What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
Hard on Clegg. His judgement may have been off, and his head was turned sufficiently by the turn of events that he wasn't as awkward, stubborn or self-interested as he should have been as junior coalition partner, but he worked hard at it, and was not a Johnson type lazy boy
If you're getting a Vanilla error or unable to access the comments through the main website we believe this is related to the Vanilla upgrades that are scheduled to last until the 4th of July.
Oh Christ. An upgrade. We are in for a world of pain.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
How has he got a tax free pension? Other than the usual tax treatment of pensions that is
That tells me some 1971 Act applies to Keir Starmer. I am sure you will tell me what the 1971 act does, and how many people it applies to (in fact, how many people have their own regulations doing so)
I think it removes the lifetime allowance cap, so it would be tax free above £1mn where tax would normally have been paid.
And is it unusual for such an arrangement to be made, or is it routinely made for people in certain circumstances? Indeed, why was the arrangement made for SKS?
I presume by tax free that contributions are tax free above the lifetime allowance limit, but he will pay income tax when he draws it in the normal way.
Do some reading, people ! All you have to do is google "DPP pensions exemption":
These arrangements WERE routine. Starmer's was the last before the system changed, but that's hardly his fault.
They may have been routine, the point is still one rule for the important people...a different rule for the little people
you don't even understand what this law does do you?
I know exactly what it does it exempts dpp's and judges from rules that apply to everyone else because they are to important to obey the laws for little people
how many little people do you think were exceeding their lifetime pension allowance?
Not many but thats not the point....many doctors were for example....why do senior political figures get exempted from these laws....its either the law is right or wrong....not its right except if you are one of these special people
When Johnson saw Walter Cronkite's damning report from Khe Sanh, he apparently said "if I've lost Cronkite I've just lost middle-America". If Starmer has lost John Rentoul, it really is all over.
It's quite a puzzle. Starmer's lack of leadership touch and failures would have lost him everyone normally, but all politics is relative. About 60-65% of voters have nowhere else to go that could actually do better or help the cause of grown up politics, except those in the 100 or so seats where the LDs are the contender. So for the moment Starmer and Labour are the only grown up, non nationalist centrist option in about 530 seats.
It may be over for Starmer (though I am not sure) but it certainly is not all over for Labour.
The LibDems really aren’t “grown up politics”. They are spenders to their core.
It depends what you spend your money on. If Starmer had spent 25 billion on the green infrastructure plan large numbers of both economists and industry specialists endorsed, and Ed Miliband spent five years finessing, that would be grown-up politics.
If a Lib-Dem-Labour pact were to revive the plan, that could also be more grown-up than Farage's Trussian tax cuts and spending rises.
So, just to be clear:
Spending money on stuff @WhisperingOracle agrees with is “grown up politics” and anything else isn’t?
You must be a Lib Dem!
The reality is that we cannot afford the current tax/spending set up. My preference would be to refocus the state on a more limited set of objectives and to do them better. But I fully recognise that others might prefer to spend the same current envelope (and redirect or not) but tax more to make it sustainable. I disagree with that approach, but it’s a rational position.
Grown up politics is a debate about the purpose of the state and the right level of spending and tax. Its not just funding your pet projects which is what the LibDems (and others) believe in
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
I am not sure that works. Boris yes, definitely. But all the reports of Cameron was he wasn't lazy despite the Chillaxing stuff, all reports were that he actually everything got done promptly despite having a young family, everything in the red box was done daily, signed off, he was well read on things he was being asked to do. I don't remember people saying Clegg was lazy either.
Neither were perhaps doing Thatcher or Brown-esque shifts, but I don't think the business of government ground to a halt under them. It did under Brown, because he was the total opposite end of wanting to micro-manage every decision.
Are you suggesting that coalition leads to better governance and outcomes?
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
Cameron I don’t think was indolent. However he wasn’t a deep thinker, and he was undone by a certain born-to-rule arrogance. And I think Clegg’s flaw was naiveté rather than indolence.
