be necessary this time.
You certainly don’t need charisma, tho it generally helps you get elected in democracies
My issue that Starmer is not only dull and uncharismatic, he also seems completely lacking in imagination, creativity, ideas. And boy, we really DO need those, to dig Britain out of its pit of malaise
Perhaps he has ideas people around him? I hope so, as he is highly likely to win, but he’s very good at keeping them concealed, if so. My bet is that Labour 2024-2028 will be weak, fragile and achieve very little, and they will become unpopular pretty quickly
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
Apart from the disputed example of Raab, do you have any evidence of that at all ?
It is my conclusion from reading the report. Para 176 in particular. IE :
" The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct"
That is what triggered the whole process that ended with the resignation of the Minister.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
I’m quite certain it would make a difference...
It would also improve the social standing of teachers if an education were a gateway to getting the vote.
We probably couldn't get there in one bound, so it would take a series of reform acts to gradually restrict the franchise to only the most enlightened.
Indeed.
The DfE out first...
I haven’t got a first degree, but I have got a Masters. Does that count?
Blimey, I didn't know your golf was that good!
Lacking a sense of humour, it’s from Anglia Ruskin (Almost a Real University)!
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
Starmer is what he is. An old friend of mine is a Labour member in Holborn and St Pancras, and was on the CLP committee there for a while. He said Starmer never gives anything away. He is totally enclosed. I suspect it's got a lot to do with his background and what it took to get where he did in the law. It's never been easy for him and that has just shut him down.
“I’m piecing this together,” says Starmer at one point, to Humphrey and Hughes. “That thing Angela said about undersharing - the intensity of mum’s illness meant there wasn’t much emotional space in our household for much else…So I hold things in, that if I was Angela I’d probably share.” His biggest regret is visiting his dad in hospital, sensing that it was for the last time, and not telling him that he loved him, and he was proud of him. He cries when he talks about this. (Rodney Starmer died in 2018).
Starmer never mentions enjoyment or pleasure or satisfaction in the interview, just duty and responsibility and privilege. He talks a lot about how tough the job is on him and his family. He talks about how resilient he needs to be to recover from moments like Hartlepool (“like being punched in the stomach”), and how hard he works at shutting out criticism and abuse; he says that after a setback he “goes in on himself”, adopting a protective crouch, absorbing the blow, searching for the will to go on. “They are the low moments in politics,” he muses, and just when you think he is going to mention the highs, says, “There are many other times when it’s certainly not that bad.”
Starmer moves slowly and cautiously because he is, as psychoanalysts like to say, strongly defended, having formed a thick carapace of tortoiseshell to hide his vulnerabilities. A strong defence tends to slow you down. Starmer is like Arsenal in the heyday of Tony Adams under George Graham - solid, hard to beat, rather dull. The analogy is not totally gratuitous; Starmer is a committed Arsenal fan. He will know that the Arsenal of that era did not reach its full potential until Arsène Wenger built flair and creativity on top of the team’s defensive foundation.
There's stuff there that I can find very relatable. And it does make his choice to do politcs as a career rather odd. But here we all are. I doubt that he will ever be the Prime Minister we want, and it's surprising that he's the Prime Minister we are likely to get. But he may be the Prime Minister we need, and if he's lucky the voting public may accept him on those terms.
Only having read your excerpt, he does rather sound like the PM we need. A bit of staid, stolid resilience and lack of emotion sounds really quite appealing after the nonsense of the past few years.
I have never understood this argument that we need our politicians to be charismatic in office. On campaign, sure, but that might not be necessary this time.
You certainly don’t need charisma, tho it generally helps you get elected in democracies
My issue that Starmer is not only dull and uncharismatic, he also seems completely lacking in imagination, creativity, ideas. And boy, we really DO need those, to dig Britain out of its pit of malaise
Perhaps he has ideas people around him? I hope so, as he is highly likely to win, but he’s very good at keeping them concealed, if so. My bet is that Labour 2024-2028 will be weak, fragile and achieve very little, and they will become unpopular pretty quickly
There is a very good chance that your bet will pay off. It is still better than another term of this lot though, who will be weak, fragile and cause a lot more damage rather than achieving little.
