Suppose we come up with 10 words to describe UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. This could be a selection of 10 words from any number, which might include –
Mendacious
Evasive
Wooden
Earnest
And many, many more
Yet if we try to apply 10 words to Starmer and assuming we choose a range of words with somewhat different meanings, then those words are not likely to summarised his political persona in a simple phrase or a single sentence, tempting though the attempt may be.
In other words we cannot sum up Starmer the politician in a way which isn’t diffuse and subject to elaboration. With elaboration it would become longer and eventually end up as a long essay, or after a long grind of unaccountable enthusiasm it could end up as a book.
This summary problem casts a weird fog over political discourse where even the terminology is ambiguous and inexact, where brief summaries never work and other aspects are always available to render political discourse forever unsatisfactory.
It’s deliberate, senior politicians are brokers, but not our brokers.
6 comments:
The football crowds seem to summarise him nicely in one word.
Agreed, Dearieme.
My favourite word would be 'shallow'.
My argument would be that Stumbler is 'event driven' rather than 'principle driven'. He has no deep guiding principles and so wavers, u-turns, and stumbles from event to event. Blaming everyone else of course.
dearieme and James - does that have anything to do with him requiring expensive spectacles funded by Lord Alli?
DJ - yes he does come across as particularly shallow. All he seems to know is law, which he seems to have adapted to a globalist ideology based solely on law. He can't fit social policies or economics into it without making a mess of events as they unfold.
Weak.
He has a weak face.
Peter - yes he does have a weak face, weak body language too, he doesn't know what to do with his hands.
Post a Comment