Johnson was truly indolent.
Thatcher was lower middle class but super humanly overcame the psychological inheritance that came with that (and with being a woman). She had a will to power. This is why there is still a Thatcher cult.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Pretty much this.
The problem in UK politics is not that Starmer is a terrible person, he's just a slightly mediocre politician, the problem in UK politics is that we are in very stormy seas and no less than an exceptional politician on the bridge will inspire the sustained loyalty and commitment from their own party or from the country to be able to steer us through it.
“Slightly mediocre”????
This is a politician who made a deal so bad - paying a random third country to take our sovereign territory - some have wondered if it is actually treachery
Starmer is far far worse than “slightly mediocre”
Sunak was slightly mediocre. Major was mediocre. Starmer is in a class of his own - as bad as Truss but in a very different way
Major was arguably the second best PM since Thatcher in retrospect, after Blair. He won the Gulf War with an international coalition, began the NI peace process and left a balanced budget and low inflation and low unemployment in 1997
Nope. His idiotic obstinacy led to Brexit. He should have given us a referendum on Maastricht - lost it - but thereby lanced the boil of euroscepticism. Instead because he’s a dick we ended up going full Brexit in the end
He’s not the only culprit, natch. But he is one of them
Major got the opt out from the single currency and social chapter too, he sensibly unlike Cameron avoided holding referendums as he recognised that they are unpredictable, divisive, populist and can destroy a premiership
His premiership was doomed. He should have realised that and called a referendum in his final year - venting the steam for decades. But nope
The Tories mired in sleaze and scandal, any referendum he would have called would have been lost. Doing so would have been idiotic.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
How has he got a tax free pension? Other than the usual tax treatment of pensions that is
That tells me some 1971 Act applies to Keir Starmer. I am sure you will tell me what the 1971 act does, and how many people it applies to (in fact, how many people have their own regulations doing so)
I think it removes the lifetime allowance cap, so it would be tax free above £1mn where tax would normally have been paid.
And is it unusual for such an arrangement to be made, or is it routinely made for people in certain circumstances? Indeed, why was the arrangement made for SKS?
I presume by tax free that contributions are tax free above the lifetime allowance limit, but he will pay income tax when he draws it in the normal way.
Do some reading, people ! All you have to do is google "DPP pensions exemption":
These arrangements WERE routine. Starmer's was the last before the system changed, but that's hardly his fault.
They may have been routine, the point is still one rule for the important people...a different rule for the little people
you don't even understand what this law does do you?
What this law does is make people angry
A rich lawyer, now more than set up for life by the fact he's been PM, with any sort of self awareness would have exempted himself from this law that gives him tax free money
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
I am not sure that works. Boris yes, definitely. But all the reports of Cameron was he wasn't lazy despite the Chillaxing stuff, all reports were that he actually everything got done promptly despite having a young family, everything in the red box was done daily, signed off, he was well read on things he was being asked to do. I don't remember people saying Clegg was lazy either.
Neither were perhaps doing Thatcher or Brown-esque shifts, but I don't think the business of government ground to a halt under them. It did under Brown, because he was the total opposite end of wanting to micro-manage every decision.
Are you suggesting that coalition leads to better governance and outcomes?
@Gardenwalker - that he was comfortable with entertainment and dinners with people who had an interest in decisions he was making. While he was comfortable that, as a moral and upright man, his judgement would never be influenced by entertainment, others felt there was a conflict.
It was the same pattern as we saw in the early weeks and months of his premiership
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
Cameron I don’t think was indolent. However he wasn’t a deep thinker, and he was undone by a certain born-to-rule arrogance. And I think Clegg’s flaw was naiveté rather than indolence.
Johnson was truly indolent.
Thatcher was lower middle class but super humanly overcame the psychological inheritance that came with that (and with being a woman). She had a will to power. This is why there is still a Thatcher cult.
