FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The quality of today’s politicians
The quality of today’s politicians
Jump to: Newest in thread
Based on the choices available in both the UK and USA the quality of the current crop of politicians is absolutely dire.
Having said that, the election results prove that the general population is, generally, stupid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Based on the choices available in both the UK and USA the quality of the current crop of politicians is absolutely dire.
Having said that, the election results prove that the general population is, generally, stupid."
When did they start being ‘stupid’ ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat. "
Maybe in the US but not here, America is a very different culture, we had our brush with a ‘celebrity ‘ PM with Johnson, the electorate soon saw through him . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Maybe in the US but not here, America is a very different culture, we had our brush with a ‘celebrity ‘ PM with Johnson, the electorate soon saw through him . "
Let's hope so. But can we write-off Boris? Could he yet do a 'Trump' on us? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Maybe in the US but not here, America is a very different culture, we had our brush with a ‘celebrity ‘ PM with Johnson, the electorate soon saw through him .
Let's hope so. But can we write-off Boris? Could he yet do a 'Trump' on us?"
No, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *ackal1Couple 2 weeks ago
Manchester |
The fact that over 60% of MPs are now parachuted in and are there because they toe the line so stifling debate is a worry.
I think this fact contributes greatly to the dumbing down of MPs.
As they are career politicians out for themselves rather than their constituencies, the only way they can succeed is to make a noise in their party no matter how stupid the argument.
This leads to lots of political infighting amongst loud mouthed idiots rather than running the country to make people’s lives better. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat. "
Leaders need to connect with the public, to be able to inspire and have a story to tell that people will buy into.
Starmer simply doesn’t have that quality. He can have as many degrees as he likes. And nobody cares about him being DPP, the vast majority of the country doesn’t even know what the job is.
What Starmer is proving is that having an important bureaucratic job doesn’t translate at all into being PM (not that many people thought it would).
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Leaders need to connect with the public, to be able to inspire and have a story to tell that people will buy into.
Starmer simply doesn’t have that quality. He can have as many degrees as he likes. And nobody cares about him being DPP, the vast majority of the country doesn’t even know what the job is.
What Starmer is proving is that having an important bureaucratic job doesn’t translate at all into being PM (not that many people thought it would).
"
The electorate disagree, he just won a huge majority |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Maybe in the US but not here, America is a very different culture, we had our brush with a ‘celebrity ‘ PM with Johnson, the electorate soon saw through him . "
Yes and No. Yes insofar as those of us who voted for him in 2019 did so knowing about his character flaws, No insofar as I don’t think those flaws changed too many people’s minds about the policies he was elected to deliver.
The issue for the Tories is that they realy are 2, or possibly 3 parties held together with a very thin veneer and their stock in trade seems to be worrying more about replacing the person who won them the election with a dud compromise candidate mid-way through their term in office than governing. They did it with Thatcher, they tried doing it with Major, they did it with Cameron, May and then Johnson, and it why they get punished as soon as that happens. In the last election there were 2 things they promised to do, get Brexit done (partial success) and control immigration (not a hope) and they tore themselves apart in typical fashion in the process.
I don’t think it has anything to do with star quality but actively doing the things you were elected to do. This is where 2-Tier is going to come a cropper. He wasn’t actually elected with any mandate or any platform - he didn’t win the election the Tories lost it and 2T has lurched into an ideological war with the middle classes, the countryside, and anyone who disagrees with his world view. He’s gaslighting the country - you can’t grow an economy by borrowing or by hammering businesses (look how many micro-SMEs have shut down ahead of the budget, how many companies have off-shored their accounts, and HNEs have just gone) or by investing in white elephants. When the economy tanks, and it will in about 3 years as the effects of the budget bite (farms will shut down, food prices will inevitably rise as a result of increased NIC and supply chain restrictions, gilts will rise to pay for the borrowing as will interest rates even allowing for a temporary fall) and the social effects to hit - parents will be forced to take their kids out of private education meaning no places in state schools - house prices in areas with good schools will rise forcing selection by other means, the NHS will struggle to cope no matter how much money is thrown at it because it needs wholesale structural reform the government won’t have the stomach for, the population will grown by a town the size of Swindon every year through uncontrolled illegal immigration putting more pressure on the cost of living. 2Tier will be gaslighting the public ithat all is good and emptying the prisons of criminals to lock up people who say stupid things on X when trying to vent their anger at the breakdown of what’s left of British society. And he’ll be doing it with his Leeds and Oxford educated KC background.
Would the Tories be any better? Dunno, they are 2 cheeks of the same arse and I give Badenoch 6 months before they try and replace her because it’s what the Tories do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Leaders need to connect with the public, to be able to inspire and have a story to tell that people will buy into.
Starmer simply doesn’t have that quality. He can have as many degrees as he likes. And nobody cares about him being DPP, the vast majority of the country doesn’t even know what the job is.
What Starmer is proving is that having an important bureaucratic job doesn’t translate at all into being PM (not that many people thought it would).
