[stone]

Your parody of what I was saying actually sums up how I see things 

[Will Hunt]

We don't want an opposition leader who can win power by taking votes from the Conservatives. We want a Labour leader who will kamikaze us to glorious defeat so that we might continue to do what we enjoy best: sitting around for another parliament muttering about the mainstream media.

Also, when do we get a thread to share links to all the times a bear has shat in the woods? I'll start us off.

[stone]

This post is about whether politicians should lie.

Liz Kendal stood to be Labour leader in the 2015 selection contest, making the argument that voters are most likely to be won off the Conservatives by putting forward policies close to those offered by the Conservatives. She got 4.5% of the Leadership selection vote.

You can argue that her mistake was to tell the truth regarding what she was offering and that she should instead have run on something like Keir Starmer's 10 pledges. Perhaps then everything would be better.

But if you are making that argument, then you are certainly not arguing for politicians telling the truth!

I think there are very important arguments to be had regarding who becomes members of political parties, who controls internal machinations of political parties and how etc etc. I think the extent to which we have democracy largely revolves around that.

Perhaps you want governance in the style offered by Starmer. That's fine and I hope it turns out well. I'm just saying it is bullshit to imagine that has come about in a manner involving democracy or honesty!

 

[spidermonkey09]

To quote Lionel Hutz, theres 'the truth' ( ) and 'the truth' ( ).

There is an assumed baseline level of lying/deliberate untruth/economy with words inherent to politics. It would be impossible for it to be otherwise; both human nature and the system of politics ensure it. Society accepts the kind of 'lying' embodied by Starmer, in your examples, because its the kind of lying we all do on a daily basis. We've all been economical with the truth to get something we want. If you've ever exaggerated/made up a job on your CV, painted over a damp patch before selling a house, any number of minor sleights of hand, then you're guilty of that kind of lying. It doesn't usually have the same response to the kind of lying that Johnson exhibited, and which hasn't been a feature of politics until quite recently. To say something immediately, and provably false, tends  to be frowned upon in a way that other kinds of mistruth aren't. They aren't treated the same way.

I don't actually buy the idea that Johnson was somehow an order of magnitude worse than every other politician in terms of lying. I think the hand wringing over him is a feature of liberal centrist dad type politics. Equally, his lying was somehow different to that of other politicians and its reasonable to point that out. If you're arguing that all untruths of any kind should go against a politicians, or indeed anyones, permanent record I think we'll be here a while tallying everyone up.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Starmer is a paragon of virtue, of course he isn't, but to argue that he is somehow subverting democracy by not still arguing for what he said he would in 2019/2020 is mad.

[stone]

I'm actually blindsided that you all view Starmer as being sort of along the same lines as he portrayed himself as being in 2020.

To me he is pretty much the exact opposite of everything he claimed to be standing for.

In 2020 he spoke about the GE2017 manifesto as being his foundational document. He said he would unite the Party. He had his 10 pledges.

He then set about purging members, changing Party rules, suspending conference delegates the week before conference, rigging candidate selections etc etc. And now we have Labour saying that taxes won't be increased for the richest, public services will have to make do with current budgets, net zero is an aspiration to be put off etc etc.

Blair and Brown had ministers from the SCG left wing part of the Party. Starmer has totally excluded them and makes efforts to get them deselected as MPs.

It is fine to argue that centrist politics is what our country needs. We have had the Liberal Party since before Labour ever existed. My view is that is the home for honest centrist politicians. Starmer to me exemplifies the tactic of endevouring to foist LibDem type policies (though perhaps more warmongering than them) onto the electorate by ensuring there is no other choice.

[seankenny]

I don't actually buy the idea that Johnson was somehow an order of magnitude worse than every other politician in terms of lying.

I think this statement needs a little backing up with some evidence!

As for Starmer changing his mind, is there something, one little thing, that has happened since the period Feb - April 2020 that might have changed the political and economic situation of the U.K.? Help me out here guys, I’m struggling to think of anything.

It’s perhaps worth pointing out that “I’m a man of peace who loves hanging out with terrorists” and “I’m a committed anti-racist (terms and conditions apply)” are both lies, of a sort.

[spidermonkey09]

I don't actually buy the idea that Johnson was somehow an order of magnitude worse than every other politician in terms of lying.

I think this statement needs a little backing up with some evidence!

Yeah, slightly misspoke; I think there is a school of thought which holds Johnson to be the absolute archetype of everything bad about British politics, which I don't think is right and often comes across as liberal hysteria/handwringing; I think its fair to say he was a more prolific liar than others, but lying in and of itself is not the worst thing about politics is my point.

