Scrote
Well-known member
Evil, yes. Dishonest though..?
This is where we disagree. I think this will run and run now. It's such an easy, obvious target for anything that Labour do to try and paint the Tories in a bad light.
Labour’s paedophile Twitter post
- Thread starter sherlock
- Start date
BoroMart
Well-known member
He lied about his reasoning over those things.
Are you seriously holding hussein up as the epitome of an honest politician? By your description of honesty in politics that means not uttering one mistruth in his whole political life. Come on, be serious.
Scrote
Well-known member
No, I'm just trying to work out what your definition of dishonesty is. From the list of people and things you gave it is very loose (I don't know if Shipman pleaded guilty or not but again, killing people isn't "dishonest").
You were the one that brought dishonesty into it when you asked me to compare Starmer (and/or Labour) to the leading Tories. My point was that dishonest was dishonest. You're the one trying to put a scale to it, but then you've added things which I wouldn't consider intrinsically dishonest - just 'bad'.
BoroMart
Well-known member
Shipman claimed to be healing people while killing them, you can’t be more dishonest than that.
You are the one that had a problem with this as a failure of being honest, and that’s true, I agree with that. Our difference is that you believe that one act of dishonesty is the same as a million, because it’s binary. I can see the difference between say Kier Starmer standing by this quote and say Donald Trump who rarely says anything truthful. Persistent dishonesty is not yet part of starmers character but it is part of this Tory party’s
It’s right to consider honesty as a scale otherwise literally every one that’s ever lived is absolutely dishonest, in which case this is a none event anyway.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
I agree that Labour need good policies to win anyway and that will be the true test come election time.
There is a dirty war going on right now though as the Tories try to run down Starmer in the eyes of the public as they did Corbyn and Milliband in recent times.
The latest snippet I saw the other day was that Starmer should pay back expenses from his DPP days - 260k, now nobody knows anything about that figure but it appeared in a headline half way down one of the Tory rag web sites. It must have been cleverly positioned for me to even notice it.
So now he let Jimmy Saville off, he is responsible for grooming gangs, he can’t define what a woman is and he fiddles his expenses.
I wonder how long that list will get before the next election until policies don’t matter any more?
Paintolerance
Well-known member
Moral high ground doesn't win UK elections I'm afraid.
What would be handy is if the BBC and others called out blatant Tory lies to their faces, rather than pointless fact check posts days later
What would be handy is if the BBC and others called out blatant Tory lies to their faces, rather than pointless fact check posts days later
Scrote
Well-known member
I've already calrified that to point out I was talking about politics.
In this case, the Starmer led Labour party has decided to be dishonest. There is no going back without changing the leader (which is what Labour claim they are fighting against with the attacks on Sunak).
The whole thing is a mess and Labour will come out of it worse than the Tories do because of where the press sympathies lie.
As an aside, defining what a woman is should be pretty easy if you aren't mired in the politics of it all. You don't have to be anti-trans to be pro-women. Yet again, it requires nuance. Three word slogans and dirt-slinging aren't going to solve what are very real problems.
One act of dishonesty? Starmer? It's been a constant throughout his leadership hasn't it?
BoroMart
Well-known member
No, not really
BoroMart
Well-known member
Politics is no different to any other form of life. It isn’t a special case. Every politician lies and some lie more than others. Same as people in any other profession.
..and I think that’s your real motivation here. If you don’t like Starmer then just say it rather than claiming that there are honest and dishonest politicians, but it’s binary and once you lie once you’re in the dishonest camp.
I agree, but as you already pointed out the press are pro-Tory and we both know it will be spun to lose him votes, and internally in the party the corbynista will attack him for saying that.
I’ve stated my position, I’ll take Starmer over Sunak, getting them out is the most important thing, once in power I’ll hold Starmer over the coals to do better or be replaced.
FishofContemplation
Well-known member
It essentially did, and by a landslide, in 1997. What the left doesn’t now like, especially the Iraq War, but also timidity in the second and third terms, came later. Labour beat Major on the Tories’ record and on an essentially positive, and by the reference point of the mid nineties quite radical, vision. I was excited to vote for Blair whatever policy disagreements I had even then and I have no regrets whatever policy disagreements I have had since. I’m not voting for this charlatan.
No? Off the top of my head...
1) Hid his donors during the 2020 leadership contest
2) Has went against all of the 10 pledges he made during the leadership contest
3) Lied when sacking RLB from the shadow cabinet
4) Lied about sticking to the recommendations of the EHRC report by going against them on the same day
5) Lied about a Corbyn statement meaning he'd be granted back into the PLP
6) These posters in this thread
7) This policy discussed in this thread about whether the party would or wouldn't freeze council tax.
You don't think that's quite a bit? It's only been 3 years and no doubt there'll be more I've forgotten.
Oh and he scarpered the scene when he ran over the cyclist.
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
Really...
I've made that point on here before. The 1997 Labour manifesto had devolution, voting reform, House of Lords reform, rail nationalisation. As Scrote mentioned earlier, Blair and Brown bottled most of it in practice, but people didn't know that when voting on election day.
Scrote
Well-known member
As already discussed, there is a difference between despotism and dishonesty.
But a politician lying to his wife about an affair doesn't matter politically unless they're standing on a family values ticket. Deliberately lying about plans/policy or a political opponent are things that do matter when it comes to a politician being 'honest'. It's a question of trustworthiness from a political perspective. Everyone accepts that people are people. No-one expects perfection. Just don't lie to my face.
Of course I don't like Starmer. I've not made any suggestion otherwise. The point here is that Labour are accusing Sunak of pretending he was nothing to do with previous Tory policies - that he is a clean slate. By going down this route, Starmer has tainted himself and put Labour in the absurd position whereby the only real way out is to change leader and say the new leader wasn't responsible for the actions of the old one (much as they've done with Corbyn to Starmer although the scorched-earth approach at least gives them some justification for that position).
Once you head down a particular path, politically, it stays with you. You can reinvent yourself but that is much easier to do for the Tories where principles are less important than results - and results are measured in a different way by Tory voters than Labour voters (traditionally).
I'd take Labour over Tory but I'm not willing to endorse the current Labour leadership. A vote for them will be seen as tacit approval.
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
I think if the financial crash hadn’t come along then Labour would have won the 2010 election comfortably. The Tories saw their opportunity and took it.
Scrote
Well-known member
Brown was a victim of the personality politics that made things so easy for Blair.
There was a study at some point whereby TV and radio covered the same leaders debate and Brown won hands down on the Radio but lost on TV.
Style over substance but the Tories understood the UK populace better (and probably primed them via the media).
You may be right but so what? If that was the case they still wouldn't have gone back and started enacting policies from the 1997 manifesto. They'd moved right while in office (as all British governments do).
BoroMart
Well-known member
How did they take it…..through the lies of the crash being labours fault rather than a global crash originatingnin American sun prime markets
BoroMart
Well-known member
On some things, yes, on others, no