"
It's a good point, the modern electorate doesn't give a fuck how educated or how intelligent the person is. They'd rather vote for a clown who can entertain them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Leaders need to connect with the public, to be able to inspire and have a story to tell that people will buy into.
Starmer simply doesn’t have that quality. He can have as many degrees as he likes. And nobody cares about him being DPP, the vast majority of the country doesn’t even know what the job is.
What Starmer is proving is that having an important bureaucratic job doesn’t translate at all into being PM (not that many people thought it would).
The electorate disagree, he just won a huge majority "
They don’t disagree.
19% of the electorate voted for Starmer.
And most of those probably already regret it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Leaders need to connect with the public, to be able to inspire and have a story to tell that people will buy into.
Starmer simply doesn’t have that quality. He can have as many degrees as he likes. And nobody cares about him being DPP, the vast majority of the country doesn’t even know what the job is.
What Starmer is proving is that having an important bureaucratic job doesn’t translate at all into being PM (not that many people thought it would).
The electorate disagree, he just won a huge majority
They don’t disagree.
19% of the electorate voted for Starmer.
And most of those probably already regret it.
"
411 seats, a huge majority in the commons, 5 years in power, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Leaders need to connect with the public, to be able to inspire and have a story to tell that people will buy into.
Starmer simply doesn’t have that quality. He can have as many degrees as he likes. And nobody cares about him being DPP, the vast majority of the country doesn’t even know what the job is.
What Starmer is proving is that having an important bureaucratic job doesn’t translate at all into being PM (not that many people thought it would).
The electorate disagree, he just won a huge majority
They don’t disagree.
19% of the electorate voted for Starmer.
And most of those probably already regret it.
411 seats, a huge majority in the commons, 5 years in power, "
I’m still awaiting your analysis as to why Starmer and Labour have become so instantly unpopular.
Have you not had instructions from Labour head office yet on what to say? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Leaders need to connect with the public, to be able to inspire and have a story to tell that people will buy into.
Starmer simply doesn’t have that quality. He can have as many degrees as he likes. And nobody cares about him being DPP, the vast majority of the country doesn’t even know what the job is.
What Starmer is proving is that having an important bureaucratic job doesn’t translate at all into being PM (not that many people thought it would).
The electorate disagree, he just won a huge majority
They don’t disagree.
19% of the electorate voted for Starmer.
And most of those probably already regret it.
411 seats, a huge majority in the commons, 5 years in power,
I’m still awaiting your analysis as to why Starmer and Labour have become so instantly unpopular.
Have you not had instructions from Labour head office yet on what to say?"
Opinions polls 5 years before the next GE are irrelevant, unfortunately for you, SKS will be PM for at least 5 years and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Leaders need to connect with the public, to be able to inspire and have a story to tell that people will buy into.
Starmer simply doesn’t have that quality. He can have as many degrees as he likes. And nobody cares about him being DPP, the vast majority of the country doesn’t even know what the job is.
What Starmer is proving is that having an important bureaucratic job doesn’t translate at all into being PM (not that many people thought it would).
The electorate disagree, he just won a huge majority "
Again, I’d disagree with the statement he “won” a huge majority and suggest the Tories lost/gave theirs away. I live in a constituency that for decades you could put a monkey in a blue rosette and they would elect it until the boundaries changed. The electoral maths was still 60/40 in the Tories favour (down from about 80/20) with the new boundaries and the Conservative vote just collapsed. Turn out was something like 40% mostly from the neighbouring town that is part of the new constituency, Labour won with a majority of about 6k and Reform picked up 9k votes for a candidate who barely had a presence and only showed up to 2 hustings and the Conservatives came in 3rd.
What it showed, here at least, was not support for Labour but contempt for the Tories fratricide and Sunak’s handling of a whole range of issues, not least immigration (the only hotel on the outskirts of the town housed “asylum seekers” who it was noticed all had brand new coats, trainers, and mobile phones and hung around the parks and play areas that suddenly became the hot spots for drug dealers and a spate of stabbings in a town not noted for these problems previously - funny that - but the reality of what our children were telling us about this and the fears of girls being out after dark when these gangs were still walking the streets and gathering in large numbers outside the hotel was, apprently, all untrue according to the “offical narrative” in the local press coming from the police and local politicians and yet the police presence and official statistics seem to say otherwise, again, funny that).
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Leaders need to connect with the public, to be able to inspire and have a story to tell that people will buy into.
Starmer simply doesn’t have that quality. He can have as many degrees as he likes. And nobody cares about him being DPP, the vast majority of the country doesn’t even know what the job is.
What Starmer is proving is that having an important bureaucratic job doesn’t translate at all into being PM (not that many people thought it would).
The electorate disagree, he just won a huge majority
Again, I’d disagree with the statement he “won” a huge majority and suggest the Tories lost/gave theirs away. I live in a constituency that for decades you could put a monkey in a blue rosette and they would elect it until the boundaries changed. The electoral maths was still 60/40 in the Tories favour (down from about 80/20) with the new boundaries and the Conservative vote just collapsed. Turn out was something like 40% mostly from the neighbouring town that is part of the new constituency, Labour won with a majority of about 6k and Reform picked up 9k votes for a candidate who barely had a presence and only showed up to 2 hustings and the Conservatives came in 3rd.
