Sunday 15 September 2024

Starmer's striking unpopularity, and a lesson

This past week has seen publication of Starmer's popularity ratings that, by comparison with the (downward) trajectories of the ratings of previous new PMs, show he has become staggeringly unpopular in an unprecedently short time.  We've noted before that Machiavelli advocated the new Prince carry out his unpleasant measures very early in his new regime; and also that the Prince should prefer being feared to being loved.

OK: but he didn't say it's a great thing to be deeply unpopular per se, never mind being thought of in terms of the specific negative attributes with which Starmer is increasingly associated - ask any pensioner of your acquaintance.  Is Starmer playing with fire here (assuming he's broadly in control of his actions)?  Mainstream commentary tends to reckon he's gone beyond setting expectations & establishing the smack of firm government, and is maybe even undermining the economy by the negativity of his early decision-making and his strident, stern messaging.

Here's a personal anecdote which isn't on a precise parallel, but it has a lesson of sorts that might have some bearing.  At the age of 19, I took command of my first troop of soldiers in the army - a scary business: there were 45 of them and my sheltered, essentially middle class upbringing[1] hadn't exposed me to the rigours of tough working-class mores where disagreements are settled with fist and boot, and the sense of 'fairness' (what soldiers consider fairness, anyhow) is never to be trifled with.  

On my very first day, I ran into a couple of 'Spanish practices' among the men that seemed to me intolerable, and I told the individuals involved - just a couple or three in each case - to desist immediately, and not to do it again.  Later in the week I inspected their lines (the accommodation of those of the men who lived in barracks - by far the greater number); and as well as marvelling at how in very communal circumstances (8 to a room) they fiercely guarded their personal privacy and possessions, I couldn't help but notice the 'Morale Chart' on the wall in the corridor: a rather neatly-drawn graph with daily entries.  With some surprise I noted that on the very day of my arrival, a huge up-tick had been registered! - and yet the only two things I'd done on that first day were the two bollockings I'd administered.

I short while later, I asked one of the more mature corporals what I was to make of this.  Oh, he said, it was great!  Straight off the bat, you locked up a couple of the blokes who were out of order! [I hadn't in fact issued any punishment, still less locked anyone up.]  Things had got much too slack around here!

There could be so many lessons to draw from this silly little incident[2], but the one that seems relevant here is that a couple of early "smacks of firm government" can - in some instances - actually improve morale as opposed to sapping it.  I'm not suggesting the parallels are exact: but I am saying that given how his own smacks have gone down, along with his general demeanour in government, Starmer shouldn't be remotely complacent about his own impact on the mood of the nation.

More popcorn, please, as we watch how this plays out.

ND       

________________

[1] My father left school at 14 to become an apprentice, and was conscripted as a private soldier.  But he commissioned from the ranks and despite some of his war-stories from the working classes, he'd firmly left all that behind; and my own upbringing could only be described as middle class.  Dealing with the soldiery was a big shock for me.

[2]  Another, rather more philosophical, is what I take to be the great theme of Hilary Mantel's superb Wolf Hall trilogy: that the received version of history is often not particularly accurate, even if (hopefully, sometimes) it captures some of the essence of what actually happened.  This categorically includes even very recent and very trivial 'history', e.g. 'what happened yesterday', as the case of Cromwell sleeping with the (woman) hotel-keeper when on his mission to parlay with Catherine of Aragon: the story of this minor event has already become currency - in a distorted version - back at his own house, even before he arrives home a day or so later.

11 comments:

dearieme said...

"where disagreements are settled with fist and boot": I'm not sure everyone believes me when I say that my mother sent me to primary school wearing clogs.

I suspect she may have been sentimental about clogs but maybe she was just being shrewd. Dad was explicit: "Any nonsense and kick them on the knees".

So when I started secondary school and two boys tried to drag me off for the sort of bullying that Americans call "hazing" I put myself into a corner of the stonework and told them that if they tried it on with me I'd kick them on the knees so that they could never play football again.

I was rather proud of my flourish. Anyway it worked.

decnine said...

It's possible that Starmer's view of the UK is that he's the Boss and everybody else gets to obey him. Once upon a time that may have been the case, but then we had various social developments which exposed the value of Government viewing the People as a bunch of grownups. Trying to undo 300 years of progress ain't cleverness.

dearieme said...

"he's the Boss and everybody else gets to obey him" And yet when he was head of the public prosecutor's office for England and Wales he had no knowledge of the existence of the evidence against Jimmy Savile, or against the Post Office. Nor did he apparently know about the rape gangs of Rotherham and other places.

Very mysterious.

But I have an explanation: he loves having authority but loathes accepting responsibility. Or as yer workers might put it, he's a prick.

Sobers said...

I think we are seeing, and will be seeing a lot more of, is government by the self declared morally superior. That is to say decisions that make perfect sense to those who make them because everyone around them says they are very sensible decisions that no reasonable or moral person could possibly gainsay, and who genuinely believe this to be true. Its going to mean ever increasing harshness, as any opposition will be taken to be not just wrong or misguided, more actively malevolent, and thus deserving of severe punishment, and not to be accommodated in any way. Starmer's unpopularity hasn't even started to plum the depths it will eventually reach.

electro-kevin said...

I just can't imagine that, Nick. For me I'd sooner be in a fist fight than be put in your junior officer position, so that makes me firmly in the lower ranks. My instinct would have been to consult the corporals from the first moment but that would have been the wrong thing to have done - you acted first and consulted afterwards. Brilliant !

It's so easy in trying to be one of the lads to become *just* one of the lads.

Anyway.

Starmer has done all of that. He is pre-formed.

He has decided to kill granny.

She is guilty of wrong-think. That's why she must die. She was convenient when he wasn't in power (to destabilise the Boris Govt) and when he wanted a never-ending lockdown to 'save her' with "Keep safe, stay indoors, save the NHS" none put more emphasis and pressure on governments than the Leftists and then they pulled BLM and Trans on us.

Starmer is a Stalinist psychopath.

The guards for the gulags are being imported by the day. You don't question it when they issue you parking tickets or demand your ID at the recycling centre or when going into a shop.

This has gone way beyond mad and we have just accepted it.

It's so easy

electro-kevin said...

My lad has taken his first rental in Tidworth. He's now a senior research chemist at Porton Down in charge of a team. He can finally afford the £1400 pcm rent for a small semi ... on an estate full of Francophone Africans. They barely speak any English.

I utterly despair.

decnine said...

I can't wait to enjoy Starmer declaring his total opposition to coercive control in relationships.

BlokeInBrum said...

Kev - living in central Birmingham as I do, there's probably less than a 50% chance that anyone wandering down my street is speaking English.
I think we're pretty much doomed at this point.

Anonymous said...

A block of luxury flats in Farnborough, which would cost in the region of £1400 a month rent, plus utilities and other management fees, have been allocated to a large bunch of small boat invaders. Furniture, tv (including licence), internet, spending money and leisure facilities etc, also provided, all paid by the taxpayer. Meanwhile, the housing waiting list goes up and up. Pentecost
We are being taken for a bunch of mugs by a bunch of cretins.
What's that law of economics,
"When you're using someone else's money to ....."?
Penseivat

dearieme said...

Guido's commenters are having good fun:

Free Gear Kier says 'what's the problem, I reported it as soon as I got caught.'

Anonymous said...

2 Tier may be wanting to get the bad stuff out of the way early doors, but that can only be successfully carried out on the back of a ringing endorsement from the voters.

Which he most decidedly does not have..........