Maybe none at all. Maybe the electorate views all politicians as liars, and has merely formed the view that the Tories just have to go, simple as that. These things happen: ask Callaghan / Thatcher / Major / Brown / Johnson / Truss.
But here's the thing. Needing to say very little at all, Starmer lies freely in all directions: a liar in a league of his own. Blair and BJ aren't even in the running, bad as they are. Does Starmer feel he's in lawyer-in-courtroom territory, where the whole court knows the barrister will say anything to get his client off, and that's just fine & dandy?**
Energy being my thing, I focus on what Miliband has been saying. It's almost as bad. We'll have 100% zero carbon electricity by 2030 AND it will cost us all less. Seriously. Oh, and 650,000 new Green Jobs will be created in the process (though to be fair, he doesn't say which country they'll be created in). The Graun even writes that, as regards the oil & gas sector which is to be phased out, Labour have declared that "not a single job will be lost" in the transition, though fairness again prompts me to say that I can't source that anywhere in Labour's output.
It's hard to guess how, in 2030, they'll explain why this has all come to grief, as indubitably it will: they won't get within spitting distance of any of zero-carbon electricity, cheaper electricity, or the 650k new green jobs. The usual trick is: "we didn't know how bad things were until we saw the books" - but that doesn't wash with electricity generation because the entire sector is comprised of very big units that can't be hidden: every analyst modelling the UK power sector has a complete list of them all. (Likewise, the roll-out of the small stuff like heat pumps, solar panels, electric vehicles etc is pretty exactly monitored - not least because policy-makers are so keen to.) And "bills going up, not down" is pretty easy to track, too.
"Didn't realise the extent of inflation in raw materials"? That's pretty well known. "Didn't know there was a skills shortage"? Ditto. "Didn't realise CCUS / hydrogen / new nukes wouild be so badly delayed / wouldn't work as advertised"? Not that either: we've recently had a judge rule that it's "irrational" to assume anything else.
Nope: I can't quite see how they are going to hide. The question is: will it be held against them?
ND
_______________________
** I was once on the jury for a high-profile murder trial, and the case made on behalf of one of the perps - whom we'd watched carrying out the murder on CCTV from several angles - was essentially that a Man from Mars came down, swapped clothes with the perp a couple of minutes beforehand, did the deed, and then swapped back & flew off again. All this under the coded formulation: "The suggestion is ...". The judge didn't seem to feel the need to reprimand this line of argumentation.
26 comments:
From your linked piece, the most distressing sentence.
"Critics say the party’s plans are vague, that there is little or no industrial base in Scotland, and that there are few renewable jobs to transfer workers to."
Just a week or two back I drove along the A8 on the south bank of the Clyde, just a few old cranes and buildings where there was once the world's greatest concentration of shipyards.
As we all know, shipbuilding is "old hat" stuff, which is why it's dominated by lo-tech, low-wage places like Japan and Korea.
Maybe the electorate views all politicians as liars, and has merely formed the view that the *Incumbents* just have to go, simple as that.
I believe it is called democracy.
I find it astonishing that no one is holding Miliband's feet to the fire* for his bullshit utterances about green energy. Surely to god the man is completely aware that he's lying and so is doing it deliberately to mislead?
( * - a stout rubber hose might usefully be employed, too)
Coming back to the subject of *lies*, there are different thresholds for different situations.
In a criminal case, a lie might be accepted if it falls under the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt.
In a civil case, it's the balance of probabilities.
For political promises there is no threshold as you cannot sue or take any legal action against politicians that fail to deliver promises. Or even as Farage has done, promised a *contract* with the people as there is no contract. There is no mechanism apart from voting to get rid of false prophets, not even misconduct in public office.
Parliament is supreme, which is why we have supreme liars.
The electorate get the politicians they deserve. Want better politicians? Start with a better electorate.
I remember when they told us energy would be too cheap to meter...
Jan - we are rapidly headed back to those times: the "hydrogen revolution" we are told so much about, depends on free electricity**. Sadly, it doesn't exist.
** "green" hydrogen, that is. "Blue" hydrogen depends on carbon capture & storage. But, errr, that doesn't exist (yet), either ...
Interesting how many people will spoil papers to make point. The 'none of these option' and/or compulsory voting would help. It hurts me to say it but the French system appears to have some merit.
All electric cars are exempt from ULEZ and Congestion Charges under the Cleaner Vehicle Discount until 25th December 2025.
Santa Khan is going to want £12.50 A DAY in the new year.
£4500 each vehicle.