What it showed, here at least, was not support for Labour but contempt for the Tories fratricide and Sunak’s handling of a whole range of issues, not least immigration (the only hotel on the outskirts of the town housed “asylum seekers” who it was noticed all had brand new coats, trainers, and mobile phones and hung around the parks and play areas that suddenly became the hot spots for drug dealers and a spate of stabbings in a town not noted for these problems previously - funny that - but the reality of what our children were telling us about this and the fears of girls being out after dark when these gangs were still walking the streets and gathering in large numbers outside the hotel was, apprently, all untrue according to the “offical narrative” in the local press coming from the police and local politicians and yet the police presence and official statistics seem to say otherwise, again, funny that).
"
Only losers complain about the electoral system after losing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’d disagree with the statement he “won” a huge majority and suggest the Tories lost/gave theirs away. I live in a constituency that for decades you could put a monkey in a blue rosette and they would elect it until the boundaries changed. The electoral maths was still 60/40 in the Tories favour (down from about 80/20) with the new boundaries and the Conservative vote just collapsed. Turn out was something like 40% mostly from the neighbouring town that is part of the new constituency, Labour won with a majority of about 6k and Reform picked up 9k votes for a candidate who barely had a presence and only showed up to 2 hustings and the Conservatives came in 3rd.
What it showed, here at least, was not support for Labour but contempt for the Tories fratricide and Sunak’s handling of a whole range of issues, not least immigration (the only hotel on the outskirts of the town housed “asylum seekers” who it was noticed all had brand new coats, trainers, and mobile phones and hung around the parks and play areas that suddenly became the hot spots for drug dealers and a spate of stabbings in a town not noted for these problems previously - funny that - but the reality of what our children were telling us about this and the fears of girls being out after dark when these gangs were still walking the streets and gathering in large numbers outside the hotel was, apprently, all untrue according to the “offical narrative” in the local press coming from the police and local politicians and yet the police presence and official statistics seem to say otherwise, again, funny that)."
"Only losers complain about the electoral system after losing"
I don't see any complaining in that post. I see someone explaining that things had changed, how that affected voting patterns, and how crap the Tories were.
I'm interested to hear what you think the complaint was, and why you think that person is a Tory. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’d disagree with the statement he “won” a huge majority and suggest the Tories lost/gave theirs away. I live in a constituency that for decades you could put a monkey in a blue rosette and they would elect it until the boundaries changed. The electoral maths was still 60/40 in the Tories favour (down from about 80/20) with the new boundaries and the Conservative vote just collapsed. Turn out was something like 40% mostly from the neighbouring town that is part of the new constituency, Labour won with a majority of about 6k and Reform picked up 9k votes for a candidate who barely had a presence and only showed up to 2 hustings and the Conservatives came in 3rd.
What it showed, here at least, was not support for Labour but contempt for the Tories fratricide and Sunak’s handling of a whole range of issues, not least immigration (the only hotel on the outskirts of the town housed “asylum seekers” who it was noticed all had brand new coats, trainers, and mobile phones and hung around the parks and play areas that suddenly became the hot spots for drug dealers and a spate of stabbings in a town not noted for these problems previously - funny that - but the reality of what our children were telling us about this and the fears of girls being out after dark when these gangs were still walking the streets and gathering in large numbers outside the hotel was, apprently, all untrue according to the “offical narrative” in the local press coming from the police and local politicians and yet the police presence and official statistics seem to say otherwise, again, funny that).
Only losers complain about the electoral system after losing
I don't see any complaining in that post. I see someone explaining that things had changed, how that affected voting patterns, and how crap the Tories were.
I'm interested to hear what you think the complaint was, and why you think that person is a Tory."
Ok, if we are being pedantic , who said I was referring to the person who posted, I was merely stating that losers complain when they lose, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’d disagree with the statement he “won” a huge majority and suggest the Tories lost/gave theirs away. I live in a constituency that for decades you could put a monkey in a blue rosette and they would elect it until the boundaries changed. The electoral maths was still 60/40 in the Tories favour (down from about 80/20) with the new boundaries and the Conservative vote just collapsed. Turn out was something like 40% mostly from the neighbouring town that is part of the new constituency, Labour won with a majority of about 6k and Reform picked up 9k votes for a candidate who barely had a presence and only showed up to 2 hustings and the Conservatives came in 3rd.
What it showed, here at least, was not support for Labour but contempt for the Tories fratricide and Sunak’s handling of a whole range of issues, not least immigration (the only hotel on the outskirts of the town housed “asylum seekers” who it was noticed all had brand new coats, trainers, and mobile phones and hung around the parks and play areas that suddenly became the hot spots for drug dealers and a spate of stabbings in a town not noted for these problems previously - funny that - but the reality of what our children were telling us about this and the fears of girls being out after dark when these gangs were still walking the streets and gathering in large numbers outside the hotel was, apprently, all untrue according to the “offical narrative” in the local press coming from the police and local politicians and yet the police presence and official statistics seem to say otherwise, again, funny that)."
