and by accepting to play this role, he's lost whatever credibility he might have had
I don't think I agree though I'm not sure - agree he's got next to no mobility, that's being in opposition for you. I do think he has a deep understanding of the law and is interpreting the Bill in this way. legalistic. More like a lawyer's summing up than something that'll garner popular support. I would guess he's probably right as well - he knows his shit but I don't think that leads to effective *popular* communication.I don't think his "strategic" expanation for failing to challenge this legislation holds up - he's post-rationalising, due to having zero mobility to take a principled position
Not necessarilyThe problem with this is then you just get shouty shit. I mean, that's happened in the US. This is Trump.
Yeah, it seems like a no-brainer for a progressive party to oppose this, even in practice they'd be unlikely to be able to stop it. Especially when so much of the membership is worried about a big swing back to the right.It's just dismal though. A bill that would allow Are Boys to go undercover and commit crimes in the name of the state, not to mention all that business where they father children while operating under an assumed identity, it's not exactly the kind of thing that taking a position on should be difficult.
I don't disagree tbh.It's just dismal though. A bill that would allow Are Boys to go undercover and commit crimes in the name of the state, not to mention all that business where they father children while operating under an assumed identity, it's not exactly the kind of thing that taking a position on should be difficult.
This Home Office is something else though. A new low. Priti Patel? FFS. She's being driven by populism and trolling - emotive headline grabbing shit that upsets and outrages people. The Trumpian reflex. I much prefer someone intensely boring who's going to lull me to sleep talking about tax credits, though I accept the moment for that may have passed.Not necessarily
and the TV/parliament show is so crap anyway, popularised shit that constantly misses any point. Especially at the top of the system where it's all about publicity. I'd be prepared to concede that maybe some junior politicians and political operators are quietly achieving worthwhile outcomes at lower levels ... if i'd never encountered the atrocious bad faith morass of the Home Office
Trump goes along with Johnson and Starmer as part of the cesspool
Sure, he's not interesting enough to be populist, too technical, but because he's so intimately tied into the disgusting political system, he's a just another careerist waste of space, not even an effective irritant like the populistsStarmer's fundamentally different to those two. There's no populist reflex there at all. There was with Corbyn, he's much closer to those two. Easy answers, mass appeal.
I think Corbyn did a good job of looking like he was right, even when he wasn't, but was a figure of fun for the Tories at PMQs, while Starmer is sort of the opposite. It's a position that goes down well with people who write about parliamentary proceedings but could cost him a lot of popular support.Starmer's fundamentally different to those two. There's no populist reflex there at all. There was with Corbyn, he's much closer to those two. Easy answers, mass appeal.