A great many people want to believe in the carbon neutral farce because they believe in climate change and all manner of other stupidities. I have met enough to know that they are beyond reason. Things will only change, rather like Brexit, when the majority are so annoyed they simply vote the idiots out of office.
I suspect Starmer may be like Johnson and crash and burn after several years. Like Johnson he is clever rather than intelligent and has the morals of a lawyer. He is surrounded by rather bitter mediocrity, it will not end well.
Charles
Keir Starmer may end up like James Callahan, overwhelmed by problems inherited from previous governments which finally reach crisis point during his tenure, and constrained by a party which is too invested in everything that got us into this mess to ever countenance any real change.
Of course, he might also become a Harold Wilson, with no real solutions to anything but devious and cunning enough to postpone the inevitable crash until it becomes somebody else's problem.
Not sure we can look to previous Labour PMs for precedent. I can't think of a single one with literally no political mission whatsoever (or morals, it would seem) beyond taking the reins of power and cravenly playing the establishment game (see his ignominious time as DPP). Blair? No, there were things he wanted to do. Brown? A rank coward, oft lambasted here on C@W for that and other moral failings, but he still wanted to do stuff. Wilson? A bit more enigmatic, for sure, but there was a lot more to him than there is with Starmer, and he was willing to sidestep the establishment (and the Americans) without hesitation. Nobody would accuse Callaghan of moral vacuity, canny operator though he was (including for his own advancement; but, hey ...).
Always worth seeing what the Left thinks. The Left sort-of hated Wilson - but only because he outwitted them politically at almost every turn, not because he was an outright policy-liar and purgemaster-general. (In those days it was OK in Labour to be a zionist). The Left came to hate Blair, but Iraq was late in the day.
The Left hates and despises Starmer already (and with good justification, I'd say from the other side of the river). I would say "with a vengeance" but I'm not sure they have the wherewithal.
Good points, Nick. But the Callaghan scenario is one in which it wouldn't matter whether Starmer had morals or a mission, because he would be blamed when every festering problem became a full-blown crisis, and he would be unable to get his party to support the radical changes that would be needed even if he knew what they were. It's the Kobayashi Labouru. And as you say, Callaghan was a "canny operator" who did have a functioning moral compass, but he was still swept away by a flood tide of unfortunate events which began with decisions taken long before he came to power.
Anonymous old git carlislr said...
"The 'none of these option'" <<-- i'm lucky enough to have the monsters standing in my constituency. thats my 'none of the above' choice
though some of their policies have a certain attraction....
'Rwanda…We will send all MPs who misbehave to Rwanda.'
Nver mind the history lessons, we want to hear more about the murder!
Anon @ 9:39 - see this
https://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/20101928.two-guilty-harrow-stabbing-outside-former-debenhams/
Inevitably, a very truncated version of the story. In particular, there's no hint of quite what a piece of work one of the 'victims' was - which was the reason for the feud. Scary stuff.
I reckon it will look fairly hopeful for six months and then run into the tar pit. From whence Starmer et al will struggle and even the FT tell us how useless Labour are, ably assisted by the DM/DT axis. Such are the joys of government. Happy is he who expects little. Anyway a change is as good as a rest.
@ ND
Seems to be a story of the benefits of multiculturalism. Not to say we don't have problems with sections of the indigenous population, but that's reason not to import additional problems.
Were all of them aspiring footballers, DJs (MC?), etc?
I hope the mother got sent down as well...
To my surprise, the rural polling station staff reported a good turnout and they'd been busy all day, so not great for the Tories. Could this be what 1924 was for the Liberals?
Oh yes, the mother was sent down too (the plea in mitigation was 'nobody ever believed her story in the first place'. Not least because it differed from her son's account. And the CCTV)
Also sent down was the member of the victims clan who was caught filming the court proceedings on his mobile (Contempt of Court)
Not reported in that press story was that in a separate trial, another of the victims clan was also sent down for his part in the proceedings of the night in question
The two perps who tackled this clan (just two, against 7 or 8), in the space of just under 4 seconds, inflicted a fatal wound on one and life-endangering wounds on a further two. Not guns, mind: knives.
All a bit of an eye-opener
Labour is a broad mosque.
On ConHome, they are organising the storming of Parliament next week if they can find their bus passes.
You are very funny Kev <3
See that Starmer's supporters in Downing Street were waving Union Flags, Welsh Flags and Scottish flags but not St Georges. So much for representing the whole nation. Mind ou he brags about working for NI police but no red hand flags either.
-3 to you too !
Post a Comment