"Only losers complain about the electoral system after losing"
"I don't see any complaining in that post. I see someone explaining that things had changed, how that affected voting patterns, and how crap the Tories were.
I'm interested to hear what you think the complaint was, and why you think that person is a Tory."
"Ok, if we are being pedantic , who said I was referring to the person who posted, I was merely stating that losers complain when they lose, "
Well you quoted the person in your post, then followed it with your response. I'm struggling to think of any way in which a reasonable person could think that your statement was unrelated to the post. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’d disagree with the statement he “won” a huge majority and suggest the Tories lost/gave theirs away. I live in a constituency that for decades you could put a monkey in a blue rosette and they would elect it until the boundaries changed. The electoral maths was still 60/40 in the Tories favour (down from about 80/20) with the new boundaries and the Conservative vote just collapsed. Turn out was something like 40% mostly from the neighbouring town that is part of the new constituency, Labour won with a majority of about 6k and Reform picked up 9k votes for a candidate who barely had a presence and only showed up to 2 hustings and the Conservatives came in 3rd.
What it showed, here at least, was not support for Labour but contempt for the Tories fratricide and Sunak’s handling of a whole range of issues, not least immigration (the only hotel on the outskirts of the town housed “asylum seekers” who it was noticed all had brand new coats, trainers, and mobile phones and hung around the parks and play areas that suddenly became the hot spots for drug dealers and a spate of stabbings in a town not noted for these problems previously - funny that - but the reality of what our children were telling us about this and the fears of girls being out after dark when these gangs were still walking the streets and gathering in large numbers outside the hotel was, apprently, all untrue according to the “offical narrative” in the local press coming from the police and local politicians and yet the police presence and official statistics seem to say otherwise, again, funny that).
Only losers complain about the electoral system after losing
I don't see any complaining in that post. I see someone explaining that things had changed, how that affected voting patterns, and how crap the Tories were.
I'm interested to hear what you think the complaint was, and why you think that person is a Tory.
Ok, if we are being pedantic , who said I was referring to the person who posted, I was merely stating that losers complain when they lose,
Well you quoted the person in your post, then followed it with your response. I'm struggling to think of any way in which a reasonable person could think that your statement was unrelated to the post."
Are we still being pedantic? I was making a statement, unless you’re a mind reader you don’t know my intentions |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ok, if we are being pedantic , who said I was referring to the person who posted, I was merely stating that losers complain when they lose,
Only losers complain about pedantry."
Only losers use pedantry  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Leaders need to connect with the public, to be able to inspire and have a story to tell that people will buy into.
Starmer simply doesn’t have that quality. He can have as many degrees as he likes. And nobody cares about him being DPP, the vast majority of the country doesn’t even know what the job is.
What Starmer is proving is that having an important bureaucratic job doesn’t translate at all into being PM (not that many people thought it would).
The electorate disagree, he just won a huge majority
They don’t disagree.
19% of the electorate voted for Starmer.
And most of those probably already regret it.
411 seats, a huge majority in the commons, 5 years in power,
I’m still awaiting your analysis as to why Starmer and Labour have become so instantly unpopular.
Have you not had instructions from Labour head office yet on what to say?
Opinions polls 5 years before the next GE are irrelevant, unfortunately for you, SKS will be PM for at least 5 years and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it "
As I’ve said before I’m doubtful that Starmer will be PM for five years. He isn’t up to the job.
I’ve actually been in favour of a Labour government for a long time. I think it is an absolutely necessary part of the process as it will bring various issues to a rather painful head.
In the short term Labour is going to be bad for everyone. But sometimes we need to learn our lessons the hard way.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Leaders need to connect with the public, to be able to inspire and have a story to tell that people will buy into.
Starmer simply doesn’t have that quality. He can have as many degrees as he likes. And nobody cares about him being DPP, the vast majority of the country doesn’t even know what the job is.
What Starmer is proving is that having an important bureaucratic job doesn’t translate at all into being PM (not that many people thought it would).
It's a good point, the modern electorate doesn't give a fuck how educated or how intelligent the person is. They'd rather vote for a clown who can entertain them."
it’s not how educated that worries me it’s who educated them and on what look at the uni students on pro palistine marches do you realy want them to be future politicians |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Leaders need to connect with the public, to be able to inspire and have a story to tell that people will buy into.
Starmer simply doesn’t have that quality. He can have as many degrees as he likes. And nobody cares about him being DPP, the vast majority of the country doesn’t even know what the job is.
What Starmer is proving is that having an important bureaucratic job doesn’t translate at all into being PM (not that many people thought it would).
The electorate disagree, he just won a huge majority
They don’t disagree.
19% of the electorate voted for Starmer.
And most of those probably already regret it.
411 seats, a huge majority in the commons, 5 years in power,
I’m still awaiting your analysis as to why Starmer and Labour have become so instantly unpopular.
Have you not had instructions from Labour head office yet on what to say?