Not really. Politicians have moaned about civil servants for donkey's years. Frustrating them, pursuing their own agendas, that sort of thing. Describing them as activist is of a kind with that, not of its own kind.
There are valid criticisms where institutional malaise or torpor, intentional or otherwise, may be considered to frustrate things. Minister may find it hard to wrangle things into place and get things moving. At some levels there will be people who do no like government plans, there are so many employees of course that is true, but the professional ones would not let that stop them seeking to enact them.
That's not easy to resolve. But spending your time suspicious of the whole institution, their motivations, their work, seeing them as enemies as some Tory MPs do, it's not going to lead to effective governance.
The comment from Chris Mason though about would Rishi Sunak have sacked Raab is pretty moronic to my mind - do we really think Raab would have gone if Rishi was not going to sack him?
Incidentally I thought it was rather ironic that on a day when a minister was fired for allegations of what appears to be fairly low-level bullying being upheld, OFSTED, against who, there have been literally countless allegations of bullying, fraud, and even safeguarding breaches against children, announced it would not change any of its behaviours despite their bullying literally killing people.
Does anyone else sense a double standard?
Good people do not bully. They are good people, therefore they do not bully, even if it appears that way. A tale told by bullies everywhere.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
How would you restrict it?
The details would be secondary to establishing the principle that voting is a privilege. We've tried universal suffrage, and look what it's led to!
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
Starmer is what he is. An old friend of mine is a Labour member in Holborn and St Pancras, and was on the CLP committee there for a while. He said Starmer never gives anything away. He is totally enclosed. I suspect it's got a lot to do with his background and what it took to get where he did in the law. It's never been easy for him and that has just shut him down.
“I’m piecing this together,” says Starmer at one point, to Humphrey and Hughes. “That thing Angela said about undersharing - the intensity of mum’s illness meant there wasn’t much emotional space in our household for much else…So I hold things in, that if I was Angela I’d probably share.” His biggest regret is visiting his dad in hospital, sensing that it was for the last time, and not telling him that he loved him, and he was proud of him. He cries when he talks about this. (Rodney Starmer died in 2018).
Starmer never mentions enjoyment or pleasure or satisfaction in the interview, just duty and responsibility and privilege. He talks a lot about how tough the job is on him and his family. He talks about how resilient he needs to be to recover from moments like Hartlepool (“like being punched in the stomach”), and how hard he works at shutting out criticism and abuse; he says that after a setback he “goes in on himself”, adopting a protective crouch, absorbing the blow, searching for the will to go on. “They are the low moments in politics,” he muses, and just when you think he is going to mention the highs, says, “There are many other times when it’s certainly not that bad.”
Starmer moves slowly and cautiously because he is, as psychoanalysts like to say, strongly defended, having formed a thick carapace of tortoiseshell to hide his vulnerabilities. A strong defence tends to slow you down. Starmer is like Arsenal in the heyday of Tony Adams under George Graham - solid, hard to beat, rather dull. The analogy is not totally gratuitous; Starmer is a committed Arsenal fan. He will know that the Arsenal of that era did not reach its full potential until Arsène Wenger built flair and creativity on top of the team’s defensive foundation.
There's stuff there that I can find very relatable. And it does make his choice to do politcs as a career rather odd. But here we all are. I doubt that he will ever be the Prime Minister we want, and it's surprising that he's the Prime Minister we are likely to get. But he may be the Prime Minister we need, and if he's lucky the voting public may accept him on those terms.
Only having read your excerpt, he does rather sound like the PM we need. A bit of staid, stolid resilience and lack of emotion sounds really quite appealing after the nonsense of the past few years.
I have never understood this argument that we need our politicians to be charismatic in office. On campaign, sure, but that might not be necessary this time.
You certainly don’t need charisma, tho it generally helps you get elected in democracies
My issue that Starmer is not only dull and uncharismatic, he also seems completely lacking in imagination, creativity, ideas. And boy, we really DO need those, to dig Britain out of its pit of malaise
Perhaps he has ideas people around him? I hope so, as he is highly likely to win, but he’s very good at keeping them concealed, if so. My bet is that Labour 2024-2028 will be weak, fragile and achieve very little, and they will become unpopular pretty quickly
You might well be right. I’m hoping he’s just keeping his powder dry. I don’t doubt he has the discipline to keep his policies hidden until the GE campaign. He may even be cultivating the boring image so that when he unveils crowd-pleasing policies he gets a surge in popularity, expectations management and all that. Though I concede a few spare billions would make this a bit more likely.