[jwi]

Seems lyou haven’t understood what’s in that website jwi? It’s a fact checker, covering all public utterances by MPs, although obviously, given his character, Johnson has a starring role.

I think politicians telling lies about policy and its impact matters very much. The effects on public trust and so democracy are corrosive.

I do not doubt that Johnson belongs to a class of shockingly mendacious politicians. And surely he seems to be an almost uniquely incompetent administrator. I think the effect of the list is lowered by bickering about some tall tales he told on his vacation compared to using untruths in propaganda to increase tensions between states and within his country.

[stone]

As for Starmer changing his mind, is there something, one little thing, that has happened since the period Feb - April 2020 that might have changed the political and economic situation of the U.K.? Help me out here guys, I’m struggling to think of anything.

People who approved of rather than hating the idea that the GE2017 manifesto should be a foundational document would say that the post-pandemic, post-Ukraine invasion, diminished-carbon-budget, world is more in need of the approach put forward in that GE2017 manifesto, not less.

[ali k]

In 2020 he spoke about the GE2017 manifesto as being his foundational document. He then set about purging members, changing Party rules, suspending conference delegates the week before conference, rigging candidate selections etc etc.

Politics is a ruthless business. He didn't invent the game.

But for me I think it's useful to look at his career before politics to get a better measure of the man. Human rights lawyer including pro bono work for people facing the death penalty overseas and an environmentalist couple being sued by McDonald's for libel after distributing a leaflet highlighting its dodgy practices. Helped get the death penalty abolished in Uganda and Malawi. Head of CPS for 5 years.

Boris Johnson got sacked by the Times for making up a quote and then wrote a load of lies about the EU for the Telegraph.

If you take the politicking out of the equation, it's pretty clear there's a fundamental difference between the two men.

And now we have Labour saying that taxes won't be increased for the richest, public services will have to make do with current budgets, net zero is an aspiration to be put off etc etc.

Let's see what he does if Labour get into power.

[seankenny]

People who approved of rather than hating the idea that the GE2017 manifesto should be a foundational document believe that it should remain virtually unchanged regardless of what has happened since.

I wrote out the more truthful version of your post.

I’m not sure politics should be the place for “foundational documents”. When facts change ideas change and all that jazz.

[stone]

Margaret Hodge says that during the 2020 leadership campaign, Starmer's team reassured her that Starmer was lying about his politics and that he would do a 180 once elected. https://twitter.com/i/status/1611038345424928778

[seankenny]

That’s an interview with Margaret Hodge, right? (I had to look on private browsing after Owen Jones blocked me for calling him Squealer.)

I remember many left wingers believing absolutely nothing she said after she accused the Dear Leader of antisemitism. How times change! It’s almost like politics requires some sort of ability to change one’s mind and navigate shifting alliances.

[stone]

Sean, I'm trying to get my head around your position.

At first it seemed you were saying "Starmer's 10 pledges" were appropriate policies for 2020 but (for some reason) no longer are now.

Now you seem to be saying that Starmer's pledges never were appropriate policy proposals but were a necessary deception for the greater good or whatever.

Or are you saying Margaret Hodge is lying about this? What might motivate her in that?

[Dingdong]

I had to look on private browsing after Owen Jones blocked me for calling him Squealer.

You’re so brave, so inspiring Sean.

[seankenny]

Politics, the art of the possible, right? Possible given changing economic conditions. Possible given internal party sentiment and composition. Possible given voter preferences. You know, lots of things are going on at once in political life.

Did I say anywhere that I thought the ten sacred pledges were appropriate policies? I did not. Merely that when the world changes, policies will inevitably change, and that will be part of Starmer’s calculations.

As for Hodge, I’m not saying anything about her honesty. Merely that a few years ago theres no way you’d have held her up as proof of anything you believed, and now you do. It’s almost like the righteous far left are as slippery as everyone else!

(I still think Johnson was a different species of liar however.)

[seankenny]

I had to look on private browsing after Owen Jones blocked me for calling him Squealer.

You’re so brave, so inspiring Sean.

I was just surprised a national figure would be so trivial!

[mrjonathanr]

Hey Stone, I’m not saying that Starmer hasn’t done a number on Momentum and the farther left leaning cadres in the Labour Party; it very much looks like he has. It also looks he’s quite obsessively centrist in respect of where power and decision making should lie in Labour. When you consider the vileness that thrived under Jeremy ‘ our friends in Hamas’Corbyn,  also  it’s somewhat understandable, if less than ideal. Fundamentally, he’s run a ruthless operation to get electable/elected. Given the self-defeating chaos of recent years, a lot of people will be inclined to look the other way if it leads to a respite from the Conservative led decline of the country.