Opinions polls 5 years before the next GE are irrelevant, unfortunately for you, SKS will be PM for at least 5 years and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it
As I’ve said before I’m doubtful that Starmer will be PM for five years. He isn’t up to the job.
I’ve actually been in favour of a Labour government for a long time. I think it is an absolutely necessary part of the process as it will bring various issues to a rather painful head.
In the short term Labour is going to be bad for everyone. But sometimes we need to learn our lessons the hard way.
"
He will stay as long as he wants, you get a chance to vote him out in 5 years |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Leaders need to connect with the public, to be able to inspire and have a story to tell that people will buy into.
Starmer simply doesn’t have that quality. He can have as many degrees as he likes. And nobody cares about him being DPP, the vast majority of the country doesn’t even know what the job is.
What Starmer is proving is that having an important bureaucratic job doesn’t translate at all into being PM (not that many people thought it would).
It's a good point, the modern electorate doesn't give a fuck how educated or how intelligent the person is. They'd rather vote for a clown who can entertain them.it’s not how educated that worries me it’s who educated them and on what look at the uni students on pro palistine marches do you realy want them to be future politicians "
Exactly my point, people have been conditioned to be scared and distrustful of educated people and "experts" who knows how things like the economy and science work, how political systems work. Attacking students who opposed the mass slaughter of innocent people is a good example. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He will stay as long as he wants, you get a chance to vote him out in 5 years "
You do know that the 5 years has already started?
So we're all guaranteed a chance to vote him out in 4 years and 8 months. Very few parliaments go for the full term, so it's likely we'll get our opportunity earlier. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He will stay as long as he wants, you get a chance to vote him out in 5 years
You do know that the 5 years has already started?
So we're all guaranteed a chance to vote him out in 4 years and 8 months. Very few parliaments go for the full term, so it's likely we'll get our opportunity earlier."
, governments with 411 seats don’t call early election unless they are convinced they can win |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's a social trend - we choose politicians for their 'celebrity' attributes not their political competence. Look at how SKS is dissed for being 'boring' - never mind he is a leading KC with degrees from Leeds and Oxford. Future PMs will need to be on Love Island to stand any chance of election by the proletariat.
Leaders need to connect with the public, to be able to inspire and have a story to tell that people will buy into.
Starmer simply doesn’t have that quality. He can have as many degrees as he likes. And nobody cares about him being DPP, the vast majority of the country doesn’t even know what the job is.
What Starmer is proving is that having an important bureaucratic job doesn’t translate at all into being PM (not that many people thought it would).
It's a good point, the modern electorate doesn't give a fuck how educated or how intelligent the person is. They'd rather vote for a clown who can entertain them.it’s not how educated that worries me it’s who educated them and on what look at the uni students on pro palistine marches do you realy want them to be future politicians
Exactly my point, people have been conditioned to be scared and distrustful of educated people and "experts" who knows how things like the economy and science work, how political systems work. Attacking students who opposed the mass slaughter of innocent people is a good example. "
when you see how these so called educated ppl act and chant and the banners they carry it’s hard to trust them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He will stay as long as he wants, you get a chance to vote him out in 5 years"
"You do know that the 5 years has already started?
So we're all guaranteed a chance to vote him out in 4 years and 8 months. Very few parliaments go for the full term, so it's likely we'll get our opportunity earlier."
"governments with 411 seats don’t call early election unless they are convinced they can win"
Are you saying that Labour will hang on for the full term because they're not convinced they can win if they called it earlier? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It's a good point, the modern electorate doesn't give a fuck how educated or how intelligent the person is. They'd rather vote for a clown who can entertain them."
Sometimes said clown is both very intelligent and educated (even if he is a lying, slimy and elitist arsehole). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He will stay as long as he wants, you get a chance to vote him out in 5 years
You do know that the 5 years has already started?
So we're all guaranteed a chance to vote him out in 4 years and 8 months. Very few parliaments go for the full term, so it's likely we'll get our opportunity earlier."
I'm afraid the 5 year fixed term was brought in by the Tories. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He will stay as long as he wants, you get a chance to vote him out in 5 years
You do know that the 5 years has already started?
So we're all guaranteed a chance to vote him out in 4 years and 8 months. Very few parliaments go for the full term, so it's likely we'll get our opportunity earlier.
governments with 411 seats don’t call early election unless they are convinced they can win
Are you saying that Labour will hang on for the full term because they're not convinced they can win if they called it earlier?"
Yes , just like the Tories did |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 2 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
Politicians today are mostly drawn in by the career, fame and power.
The career politicians are usually far more motivated to make an impression and far more motivated to be liked rather than supported for their policies.