Cameron ran it like a CEO of a middling company. Very presentable, could go out and bid for work, won't scare the shareholders, things will run reasonably smoothly, but not going to come up with the iPhone or ChatGPT.....
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
I am not sure that works. Boris yes, definitely. But all the reports of Cameron was he wasn't lazy despite the Chillaxing stuff, all reports were that he actually everything got done promptly despite having a young family, everything in the red box was done daily, signed off, he was well read on things he was being asked to do. I don't remember people saying Clegg was lazy either.
Neither were perhaps doing Thatcher or Brown-esque shifts, but I don't think the business of government ground to a halt under them. It did under Brown, because he was the total opposite end of wanting to micro-manage every decision.
Are you suggesting that coalition leads to better governance and outcomes?
@Gardenwalker - that he was comfortable with entertainment and dinners with people who had an interest in decisions he was making. While he was comfortable that, as a moral and upright man, his judgement would never be influenced by entertainment, others felt there was a conflict.
It was the same pattern as we saw in the early weeks and months of his premiership
Thank you for clarifying.
Perhaps the same mindset, this Aurelian moral self-sufficiency, characterises his relationship with Trump.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
I am not sure that works. Boris yes, definitely. But all the reports of Cameron was he wasn't lazy despite the Chillaxing stuff, all reports were that he actually everything got done promptly despite having a young family, everything in the red box was done daily, signed off, he was well read on things he was being asked to do. I don't remember people saying Clegg was lazy either.
Neither were perhaps doing Thatcher or Brown-esque shifts, but I don't think the business of government ground to a halt under them. It did under Brown, because he was the total opposite end of wanting to micro-manage every decision.
Are you suggesting that coalition leads to better governance and outcomes?
The quality of both teams combined was a lot stronger than we have had in recent times. From the Yellow Peril, the likes of Danny Alexander, Norman Lamb, and Steve Webb were very good at their jobs.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Pretty much this.
The problem in UK politics is not that Starmer is a terrible person, he's just a slightly mediocre politician, the problem in UK politics is that we are in very stormy seas and no less than an exceptional politician on the bridge will inspire the sustained loyalty and commitment from their own party or from the country to be able to steer us through it.
“Slightly mediocre”????
This is a politician who made a deal so bad - paying a random third country to take our sovereign territory - some have wondered if it is actually treachery
Starmer is far far worse than “slightly mediocre”
Sunak was slightly mediocre. Major was mediocre. Starmer is in a class of his own - as bad as Truss but in a very different way
Major was arguably the second best PM since Thatcher in retrospect, after Blair. He won the Gulf War with an international coalition, began the NI peace process and left a balanced budget and low inflation and low unemployment in 1997
Nope. His idiotic obstinacy led to Brexit. He should have given us a referendum on Maastricht - lost it - but thereby lanced the boil of euroscepticism. Instead because he’s a dick we ended up going full Brexit in the end
He’s not the only culprit, natch. But he is one of them
Major got the opt out from the single currency and social chapter too, he sensibly unlike Cameron avoided holding referendums as he recognised that they are unpredictable, divisive, populist and can destroy a premiership
His premiership was doomed. He should have realised that and called a referendum in his final year - venting the steam for decades. But nope
The Tories mired in sleaze and scandal, any referendum he would have called would have been lost. Doing so would have been idiotic.
Of course it would have been lost. But that’s the point
He would have lanced the Brexit boil and later generations (brighter than you) would have looked back and said Wow that was clever, and self sacrificing
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
I have given up on Starmer. But the hysteria of the various complaints against him bring me back to the absurd days of beergate when Big G almost frotted himself to death over whether Starmer had chosen plain or pilau rice.
Pretty much this.
The problem in UK politics is not that Starmer is a terrible person, he's just a slightly mediocre politician, the problem in UK politics is that we are in very stormy seas and no less than an exceptional politician on the bridge will inspire the sustained loyalty and commitment from their own party or from the country to be able to steer us through it.
