Starmer: Rayner will return to cabinet – I miss her
In a wide-ranging interview, Sir Keir also insisted that he had no intention of stepping aside before the next election.
He said: “When I took over the Labour Party, everyone said to me, ‘you’re not going to be able to change the party’. We ignored that and carried on.
“Then they said to me, ‘you’re not going to be able to win an election’. We got a landslide Labour victory. Now, 17 months into a five-year Labour term, they say ‘you’re not able to change the country’.
“Every time we’ve been in this position, we’ve defied them. And that’s what I intend to do.”
Team Starmer must think it's safer to have Seaside Ange on the inside rather than the outside, especially as she is seen as a fan of trade unions and Unite is threatening disaffiliation from the Labour Party.
Apart from this we seem to have the maniacally intransigent twaddle Starmer usually emits during interviews. There is no point in sifting through it for some kind of worthwhile meaning, he doesn't shape his twaddle like that.
It leaves a question hanging in the political air though - who shapes Starmer's twaddle? Why would the man wish to come across as more than a little bonkers, so much so that it tends to obscure the Fabian backdrop? Perhaps because he really is bonkers.
6 comments:
Perhaps by inclination or training he has adopted the barrister's view of life. His job is to present his brief (which he may or may not agree with) in the most persuasive way for his audience?
There must be many advisors, civil servants and party members adding to 'his brief' all the time and he tries through rhetoric to present a unified view. How much is the real Stumbler? I don't know.
Anon - he does give that impression, a barrister presenting his brief and the brief would probably change all the time with various add-ons. The odd thing about him is that he does it so badly, he lacks an ability to persuade which his party probably assumed he possessed before they made him leader.
I think the real Stumbler is likely to be intransigent, politically unsophisticated and socially awkward, characteristics which can't deal with the shifting sands of political life .
What happened to a sense of shame when caught fiddling?
I suppose she could replace Rachel; one useless idiot for another....
Chris - yes, they don't seem to be strong on shame, they aren't even ashamed of being useless.
@Chris.
I don't expect they feel any shame - merely regret that their rhetoric was unsuccessful, this time. Perhaps in their minds they do not believe they were lying but being unpersuasive?
Which means they will happily do it again.
DJ - yes, with so many examples to choose from it fairly easy to conclude that Starmer is fostering an entirely amoral political culture. Amoral but not smart enough to hide it.
Post a Comment