Choosing a self starter, who wants to be in the spotlight candidate over a traditional grass roots candidate is going to happen more often at a party level, to ensure they have best chance at winning the seat.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’d rather they have atleast 5 yrs working a real job experience and an upper age limit of 55/60 "
I actually agree on an age cap for world leaders I mean look at USA a 78 year old that is wild. I think the age bracket should be 40-60 to try be relevant to bit age sides of younger and older |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’d rather they have atleast 5 yrs working a real job experience and an upper age limit of 55/60
Fair enough , that’s starmer and farage out then "
Ha farage as pm would be the funniest thing to happen it would be dire but funny |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I
Only losers complain about the electoral system after losing "
I voted in favour of electoral reform when the referendum on it happened in 2015. Here’s why:
I would replace the geographical link with constituencies in the HoC and make that house elected by PR (there debate then is what system to use). If that had been the case in the last GE then Labour would have had about 275 seats, Tories about 200, Reform about 60, Lib Dems about 25 and around 105 seats divided by the other parties (UUP, DUP, SNP, PC, Greens) which would have been a more recognisable allocation based on the voting arithmatic. The HoL I would have a fixed set of seats that have the geographical link to a constituency and I would move the constituent casework to the Lords. That chamber I would split into 1/3rds of directly elected, appointed, and “technical” (law, spiritual, sector specific), all on fixed terms, elected in 3rds like a lot of councils do.
Another point on 2Tier’s vote share, it was less than Corbyn’s, and he lost by 179!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I
Only losers complain about the electoral system after losing
I voted in favour of electoral reform when the referendum on it happened in 2015. Here’s why:
I would replace the geographical link with constituencies in the HoC and make that house elected by PR (there debate then is what system to use). If that had been the case in the last GE then Labour would have had about 275 seats, Tories about 200, Reform about 60, Lib Dems about 25 and around 105 seats divided by the other parties (UUP, DUP, SNP, PC, Greens) which would have been a more recognisable allocation based on the voting arithmatic. The HoL I would have a fixed set of seats that have the geographical link to a constituency and I would move the constituent casework to the Lords. That chamber I would split into 1/3rds of directly elected, appointed, and “technical” (law, spiritual, sector specific), all on fixed terms, elected in 3rds like a lot of councils do.
Another point on 2Tier’s vote share, it was less than Corbyn’s, and he lost by 179!
"
only part I don’t agree there would be I’d get rid of the lords |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I’d rather they have atleast 5 yrs working a real job experience and an upper age limit of 55/60
Fair enough , that’s starmer and farage out then
Ha farage as pm would be the funniest thing to happen it would be dire but funny "
Farage is a good bellweather of what people think and is why he polled over 4m votes (or about 10%) in the GE. Even he recognises to go from a party of protest to being a serious political entity he has to achieve a few things:
1. Professionalise the back of house operation in terms of candidate selection, finance, and organising grass roots volunteers;
2. Develop a good data led election strategy;
3. IInvest in research led policy that has both substance and detail and find the right teams of advisors who could move into PAD/SPAD territory in opposition and government
4. Have a plan and a comms strategy that explains how Reform would deliver that policy in government and how it would govern on a day to day basis.
I very much doubt Farage sees himself as a future “prime minister” but he has said he sees himself as building the team and structure around the party that will enable this to happen and the right people to enter politics under their party banner.
Going back to my point about PR, it would take about 15 years but you would see more parties in parliament that give greater representation to the various views of different groups of the populous and proper tension in the political debate as opposed to the 2 party-swap we get now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I
Only losers complain about the electoral system after losing
I voted in favour of electoral reform when the referendum on it happened in 2015. Here’s why:
I would replace the geographical link with constituencies in the HoC and make that house elected by PR (there debate then is what system to use). If that had been the case in the last GE then Labour would have had about 275 seats, Tories about 200, Reform about 60, Lib Dems about 25 and around 105 seats divided by the other parties (UUP, DUP, SNP, PC, Greens) which would have been a more recognisable allocation based on the voting arithmatic. The HoL I would have a fixed set of seats that have the geographical link to a constituency and I would move the constituent casework to the Lords. That chamber I would split into 1/3rds of directly elected, appointed, and “technical” (law, spiritual, sector specific), all on fixed terms, elected in 3rds like a lot of councils do.
Another point on 2Tier’s vote share, it was less than Corbyn’s, and he lost by 179!
"
We don’t have PR, the electorate don’t want PR, so youre in the minority . Labour won 411 seats using the electoral system in place, it was democracy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I
Only losers complain about the electoral system after losing
I voted in favour of electoral reform when the referendum on it happened in 2015. Here’s why:
I would replace the geographical link with constituencies in the HoC and make that house elected by PR (there debate then is what system to use). If that had been the case in the last GE then Labour would have had about 275 seats, Tories about 200, Reform about 60, Lib Dems about 25 and around 105 seats divided by the other parties (UUP, DUP, SNP, PC, Greens) which would have been a more recognisable allocation based on the voting arithmatic. The HoL I would have a fixed set of seats that have the geographical link to a constituency and I would move the constituent casework to the Lords. That chamber I would split into 1/3rds of directly elected, appointed, and “technical” (law, spiritual, sector specific), all on fixed terms, elected in 3rds like a lot of councils do.