“Slightly mediocre”????
This is a politician who made a deal so bad - paying a random third country to take our sovereign territory - some have wondered if it is actually treachery
Starmer is far far worse than “slightly mediocre”
Sunak was slightly mediocre. Major was mediocre. Starmer is in a class of his own - as bad as Truss but in a very different way
Major was arguably the second best PM since Thatcher in retrospect, after Blair. He won the Gulf War with an international coalition, began the NI peace process and left a balanced budget and low inflation and low unemployment in 1997
Nope. His idiotic obstinacy led to Brexit. He should have given us a referendum on Maastricht - lost it - but thereby lanced the boil of euroscepticism. Instead because he’s a dick we ended up going full Brexit in the end
He’s not the only culprit, natch. But he is one of them
Major got the opt out from the single currency and social chapter too, he sensibly unlike Cameron avoided holding referendums as he recognised that they are unpredictable, divisive, populist and can destroy a premiership
His premiership was doomed. He should have realised that and called a referendum in his final year - venting the steam for decades. But nope
No a referendum in 1996 would have been lost by the government badly and ripped his party apart in a divisive Portillo v Heseltine civil war to replace Major
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
May was daughter of a vicar, so while not wealthy in British terms upper middle class
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
I am not sure that works. Boris yes, definitely. But all the reports of Cameron was he wasn't lazy despite the Chillaxing stuff, all reports were that he actually everything got done promptly despite having a young family, everything in the red box was done daily, signed off, he was well read on things he was being asked to do. I don't remember people saying Clegg was lazy either.
Neither were perhaps doing Thatcher or Brown-esque shifts, but I don't think the business of government ground to a halt under them. It did under Brown, because he was the total opposite end of wanting to micro-manage every decision.
Are you suggesting that coalition leads to better governance and outcomes?
@Gardenwalker - that he was comfortable with entertainment and dinners with people who had an interest in decisions he was making. While he was comfortable that, as a moral and upright man, his judgement would never be influenced by entertainment, others felt there was a conflict.
It was the same pattern as we saw in the early weeks and months of his premiership
Thank you for clarifying .
Perhaps the same mindset, this Aurelian moral self-sufficiency, characterises his relationship with Trump.
It’s also part of the mindset that gave him a chauffeur driven car and a tax free pension.
May be it’s legal, but a leader should be setting an example not extracting every penny they can in perks
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
May was daughter of a vicar, so while not wealthy in British terms upper middle class
When Johnson saw Walter Cronkite's damning report from Khe Sanh, he apparently said "if I've lost Cronkite I've just lost middle-America". If Starmer has lost John Rentoul, it really is all over.
It's quite a puzzle. Starmer's lack of leadership touch and failures would have lost him everyone normally, but all politics is relative. About 60-65% of voters have nowhere else to go that could actually do better or help the cause of grown up politics, except those in the 100 or so seats where the LDs are the contender. So for the moment Starmer and Labour are the only grown up, non nationalist centrist option in about 530 seats.
It may be over for Starmer (though I am not sure) but it certainly is not all over for Labour.
The LibDems really aren’t “grown up politics”. They are spenders to their core.
It depends what you spend your money on. If Starmer had spent 25 billion on the green infrastructure plan large numbers of both economists and industry specialists endorsed, and Ed Miliband spent five years finessing, that would be grown-up politics.
If a Lib-Dem-Labour pact were to revive the plan, that could also be more grown-up than Farage's Trussian tax cuts and spending rises.
So, just to be clear:
Spending money on stuff @WhisperingOracle agrees with is “grown up politics” and anything else isn’t?
You must be a Lib Dem!
The reality is that we cannot afford the current tax/spending set up. My preference would be to refocus the state on a more limited set of objectives and to do them better. But I fully recognise that others might prefer to spend the same current envelope (and redirect or not) but tax more to make it sustainable. I disagree with that approach, but it’s a rational position.