I'm a bit baffled by some of the comments on here. I've now read the Tolley Report on Raab fully and carefully. It really is pretty damning. Not only is there solid evidence of Raab's very poor behaviour, but it's also clear that, albeit written in a lawyerly way, Tolley does not believe that Raab was always telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth during the investigation. Are some people reading a different Report? Or are they just skimming through it?
"I don't know why Dominic Raab, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, thinks that anybody wants to hear his whining about having to resign," says Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer
"What everybody wants is strong leadership"
Leadership which becomes more difficult to deliver if you can't put a rocket up your lazy department for failing to do their jobs. Starmer spectacularly missing the point as ever - 'cost of living crisis' is clearly the phrase du jour - he'd probably have said 'cost of living crisis' if they'd asked him his favourite dessert.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
SCS is pretty senior (10+ years). As explained in the report, almost everyone who works with Raab is not SCS.
It was a vaguely defined 'network' involving some of his private office, and some policy makers.
Not sure your point. You said they were "low level officials" but the opposite of SCS is not "low level". As set out the report, the evidence was from: 1. Two members of the SCS (relating the experience of others); and 2. Others who worked with Raab on a day to day basis.
It's clear Raab isn't the devil incarnate, but he clearly has a lot to learn.
As I said I am no fan of Raab at all, and I am totally at odds with him on many of his policies, as my comments about prison will demonstrate. There are many different complaints about his various roles in government, but the conclusion of the report is very inconsistent with how this situation is being described.
On the specific complaint I am referencing, this is paragraph 160 of the report.
"(2) The MoJ Group Complaint 160. The MoJ Group Complaint was prepared by a group of non-SCS policy officials and is signed collectively. It was the product of discussions within an informal network of civil servants whose number is uncertain. For the purpose of the investigation, nine individuals identified themselves as parties to the MoJ Group Complaint. 161. Only some of those individuals had any direct experience of the DPM; some had never met him at all but were seeking to support their colleagues. Each individual was entirely open about what they could or could not say. The substantive content of the MoJ Group Complaint is therefore limited but it paved the way for the MoJ Additional Complaints and so too, albeit indirectly, the FCDO Complaint and the DExEU Complaint. "
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
Beyond parody.
Don't you think it would make a difference if politicians knew every voter had a degree or was a net taxpayer?
I’m quite certain it would make a difference...
It would also improve the social standing of teachers if an education were a gateway to getting the vote.
We probably couldn't get there in one bound, so it would take a series of reform acts to gradually restrict the franchise to only the most enlightened.
Indeed.
The DfE out first...
I haven’t got a first degree, but I have got a Masters. Does that count?
Blimey, I didn't know your golf was that good!
Lacking a sense of humour, it’s from Anglia Ruskin (Almost a Real University)!
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
Apart from the disputed example of Raab, do you have any evidence of that at all ?
It is my conclusion from reading the report. Para 176 in particular. IE :
" The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct"
That is what triggered the whole process that ended with the resignation of the Minister.
That’s a really mysterious paragraph. The implication is that Raab has, ultimately, been forced to resign because of an anonymous allegation of bullying which we cannot discuss and which has no relevance to this analysis of his bullying behaviour
Raab has good reason to feel quite pissed off. Even if he is a total jerk - entirely possible - this does not feel like justice of any kind. Sunak should have stood by him, asked him to apologise, end of story
I have to say it makes me think of @Leon and his observation that the more you see of Rishi the more likeable he seems while the opposite is true of Starmer.
In fact, Sir Keir is in danger of seeming not just dull, but quite utterly charmless. And contrasting very much with his opponent in this respect.
Something Labour needs to watch out for. A weakness which may only become apparent during an election campaign when voters have to consider do they really want this man on my screen(s) morning, noon and night for the next 5 years.
Still, don't think it will stop him winning through.
I saw that interview and agree
Sunak v Starmer will be a very compelling battle at GE 24
You Tories are sucker for a public schoolboy with that paid for charm. Sadly, look beyond that charm and you find problems. I would have thought you might have learned by now.
Wins elections though.