[stone]

Hey Stone, I’m not saying that Starmer hasn’t done a number on Momentum and the farther left leaning cadres in the Labour Party; it very much looks like he has. It also looks he’s quite obsessively centrist in respect of where power and decision making should lie in Labour. When you consider the vileness that thrived under Jeremy ‘ our friends in Hamas’Corbyn,  also  it’s somewhat understandable, if less than ideal. Fundamentally, he’s run a ruthless operation to get electable/elected. Given the self-defeating chaos of recent years, a lot of people will be inclined to look the other way if it leads to a respite from the Conservative led decline of the country.

A lot of people are also inclined to look the other way regarding Johnston.

We have liars ruling us because collectively we are willing to overlook lying (and other dishonesty/corruption) whenever it suits us.

[mrjonathanr]

Yes, I take the point, but also think you aren’t comparing like with like and so proposing a false equivalence.

Starmer has proved to be a ruthless political operator within his own party, but I see no evidence of being fundamentally without integrity and accountability in his public role. Track record in the CPS is consistent with this. Johnson’s dissembling and bull have contributed to very measurable harms. Any suggestion  that it was always ‘baked in’ by a knowing public is nonsense. Many bought into the idea of greater prosperity through Brexit, through the ‘oven baked’ solution of the hard rupture with the EU, the cakeist belief that the peace achieved through Good Friday Agreement couldn't be undermined by locating a border between NI and Great Britain, that people didn’t die through the incompetence wrought by talking nonsense to all and sundry during COVID.

I get that you may be unhappy about Starmer’s manoeuvrings and have sympathy with that, but there’s no equivalence between the two.

[seankenny]

A lot of people are also inclined to look the other way regarding Johnston.

I really don't think the polling data supports this view.

Deeply distrusted, has been for years:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-boris-johnson-trustworthy

A majority of voters thought he was doing badly for most of his premiership:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/boris-johnson-approval-rating

Considered incompetent by a plurality of voters for nearly the entire time he was PM:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/is-boris-johnson-incompetent

Remember that the reason the Tories dumped him was because even they couldn't ignore his unpopularity.

[Johnny Brown]

There was a rather bigger, more important poll which suggested what stone said though wasn’t there? Was it an 80 seat majority he won?

[seankenny]

If you’re thinking of politics as a static set of facts rather than a dynamic system then you’re thinking about it wrong. Tory MPs, whose jobs are on the line, saw those polls I posted and others and, despite winning that large majority, Johnson is no longer PM. Try telling a man whose £80k pay check depends on the next election that the last one was the more important poll.

Had Stone said “were inclined” rather than “are inclined” then yes, there is a lot of truth to that, but of course that includes Labour members who saw the polling and continued to support Corbyn. If they had really thought Johnson was a total disaster then they’d have moved heaven and earth to stop him. But they preferred a righteous drubbing.

[petejh]

Johnson was a bullshitter long before he became pm and his bullshitting went primetime so it’s unsurprising that a market-garden bullshitter under intense pressure of leadership would follow a well-used pattern of behaviour.

But to roll out a football cliche: you can only play the team in front of you. In 2019 the teams in front of the public were Labour under Corbyn, or the tories under bojo. The consensus view of the voting public considered the policies of a party led by someone  known for bullshitting preferable to becoming the people’s republic under Corbyn - a politician considered authentic as far as politicians are concerned.
(Somewhere in universe B the UK’s response to COVID, Ukraine and Israel looks very different.)

My reference to Blair earlier in this thread was not a ‘classic political diversionary tactic’ 🙄 it was to make a point that, imo, Blair and Campbell (among others in their circle) are two of the most malevolent destructive liars in recent uk political history.
Which is why a thread talking about ‘Boris Johnson’s lies’ appears to me about as banal and unilluminating as a thread talking about ‘the sun rose in the east again today’.
I suspect that in universe C, Bojo standing up in the commons and earnestly imploring that the UK invade Iraq because Iraq posed an imminent threat to the west would be met by incredulity all round.

AKA better the idiot/devil/liar in plain view than the polished and earnest but corrupted.

[Teaboy]

imo, Blair and Campbell (among others in their circle) are two of the most malevolent destructive liars in recent uk political history.

I presume this is in relation to the Iraq invasion (as, for most, the period of their tenure looks significantly better than what has followed) so I’m wondering if there is a universe B where the UK didn’t follow the US as the Tories were much more hawkish than the PLP?