Grown up politics is a debate about the purpose of the state and the right level of spending and tax. Its not just funding your pet projects which is what the LibDems (and others) believe in
But it's not just a tax/spending equation. It's also a spending/investment equation, as has been discussed increasingly here on PB recently.
There was a consensus among a wide range of economists that the green growth plan was the most productive example of long-term investment suggested by either party for many years. Ergo it shouid never have been dropped, and that is a significant part of the government's current ideological and economic woes..
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
May was daughter of a vicar, so while not wealthy in British terms upper middle class
We obviously move in different clergy circles.
I have the regular clergy down as middle middle, and senior (church of England) clerics down as upper middle.
Starmer derangement syndrome is absolutely wild on here today! Not sure I can cope with four more years of this. Next up: apparently Starmer didn't put a clean pair of socks on this morning.
It's only deranged if it's wrong. As far as I can see, he deserves just about every word of it, and his approval ratings show that it's not just on here.
It may not be wrong. But it's deranged in its repetitiveness - some folk seem to be so obsessed that they need to say the same thing countless times.
You mean like Scott c on Trump or Brexit? Welcome to PB.
Yes! Both sides can be guilty. But currently, the Starmer haters lead by miles.
Now you are talking BS. Scott n Paste has spent 10 years were 99.9% of his posts are quoting tweets about how terrible Brexit / Trump. His only competition in the obsession market is Steve Bray.
Are you trying to catch up with your repetitive Brittas guff?
Brittas: "Every time I walk into a room, a fight seems to break out."
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
May was daughter of a vicar, so while not wealthy in British terms upper middle class
We obviously move in different clergy circles.
I have the regular clergy down as middle middle, and senior (church of England) clerics down as upper middle.
And Archbishops and diocesan Bishops are upper class, hence they are are in the House of Lords alongside peers of the realm (and originally the Lords was Abbotts, Bishops and hereditary peers only)
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
May was daughter of a vicar, so while not wealthy in British terms upper middle class
We obviously move in different clergy circles.
England is the only country in the world where a millionaire can still feel socially inferior to the Vicar, especially in rural areas and if they don't have a degree and the Vicar went to an old university.
In France of course before the revolution there were three estates, the first estate of clergy, the bishops, priests and nuns, the second estate of nobles, the aristocrats and knights and the third estate of everyone else from wealthy merchants and lawyers right down to the poorest
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Likes a freebie. When he was DPP he charged the taxpayer for a chauffeur driven car to take him to work and back when it was 20 mins on the tube
As I understand it, he had to travel a lot inside the UK and the car was to facilitate that. No different I’d suggest to what I guess a Cabinet Minister has access to.
Why does he not travel under hmrc rules for travel that applies to all companies?
HMRC is not the authority on how public or private sector companies manage executive travel.
Indeed, any company can offer transportation for their employees.
Not though from home to home office...that is taxable
And we know that aspect of the expense wasn’t taxed?
Do we have any evidence it was? Lets face it mp's and high muckety mucks seem to get away without paying a lot of shit the rest of us are taxed on frankly.....this is a man with a tax free pension from being dpp for fucks sake...you really think he was paying tax on this perk?
How has he got a tax free pension? Other than the usual tax treatment of pensions that is
That tells me some 1971 Act applies to Keir Starmer. I am sure you will tell me what the 1971 act does, and how many people it applies to (in fact, how many people have their own regulations doing so)
I think it removes the lifetime allowance cap, so it would be tax free above £1mn where tax would normally have been paid.
And is it unusual for such an arrangement to be made, or is it routinely made for people in certain circumstances? Indeed, why was the arrangement made for SKS?
I presume by tax free that contributions are tax free above the lifetime allowance limit, but he will pay income tax when he draws it in the normal way.
Do some reading, people ! All you have to do is google "DPP pensions exemption":
These arrangements WERE routine. Starmer's was the last before the system changed, but that's hardly his fault.