Creates terrible governments though.
I take it you are referring to the government run by that Fettes-educated, public school charmer, Tony Blair?
Nice try, I win £5. The exception that proves the rule. 😉
After Dave, Boris and Rishi Rich we need someone with a rough edge, but some actual substance and grit.
So why are you offering us Sir Keir Starmer?
Look, they offered us the fiery taste of the Jezziah, and now we need a soothing bland porridge to settle our stomachs.
Just had a quick read through the Raab report. It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'. I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course. I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
Hard to disagree with any of that spectator article. It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse. What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact. With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
Apart from the disputed example of Raab, do you have any evidence of that at all ?
It is my conclusion from reading the report. Para 176 in particular. IE :
" The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct"
That is what triggered the whole process that ended with the resignation of the Minister.
That’s a really mysterious paragraph. The implication is that Raab has, ultimately, been forced to resign because of an anonymous allegation of bullying which we cannot discuss and which has no relevance to this analysis of his bullying behaviour
Raab has good reason to feel quite pissed off. Even if he is a total jerk - entirely possible - this does not feel like justice of any kind. Sunak should have stood by him, asked him to apologise, end of story
Only possible? I would have said it was a racing certainty.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Quite happy to say I think Rishi is more interesting and charming than Starmer. I'd probably get on fine with him, and had hoped for better once he became PM, but he has tied himself to a rotten ship that is sinking and deserves to sink.
Starmer is what he is. An old friend of mine is a Labour member in Holborn and St Pancras, and was on the CLP committee there for a while. He said Starmer never gives anything away. He is totally enclosed. I suspect it's got a lot to do with his background and what it took to get where he did in the law. It's never been easy for him and that has just shut him down.
“I’m piecing this together,” says Starmer at one point, to Humphrey and Hughes. “That thing Angela said about undersharing - the intensity of mum’s illness meant there wasn’t much emotional space in our household for much else…So I hold things in, that if I was Angela I’d probably share.” His biggest regret is visiting his dad in hospital, sensing that it was for the last time, and not telling him that he loved him, and he was proud of him. He cries when he talks about this. (Rodney Starmer died in 2018).
Starmer never mentions enjoyment or pleasure or satisfaction in the interview, just duty and responsibility and privilege. He talks a lot about how tough the job is on him and his family. He talks about how resilient he needs to be to recover from moments like Hartlepool (“like being punched in the stomach”), and how hard he works at shutting out criticism and abuse; he says that after a setback he “goes in on himself”, adopting a protective crouch, absorbing the blow, searching for the will to go on. “They are the low moments in politics,” he muses, and just when you think he is going to mention the highs, says, “There are many other times when it’s certainly not that bad.”
Starmer moves slowly and cautiously because he is, as psychoanalysts like to say, strongly defended, having formed a thick carapace of tortoiseshell to hide his vulnerabilities. A strong defence tends to slow you down. Starmer is like Arsenal in the heyday of Tony Adams under George Graham - solid, hard to beat, rather dull. The analogy is not totally gratuitous; Starmer is a committed Arsenal fan. He will know that the Arsenal of that era did not reach its full potential until Arsène Wenger built flair and creativity on top of the team’s defensive foundation.
There's stuff there that I can find very relatable. And it does make his choice to do politcs as a career rather odd. But here we all are. I doubt that he will ever be the Prime Minister we want, and it's surprising that he's the Prime Minister we are likely to get. But he may be the Prime Minister we need, and if he's lucky the voting public may accept him on those terms.
Only having read your excerpt, he does rather sound like the PM we need. A bit of staid, stolid resilience and lack of emotion sounds really quite appealing after the nonsense of the past few years.
I have never understood this argument that we need our politicians to be charismatic in office. On campaign, sure, but that might not be necessary this time.
You certainly don’t need charisma, tho it generally helps you get elected in democracies
My issue that Starmer is not only dull and uncharismatic, he also seems completely lacking in imagination, creativity, ideas. And boy, we really DO need those, to dig Britain out of its pit of malaise
Perhaps he has ideas people around him? I hope so, as he is highly likely to win, but he’s very good at keeping them concealed, if so. My bet is that Labour 2024-2028 will be weak, fragile and achieve very little, and they will become unpopular pretty quickly
Whereas my hope is that he doesn't go for ideas. After all Truss and Corbyn were full of ideas, and (in a different way, outsourcing his thinking to Cummings) so was Johnson.
