Re: Burnham would come to dunce inane
> "Boring competence would be nice. "
After several years of attention-seeking, personality-driven, right-wing "character" politicians, someone who was a relatively boring but principled and quietly competent "grown-up" seemed like a good thing.
Starmer's problem- and one reason he's still hated (amongst others) by people like myself- is that he only managed the "boring" bit while remaining both unprincipled and incompetent.
I had no idea what Labour *really* stood for before the last election- or what Starmer really believed in and what drove him- other than keeping their mouths shut and getting elected by not being the Tories and pandering to Leave voters they wanted to return to the fold. I had very little respect for them and my expecations were extremely low.
I was- and am- genuinely surprised that Starmer has managed the incredible feat of failing to meet even those. Two years in, I still don't know what drives Starmer or what he *really* believes in personally or stands for. Well, we've heard countless apologists tell us that he's really "passionate" about X, Y or Z in private, but I'm tired of that- if he doesn't stand for them or anything else publicly, then those private beliefs are worthless.
Starmer, judged by his policies, who he panders to, and what he does- the only publicly available evidence- is a Tory in all but name. Even with the Overton window having been dragged massively to the right from the New Labour capitulation to Thatcherism onwards, this man is a mockery of the idea that Labour under him is even the centre-left party it's widely claimed to be.