They may have been routine, the point is still one rule for the important people...a different rule for the little people
you don't even understand what this law does do you?
What this law does is make people angry
A rich lawyer, now more than set up for life by the fact he's been PM, with any sort of self awareness would have exempted himself from this law that gives him tax free money
He's the worst kind of hypocrite
the politics of envy, i seem to recall righties getting upset with this whenever we talk about increasing taxes on the rich
When Johnson saw Walter Cronkite's damning report from Khe Sanh, he apparently said "if I've lost Cronkite I've just lost middle-America". If Starmer has lost John Rentoul, it really is all over.
It's quite a puzzle. Starmer's lack of leadership touch and failures would have lost him everyone normally, but all politics is relative. About 60-65% of voters have nowhere else to go that could actually do better or help the cause of grown up politics, except those in the 100 or so seats where the LDs are the contender. So for the moment Starmer and Labour are the only grown up, non nationalist centrist option in about 530 seats.
It may be over for Starmer (though I am not sure) but it certainly is not all over for Labour.
The LibDems really aren’t “grown up politics”. They are spenders to their core.
It depends what you spend your money on. If Starmer had spent 25 billion on the green infrastructure plan large numbers of both economists and industry specialists endorsed, and Ed Miliband spent five years finessing, that would be grown-up politics.
If a Lib-Dem-Labour pact were to revive the plan, that could also be more grown-up than Farage's Trussian tax cuts and spending rises.
So, just to be clear:
Spending money on stuff @WhisperingOracle agrees with is “grown up politics” and anything else isn’t?
You must be a Lib Dem!
The reality is that we cannot afford the current tax/spending set up. My preference would be to refocus the state on a more limited set of objectives and to do them better. But I fully recognise that others might prefer to spend the same current envelope (and redirect or not) but tax more to make it sustainable. I disagree with that approach, but it’s a rational position.
Grown up politics is a debate about the purpose of the state and the right level of spending and tax. Its not just funding your pet projects which is what the LibDems (and others) believe in
But it's not just a tax/spending equation. It's also a spending/investment equation, as has been discussed increasingly here on PB recently.
There was a consensus among a wide range of economists that the green growth plan was the most productive example of long-term investment suggested by either party for many years. Ergo it shouid never have been dropped, and that is a significant part of the government's current ideological and economic woes..
I said as much as the time. In hindsight, it was an early warning that Starmer didn’t believe in anything, least of all “growth”.
What did @StillWaters mean by his mother’s observation that Keir Starmer had an “interesting approach to money?”
I think Keir is very boring, very timid. But can we please accept too that he’s that quite rare thing in British high office: a lower middle class striver.
The last one was John Major. And before him, basically nobody.
Arguably Ted Heath too (who was borderline lower middle class/skilled working class by parentage) who also more matches Starmer's charmless personality and had an Oxford degree like Sir Keir but unlike Major who nonetheless had more charm than both.
Perhaps Callaghan and Wilson as well but the latter's background was more solidly middle class
Ah yes. For some reason, forgot Heath and Callaghan…and Thatcher!
Does TMay also fit on the "lower middle class striver" list?
Suggestion: looking at that list, they were all diligent at the job, because strivers have to be. Their common flaw was not inspiring followership. Whereas natural-born leaders, Cameron, Johnson or Clegg, say, were undone by their indolence. Indeed, the consequences of their failures were bigger and worse than those of the mediocrities.
The ideal.would be to have a natural leader who nonetheless works hard at it. It's been a while since we had one of those.
I am not sure that works. Boris yes, definitely. But all the reports of Cameron was he wasn't lazy despite the Chillaxing stuff, all reports were that he actually everything got done promptly despite having a young family, everything in the red box was done daily, signed off, he was well read on things he was being asked to do. I don't remember people saying Clegg was lazy either.