Trouble was that they were bad ideas. I'm all for no ideas, just responding to unfolding reality with sense and compassion. A two steps forward, one step back shuffle towards normality.
To take the stuck on the motorway analogy, our best hope is to stay safe somehow until dawn breaks, then begin the slow walk back to the nearest town. It won't be fun or particularly dignified. But we tried making a run for it across the carriageway, and nearly got run over.
I'm a bit baffled by some of the comments on here. I've now read the Tolley Report on Raab fully and carefully. It really is pretty damning. Not only is there solid evidence of Raab's very poor behaviour, but it's also clear that, albeit written in a lawyerly way, Tolley does not believe that Raab was always telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth during the investigation. Are some people reading a different Report? Or are they just skimming through it?
They are searching the report for snippets of why the civil service just needs a good kicking and everything will be hunky dory despite decades of politicians trying to kick civil servants and that approach never working.
The header is about what a horrible bullying oik Dominic Raab would appear to be, and yet, and yet, the PB faithful have made it into "what a bad man Starmer has turned out to be".
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
Just do away with all these professional politicians, and have sortition.
I quite like that idea.
Interesting to muse how many really inspiring prime ministers have emerged from the present system in the last 50 years. None for my money, though some on the right would no doubt pick Thatcher, and perhaps some elsewhere would pick Blair. But hard to paint it as a success story.
The biggest difference between the system of the last 50 years and the system 150 years ago is universal suffrage. Perhaps we should try restricting the franchise to improve the quality of our politics.
How would you restrict it?
The details would be secondary to establishing the principle that voting is a privilege. We've tried universal suffrage, and look what it's led to!
Has it been notably worse that the ones we had beforehand? As we know voting voting demographics the elites don't pick people any better than the proles, and vice-versa, so it'd be impossible to find a group of sound selectors.
Comments
If we accept his defense then we would also have to say: OK you’re mentally incapable of looking after your land, so we will take it away from you, or you will do it again
So it is either jail, or he loses the property. Those were the only possible outcomes
Assume many more will not want their brand associated with it
I would add Raab resigning is an excellent result and he will not be missed
I think the issue here was that he was repeatedly warned and carried on. I guess it could be because he is very rich, he has a fortune of £20 million. So community orders aren't going to have much effect. Something needs to happen to put him off. He could have alternatively been fined £20 million.
Most of the time with this prison thing, it just plays to a dark societal impulse driven by disgust - people hear about an offence and think 'jail them for decades', albeit without contemplating what that really means - the cost of imprisonment, the ruin of families, caring responsibilities, careers etc.
FWIW, I don't particularly rate Starmer, but Sunak is equally dreary. I recall the majority of those posters blowing smoke up Sunak's **** were all over Boris Johnson this time last year.
(I know little about the man, other than that some commenters here don't much like him.)
I can't stand the man.
There is no connection between those two statement.
Perhaps not the most objective of judges.
FWIW, neither Starmer nor Sunak come close to meeting the beer test - though I suppose one of them does at least drink beer.
*) A presidential election, which appears to be fairly close between Erdogan and Kılıçdaroğlu (1):
*) A parliamentary election, where Erdogan's ruling AKP have a generally increasing gap after the earthquake (2):
(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Turkish_presidential_election
(2): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Turkish_parliamentary_election
I'm still far more likely to vote for Starmer's party than Sunak's, though, and I expect Starmer to be a poor PM. It's not just the leader, it's the people around them, and the Conservative Party has a very shallow talent pool. So might Labour, but their lack of depth is less immediately visible.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3962483-trump-surges-to-13-point-lead-over-desantis-poll/
Former President Trump has flipped the field against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in a possible 2024 GOP primary matchup, surging to a 13-point lead according to a new Wall Street Journal poll.
Trump trailed DeSantis by 14 points as recently as December, but Trump’s solid lead now points to signs that DeSantis’s not-yet-announced campaign may be losing momentum.
In a head-to-head matchup, GOP voters said they would back Trump 51 percent to 38 for DeSantis, the poll found. Even in a more crowded field, with a poll that includes other announced candidates like former UN ambassador Nikki Haley, Trump still takes 48 percent of the vote to DeSantis’s 24 percent support.