Another point on 2Tier’s vote share, it was less than Corbyn’s, and he lost by 179!
only part I don’t agree there would be I’d get rid of the lords "
Call it what you will, you still need an upper/reforminh house. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I
Only losers complain about the electoral system after losing
I voted in favour of electoral reform when the referendum on it happened in 2015. Here’s why:
I would replace the geographical link with constituencies in the HoC and make that house elected by PR (there debate then is what system to use). If that had been the case in the last GE then Labour would have had about 275 seats, Tories about 200, Reform about 60, Lib Dems about 25 and around 105 seats divided by the other parties (UUP, DUP, SNP, PC, Greens) which would have been a more recognisable allocation based on the voting arithmatic. The HoL I would have a fixed set of seats that have the geographical link to a constituency and I would move the constituent casework to the Lords. That chamber I would split into 1/3rds of directly elected, appointed, and “technical” (law, spiritual, sector specific), all on fixed terms, elected in 3rds like a lot of councils do.
Another point on 2Tier’s vote share, it was less than Corbyn’s, and he lost by 179!
only part I don’t agree there would be I’d get rid of the lords
Call it what you will, you still need an upper/reforminh house. "
PR+appointments would be great for an upper house, but leads to problems with forming a government and legislative agenda. Too much horse trading and outsized power for "kingmakers". Very unstable governments - the UK would not handle that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I
Only losers complain about the electoral system after losing
I voted in favour of electoral reform when the referendum on it happened in 2015. Here’s why:
I would replace the geographical link with constituencies in the HoC and make that house elected by PR (there debate then is what system to use). If that had been the case in the last GE then Labour would have had about 275 seats, Tories about 200, Reform about 60, Lib Dems about 25 and around 105 seats divided by the other parties (UUP, DUP, SNP, PC, Greens) which would have been a more recognisable allocation based on the voting arithmatic. The HoL I would have a fixed set of seats that have the geographical link to a constituency and I would move the constituent casework to the Lords. That chamber I would split into 1/3rds of directly elected, appointed, and “technical” (law, spiritual, sector specific), all on fixed terms, elected in 3rds like a lot of councils do.
Another point on 2Tier’s vote share, it was less than Corbyn’s, and he lost by 179!
We don’t have PR, the electorate don’t want PR, so youre in the minority . Labour won 411 seats using the electoral system in place, it was democracy "
We didn’t want it then but things change. At the time it was perceived as being a ruse by the Lib Dems to find a way into power at a time when we needed to rebuild the country’s finances after Brown sold the gold reserves, raided pensions and spent like a d*unken sailor on shore leave on ruinous PFI schemes just before the debt bubble burst and the markets crashed. The decimation of the Lib Dems by their support base collapsing as a punishment for governing proved they are nothing but a party of beardy wierdies and permanent protestors and pot hole enthusiasts and not a serious party of government.
Reform have shown that there is a gap in the market for a centre-right party other than the Tories. It’s also highlighted that the Tories aren’t really one party so if you vote for them in one constituency thinking you are getting a centre-right party you end up with a bunch of people more suited to the Lib Dems but hungry for power and you get the precise opposite of what you vote for as they tear themselves apart. It’s this which has people watching what happens with Reform to see if they can learn the lessons of UKIP and the loony days of that party’s demise and build their credibility as a viable, stable alternative. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He will stay as long as he wants, you get a chance to vote him out in 5 years"
"You do know that the 5 years has already started?
So we're all guaranteed a chance to vote him out in 4 years and 8 months. Very few parliaments go for the full term, so it's likely we'll get our opportunity earlier."
"I'm afraid the 5 year fixed term was brought in by the Tories."
The 5 year limit was brought in by the Liberals in the Parliament Act 1911. It was changed to a fixed 5 year term by the Tories in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, but that was repealed in 2022.
It was repealed because it has no effect. This sort of law is easy to bypass, and not a single one of the governments while it was in place went for the full 5 years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He will stay as long as he wants, you get a chance to vote him out in 5 years
You do know that the 5 years has already started?
So we're all guaranteed a chance to vote him out in 4 years and 8 months. Very few parliaments go for the full term, so it's likely we'll get our opportunity earlier.
I'm afraid the 5 year fixed term was brought in by the Tories.
The 5 year limit was brought in by the Liberals in the Parliament Act 1911. It was changed to a fixed 5 year term by the Tories in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, but that was repealed in 2022.
It was repealed because it has no effect. This sort of law is easy to bypass, and not a single one of the governments while it was in place went for the full 5 years."
Here are the facts, if labour want to they can stay in government for the full 5 years, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I
Only losers complain about the electoral system after losing
I voted in favour of electoral reform when the referendum on it happened in 2015. Here’s why:
I would replace the geographical link with constituencies in the HoC and make that house elected by PR (there debate then is what system to use). If that had been the case in the last GE then Labour would have had about 275 seats, Tories about 200, Reform about 60, Lib Dems about 25 and around 105 seats divided by the other parties (UUP, DUP, SNP, PC, Greens) which would have been a more recognisable allocation based on the voting arithmatic. The HoL I would have a fixed set of seats that have the geographical link to a constituency and I would move the constituent casework to the Lords. That chamber I would split into 1/3rds of directly elected, appointed, and “technical” (law, spiritual, sector specific), all on fixed terms, elected in 3rds like a lot of councils do.