Neither were perhaps doing Thatcher or Brown-esque shifts, but I don't think the business of government ground to a halt under them. It did under Brown, because he was the total opposite end of wanting to micro-manage every decision.
Are you suggesting that coalition leads to better governance and outcomes?
The quality of both teams combined was a lot stronger than we have had in recent times. From the Yellow Peril, the likes of Danny Alexander, Norman Lamb, and Steve Webb were very good at their jobs.
a consequence of a decade of the main parties selecting politicians who could live with brexit
As I’ve posted before, Ed Milliband shouldn’t have resigned after the 2015 election, although it’s arguable that Brother David should have been the leader anyway. Labour was in a mess after 2010 (or maybe 2008 or thereabouts) and needed a new leader.
Parties need time to reinvent themselves after long periods in Government - we saw it with the Conservatives after 18 years of office and Labour were the same after 13 years and the Conservatives are now the same after 14 years of leading the Government.
It's a necessary process and it doesn't get done in five years however much the party's supporters might hope otherwise. Would a leader other than Corbyn have improved Labour's performance after 2015? That's not really the point - the party wanted Corbyn, they didn't care about how the electorate viewed him, he was a leader who made them feel good about themselves.
Comments
Spending money on stuff @WhisperingOracle agrees with is “grown up politics” and anything else isn’t?
You must be a Lib Dem!
The reality is that we cannot afford the current tax/spending set up. My preference would be to refocus the state on a more limited set of objectives and to do them better. But I fully recognise that others might prefer to spend the same current envelope (and redirect or not) but tax more to make it sustainable. I disagree with that approach, but it’s a rational position.
Grown up politics is a debate about the purpose of the state and the right level of spending and tax. Its not just funding your pet projects which is what the LibDems (and others) believe in
However he wasn’t a deep thinker, and he was undone by a certain born-to-rule arrogance. And I think Clegg’s flaw was naiveté rather than indolence.
Johnson was truly indolent.
Thatcher was lower middle class but super humanly overcame the psychological inheritance that came with that (and with being a woman). She had a will to power.
This is why there is still a Thatcher cult.
1. Some charisma
2. An alpha and determined persona
3. Total confidence in your skills
4. Actual skills
5. Courage
Of post war British PMs only Thatcher and Blair fit the bill. Boris could maybe have done it but blew it
A rich lawyer, now more than set up for life by the fact he's been PM, with any sort of self awareness would have exempted himself from this law that gives him tax free money
He's the worst kind of hypocrite
It was the same pattern as we saw in the early weeks and months of his premiership
Never encountered this before
Perhaps the same mindset, this Aurelian moral self-sufficiency, characterises his relationship with Trump.
Hitler also had most of those qualities, just to point out, doesn't necessarily mean you will lead in the right direction
He would have lanced the Brexit boil and later generations (brighter than you) would have looked back and said Wow that was clever, and self sacrificing
NEW THREAD
May be it’s legal, but a leader should be setting an example not extracting every penny they can in perks
There was a consensus among a wide range of economists that the green growth plan was the most productive example of long-term investment suggested by either party for many years. Ergo it shouid never have been dropped, and that is a significant part of the government's current ideological and economic woes..
In France of course before the revolution there were three estates, the first estate of clergy, the bishops, priests and nuns, the second estate of nobles, the aristocrats and knights and the third estate of everyone else from wealthy merchants and lawyers right down to the poorest
Natural born leaders don't follow the polls. They lead. They inspire their followers. They are persuasive.
I agree that Thatcher and Blair fit the bill. So does Trump.
So did Hitler.
Natural born leaders can do a lot of harm. Better without them.
In hindsight, it was an early warning that Starmer didn’t believe in anything, least of all “growth”.
It's a necessary process and it doesn't get done in five years however much the party's supporters might hope otherwise. Would a leader other than Corbyn have improved Labour's performance after 2015? That's not really the point - the party wanted Corbyn, they didn't care about how the electorate viewed him, he was a leader who made them feel good about themselves.