There, Haley took 5 percent support and Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.) 3 percent. All other candidates received 2 percent support or less and 13 percent were undecided....
Their titles would be variations on bastard - getting simpler as they gain in rank.
- Right Honourable and Noble Bastard
- Right Honourable Bastard
- Right Bastard
It makes for alarming reading, in the sense that, in my interpretation it appears that any Minister can now be 'bought down' by a 'finding of fact' that, in the opinion of a lawyer, he or she has been 'intimidating'.
I am no admirer of Raab but I agree 100% with his stance on this. He initiated the review and co-operated with it. The most that should have happened is that he accepts the conclusion and apologises, and goes on a training course.
I think ultimately people need to be more resilient and better ways are found to manage conflict.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/06/man-spared-jail-raping-girl-14-times-10126429/amp/
Hmm…
I get the deterrent aspect of the sentences, but the examples of the disruption given (a pregnant woman delayed, someone missing a funeral, a business losing revenue) seem a bit…meh. The upcoming coronation or the London Marathon will, I’m sure, cause delays on a similar scale.
I’m not particularly defending the actions of the protestors, but I do find the confected horror that a protest has caused some disruption a bit pathetic. Anything out of the ordinary in day to day life causes disruption and to cite this sort of thing in a tone of horror is…unconvincing.
Lots of people can tolerate poor behaviour (which doesn't make it right, btw) for those who are very very good.
Unfortunately, he wasn't.
If a member of the team fucked up, then in front of others he would back the guy to the hilt. "The ref was biased", "he was terribly unlucky", etc
But in private, he'd yell at people.
"Why the fuck did you make that trackle? Are you an idiot?"
People don't mind being yelled at. But they do mind being yelled at in front of others.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ianleslie/p/the-tortoise?r=ozriy&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
(The whole thing is worth reading. Not uncritical, but sympathetic.)
“I’m piecing this together,” says Starmer at one point, to Humphrey and Hughes. “That thing Angela said about undersharing - the intensity of mum’s illness meant there wasn’t much emotional space in our household for much else…So I hold things in, that if I was Angela I’d probably share.” His biggest regret is visiting his dad in hospital, sensing that it was for the last time, and not telling him that he loved him, and he was proud of him. He cries when he talks about this. (Rodney Starmer died in 2018).
Starmer never mentions enjoyment or pleasure or satisfaction in the interview, just duty and responsibility and privilege. He talks a lot about how tough the job is on him and his family. He talks about how resilient he needs to be to recover from moments like Hartlepool (“like being punched in the stomach”), and how hard he works at shutting out criticism and abuse; he says that after a setback he “goes in on himself”, adopting a protective crouch, absorbing the blow, searching for the will to go on. “They are the low moments in politics,” he muses, and just when you think he is going to mention the highs, says, “There are many other times when it’s certainly not that bad.”
Starmer moves slowly and cautiously because he is, as psychoanalysts like to say, strongly defended, having formed a thick carapace of tortoiseshell to hide his vulnerabilities. A strong defence tends to slow you down. Starmer is like Arsenal in the heyday of Tony Adams under George Graham - solid, hard to beat, rather dull. The analogy is not totally gratuitous; Starmer is a committed Arsenal fan. He will know that the Arsenal of that era did not reach its full potential until Arsène Wenger built flair and creativity on top of the team’s defensive foundation.
There's stuff there that I can find very relatable. And it does make his choice to do politcs as a career rather odd. But here we all are. I doubt that he will ever be the Prime Minister we want, and it's surprising that he's the Prime Minister we are likely to get. But he may be the Prime Minister we need, and if he's lucky the voting public may accept him on those terms.
https://www.itv.com/news/central/2023-04-21/solihull-mp-julian-knight-will-not-stand-in-next-general-election
OK. If you want to take a "political correctness gone mad" stance and make out that real men should be made of sterner stuff and take it on the chin with a stiff upper lip and so on, then fair enough.
The tragedy for people who think like that is that their brave hero didn't take that line. He accepted the whole thing without qualification and promised to abide by its conclusions. It's no good whatsoever for either him or his pals to bleat about it now. He's brought the whole thing on himself, whatever you think of the rights and wrongs.