Another point on 2Tier’s vote share, it was less than Corbyn’s, and he lost by 179!
We don’t have PR, the electorate don’t want PR, so youre in the minority . Labour won 411 seats using the electoral system in place, it was democracy
We didn’t want it then but things change. At the time it was perceived as being a ruse by the Lib Dems to find a way into power at a time when we needed to rebuild the country’s finances after Brown sold the gold reserves, raided pensions and spent like a d*unken sailor on shore leave on ruinous PFI schemes just before the debt bubble burst and the markets crashed. The decimation of the Lib Dems by their support base collapsing as a punishment for governing proved they are nothing but a party of beardy wierdies and permanent protestors and pot hole enthusiasts and not a serious party of government.
Reform have shown that there is a gap in the market for a centre-right party other than the Tories. It’s also highlighted that the Tories aren’t really one party so if you vote for them in one constituency thinking you are getting a centre-right party you end up with a bunch of people more suited to the Lib Dems but hungry for power and you get the precise opposite of what you vote for as they tear themselves apart. It’s this which has people watching what happens with Reform to see if they can learn the lessons of UKIP and the loony days of that party’s demise and build their credibility as a viable, stable alternative. "
Things haven’t changed, there was no push for PR at the last election, it isn’t happening |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Here are the facts, if labour want to they can stay in government for the full 5 years,"
Unless something goes wrong, and the party gets divided.
And there are slightly less than 4 years and 8 months left. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Here are the facts, if labour want to they can stay in government for the full 5 years,
Unless something goes wrong, and the party gets divided.
And there are slightly less than 4 years and 8 months left."
If, if , if, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I can't see Starmer getting through the first term, he'll be voted out on a no confidence and replaced. There'll be so many back bench rebellions they'll make his eyes water. One of the biggest failures will be the housing issue not happening. Take a look at Dover already problems with a site there.
Plus has taken on old Blairites for advisors a fatal mistake and admission there is something not right with his set up and losing support already.
Generally I don't give politicians today much credence, besides we live in a world influenced by the Taylor Swifts and Kanye Wests of this world.
80 year's since Hitler and we're still plagued by dictators in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Famine in Africa.
Remember Politicians need problems to solve to prove their worth to you.
Keep those problems bubbling and you'll always have politicians popping out of the woodwork taking your hard earned money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Need more grounded ones and more younger politicians to balance out "
I don’t think we need younger ones.
We need many more with proper experience in the real world. Not people who have spent all their careers in the political or union bubbles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Based on the choices available in both the UK and USA the quality of the current crop of politicians is absolutely dire.
Having said that, the election results prove that the general population is, generally, stupid."
We get what we pay for and all of our MP'S are grossly underpaid.
However we cannot give pay rises to our current politicians as the majority have not experienced a real day's work in their life.
Most come straight out of University with mickey mouse degree's and are already brain washed into a wrong way of thinking.
We should have a "Price Match" scheme so we can entice highly qualified CEO's into politics and they retain their previous gross wage during their reign as MP.
The dross that come straight from university with zero work experience stay on their present salary.
Why would highly qualified executives want to half their wage to become an MP and why would they want to work with morons such as Angela Rayner, Lisa Nandy etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We get what we pay for and all of our MP'S are grossly underpaid.
However we cannot give pay rises to our current politicians as the majority have not experienced a real day's work in their life.
Most come straight out of University with mickey mouse degree's and are already brain washed into a wrong way of thinking.
We should have a "Price Match" scheme so we can entice highly qualified CEO's into politics and they retain their previous gross wage during their reign as MP.
The dross that come straight from university with zero work experience stay on their present salary.
Why would highly qualified executives want to half their wage to become an MP and why would they want to work with morons such as Angela Rayner, Lisa Nandy etc."
A US Congressman gets $179k salary for doing essentially the same job. We pay our MPs about £80K by comparison.
I think we have a massive problem of resentment in the UK towards earnings, especially when it comes to press reporting as someone on £100k a year can often find quite negative connotations to the narrative when it comes to the press. The “average” salary is £34K and until we can get away from resenting people for being paid for the responsibility they hold a salary commensurate with that and the experience required to do the job, we will always end up with MPs who are otherwise unemployable, machine party robots who have come up through the researcher/SPAD route, nepo-babies (a Labour issue rihgt now) or those who can afford to do the job on the salary it offers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It seems to me that MP’s are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
Nobody really cares what individual MP’s say, and the vast majority of them have nothing interesting or useful to say.
The last Tory government had a substantial majority but still acted like they’d got a majority of 1 and did nothing of any note.
Likewise this government has a big paper majority but little popular support, and I suspect it will achieve very little.
It has weak and unconvincing leadership, and will spend its time forever being buffeted by a hostile public and media response to its stupid and unrealistic policies, and being overtaken by world events and global economic forces that it has no control over. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Pay peanuts get monkeys…. Need fewer MPs and they need to be paid something more reflective of what the brightest and best can earn in other sectors.. Why be an MP when you have the skill set that will earn you far more elsewhere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
