For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct - Aristotle
Sunday, 16 June 2024
None of it is mysterious
Does Keir Starmer know what his political motives are?
Suppose he describes his motives to an interviewer, then on another occasion he describes his political motives to a different interviewer after major national and international events have coloured general political discourse.
It would not be unusual if Starmer’s two accounts of his political motives differ significantly as they were given on two different occasions under different political circumstances.
In which case, what are Starmer’s true political motives?
Suppose two different people each with a different political outlook examine his career to date, but reach significantly different conclusions. Suppose we contrast those two accounts with the accounts Starmer gave to his two interviewers then add two more accounts recently written by two biographers. That would be a total of six versions of Keir Starmer’s political motives, all different.
Again, not particularly remarkable, but what are Starmer’s true political motives? Perhaps it’s an impossible question because he doesn’t have true political motives, his own account of his motives would be coloured by his audience and his need to maintain the personality he finds internally coherent. His account will be coloured by his audience even if he is the audience. It will be no more objective than any of the other accounts.
There is no deeper account of Starmer’s political motives. It’s all there on the surface, the six accounts plus Starmer’s own account. None of them is a true account. There is no true account. What cannot be left out is what we see - the dishonesty, vacillation, pandering to political fashions, going with what is currently mainstream within his social and political peers and the socialist political outlook he grew up with. None of it is mysterious.
This does not imply that we can predict Starmer’s future behaviour as Prime Minister. It does imply that we will probably be able to make sense of it. Those who would like to see a more rational and pragmatic political leader already know he won’t be that. He may not know it but others do. It's there for anyone to see.
Starmer’s political motives aren’t mysteriously deep, they are there on the surface, visible to all who look. He relies entirely on voters who don’t look.
Labels:
psychology
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
If you were a lobbyist the trick would be to make sure you spoke to Starmer last. Or, if it came to that, a member of his (expected) Cabinet or the Labour NEC.
"He relies entirely on voters who don’t look."
There are none so blind etc . . .
The fundamental question for me is whether he actually has anything like agency. He comes across as an entity entirely at the mercy of external forces. All of which scare him.
Not good times coming up.
DJ - I believe it is necessary to do that with a number of major political figures. I bet the Civil Service always knows who they are too.
Jannie - yes it's a "muck or nettles" outlook.
Sam - he certainly doesn't give the impression of wanting to be there, as if standing up to external forces would merely make it worse.
James - lots of internal conflict seems to be the best hope.
A true disciple of Marx.
Groucho, that is.
"These are my principles. And if you do not like them, I do have others."
Doonhamer - Groucho Starmer, although he lacks Groucho's wit.
Post a Comment