But that's a bit like jumping at the chance of an offer of "may you live in interesting times". No thanks.
I have never understood this argument that we need our politicians to be charismatic in office. On campaign, sure, but that might not be necessary this time.
It seems like we are now going in to a situation where being vaguely intimidating, in the view of someone who works for you, is now a career ending offence, or even worse.
What is really curious about this situation is that the MOJ complaint was just driven by some low level officials who are not even in the senior civil service, they can literally bring down a minister with vague allegations many of which are not accepted in a finding of fact.
With Raab's resignation, the wrong lessons entirely are being taken from this.
His resignation is ridiculous and it means any civil servants can now go mob handed, claim they were all “undermined” and then that’s that. The minister has to go. No objective evidence needed nor adduced
A better politician, but probably a worse man.
We probably couldn't get there in one bound, so it would take a series of reform acts to gradually restrict the franchise to only the most enlightened.
But he was a very good Prime Minister, chairman of the board.
Chris Mason"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-64467038
1. Two members of the SCS (relating the experience of others); and
2. Others who worked with Raab on a day to day basis.
It's clear Raab isn't the devil incarnate, but he clearly has a lot to learn.
Still never let an opportunity go to waste. A useless plank who didn't realise Dover was a significant choke point post Brexit is out of government
The DfE out first...
Does anyone else sense a double standard?
It would be easier...
As Oxford and Cambridge graduates do not get proper degrees, instead being given paid for Masters, would they count?
My issue that Starmer is not only dull and uncharismatic, he also seems completely lacking in imagination, creativity, ideas. And boy, we really DO need those, to dig Britain out of its pit of malaise
Perhaps he has ideas people around him? I hope so, as he is highly likely to win, but he’s very good at keeping them concealed, if so. My bet is that Labour 2024-2028 will be weak, fragile and achieve very little, and they will become unpopular pretty quickly
" The significance of the MoJ Group Complaint is that it paved the way for all of the other Complaints. The participants in the MoJ Group Complaint deserve credit for their courage in coming forward. But its composition and content make it unsuitable as a basis for any findings about the DPM’s conduct"
That is what triggered the whole process that ended with the resignation of the Minister.
There are valid criticisms where institutional malaise or torpor, intentional or otherwise, may be considered to frustrate things. Minister may find it hard to wrangle things into place and get things moving. At some levels there will be people who do no like government plans, there are so many employees of course that is true, but the professional ones would not let that stop them seeking to enact them.
That's not easy to resolve. But spending your time suspicious of the whole institution, their motivations, their work, seeing them as enemies as some Tory MPs do, it's not going to lead to effective governance.
The comment from Chris Mason though about would Rishi Sunak have sacked Raab is pretty moronic to my mind - do we really think Raab would have gone if Rishi was not going to sack him?
No more shifts for three and a half weeks
I'm on holiday!!
Though I concede a few spare billions would make this a bit more likely.
Are some people reading a different Report? Or are they just skimming through it?
On the specific complaint I am referencing, this is paragraph 160 of the report.
"(2) The MoJ Group Complaint
160. The MoJ Group Complaint was prepared by a group of non-SCS policy officials and is signed collectively. It was the product of discussions within an informal network of civil servants whose number is uncertain. For the purpose of the investigation, nine individuals identified themselves as parties to the MoJ Group Complaint.
161. Only some of those individuals had any direct experience of the DPM; some had never met him at all but were seeking to support their colleagues. Each individual was entirely open about what they could or could not say. The substantive content of the MoJ Group Complaint is therefore limited but it paved the way for the MoJ Additional Complaints and so too, albeit indirectly, the FCDO Complaint and the DExEU Complaint. "
Raab has good reason to feel quite pissed off. Even if he is a total jerk - entirely possible - this does not feel like justice of any kind. Sunak should have stood by him, asked him to apologise, end of story
Trouble was that they were bad ideas. I'm all for no ideas, just responding to unfolding reality with sense and compassion. A two steps forward, one step back shuffle towards normality.
To take the stuck on the motorway analogy, our best hope is to stay safe somehow until dawn breaks, then begin the slow walk back to the nearest town. It won't be fun or particularly dignified. But we tried making a run for it across the carriageway, and nearly got run over.