How to tell when politicians are lying

[EssexPhil]

Contrary to popular belief, it is not when their lips move

Let's use this latest Starmer/Mandelson spat as an example.

It is clear to me that recent statements made by Starmer and Sir Olly Robbins are incompatible. At least 1 of them is lying. And the way statements are made has been very telling.

Starmer is unequivocal. He states that he never received the vetting advice. That it was hidden from him. And, logically, this bit (at least) must be true. There are too many people with the potential to prove that this was not true. And, were that to be proved to be the case, he would have to resign.

Compare/contrast with Robbins statement to the House today. He "does not recall" whether things happened. Usually the sign of someone who either doesn't know or does, and hopes it cannot be proved. He received documents, but he can't remember which ones, and he didn't read them. He pretends that Govt trying to get over the vetting hurdle is in some way problematic-it happens. Every. Single. Time.

Horrible man. Clearly not got the ability of his predecessor-the 1 who insisted on the vetting.

Will Starmer survive? IMO. yes and no. Survives this, then local elections are going to do for him.

Starmer is of a different age. A basically decent man. Bit bland. Bit grey. Solid. Unremarkable. More Brown or Sunak than Blair or Johnson.

Look at the likely next Leaders. Full of soundbites. Big ideas. And absolutely no idea (or experience) how to Govern or Budget.

Imagine a World where Reform is in Power. And the Greens in Opposition. And shudder.

[EssexPhil]

While I'm warming to a theme, here's an example of just how much trouble the Conservatives are in as we approach the local elections.

I live in a Rural constituency in Essex-a Council run by the Tories since God was a Boy. In my constituency, the sitting Tory at the last Local elections got more votes than everyone else combined.

I've just received his 6 page election leaflet. Spends 6 pages talking about himself, and what he has done locally. On those 6 pages, makes no mention whatsoever about the future, or why Reform (who are the only likely challenger) might be less than ideal. Nothing about the reorganisation of Essex. And-incomprehensibly-tries to hide the fact that he is standing for the Tories. He only mentions it once-in the middle of a paragraph near the bottom of Page 2.

I am (like a lot of people) torn on how to vote. To cast a largely symbolic vote for Labour. Or to vote for the Tory, on the "Anyone but Reform" ticket. But voting for a man who appears ashamed of his own Party is not easy...

[Enut]

The current government is as useless as all the preceding governments, at least for the last few decades. I think it has come as quite a shock for those that voted Labour thinking that it would be a change for the better. It hasn't been. The next general election looks like it is going to be between further left and further right, the centre ground has failed in it's job and that's quite sad. I despair as the UK population deserves better but it doesn't look like there is anything better on the horizon.   

The ONLY redeeming fact about UK government? At least we don't have Trump.

[Pokerpops]

I’m inclined to contest the idea that Starmer is a ‘bit’ bland and grey. He’s utterly bland, grey and seemingly devoid of a political vision.
Say what you like about the two PMs who have had the biggest influence over our country in my lifetime but both Thatcher and Blair had a vision.
Blair’s was of himself as a saviour, but at least he could work a crowd.

[EssexPhil]

2 interesting points of view there-thanks

Like all decades, PMs have varied in quality. I believe Cameron was as good while in control as he was terrible afterwards. And Rishi Sunak did extremely well, especially given the hand he was dealt. Did far more than anyone else to stop the massive spike in immigration under Johnson.

You are quite right to say there "doesn't look like there is anything better on the horizon". But what there is, IMHO, are things a whole lot worse. Because electorates still harbour this belief that raxes should be paid by other people, and benefits only given to those who act the way we want.

I don't believe Starmer is particularly bland. It just suits the Press to exaggerrate that. The bias is extreme-so (for example) we currently have a Home Secretary who seems to me to be further to the Right than most Tory PMs. But that only means she is ignored by the Mail etc-not praised.

Starmer's problem is this. He is a 20th Century politician in the 21st Century. He has no soundbites, no guff or meaningless "vision". And that is now essential. As is working a crowd.

Trump can work a crowd. So can Putin. So could most of the most evil men in history. They were all populists, too.

Charisma remains the most overrated quality to be a leader. The only difference is that it temporarily seems to be the be-all and end-all.

Before the end of this Decade we could have a Government where the only man with significant experience in Govt will be Robert Jenrick. With absolutely no-one in Opposition with any experience. Spending vast sums on vanity projects.