Why is Johnson more popular than Starmer?

Glorianny, 'other ideas?' - to me, it just illustrates how idiotic the general public are. You'd think they'd now feel like complete fools for voting him in - but no!

I imagine Boris would be more of a cricket player. Or tennis.

Blimey Urms can’t trust KS when we have Johnson the biggest liar and u Turner in history is unbelievable.

maddyone

We did see David Cameron out jogging regularly too.

Yes, looking slim and co-ordinated, and with a security guard, and befitted his image.

Johnson will always have a security team with him, who could easily see off 'candid' photographers. The shots of him looking like Average Joe puffing and blowing in his comedy jogger outfit are carefully choreographed, like everything else about his image.

sorry, 'and a look that befitted his image'.

It's hard to decide what I loathe most about Johnson. Leaving aside the lying, boasting, and law breaking I think it's probably the way he punches the air and bounces when he's trying to excite us about another of his promises that will never be fulfilled. "World beating" bounce bounce "Bigger than anyone else in Europe" bounce bounce "Revolutionising social care" bounce bounce. How bloody stupid does he think we are? I'm sure you can get a wonderful education at Eton but Johnson seems to have wasted every opportunity he's been given

Balliol is one of the most prestigious colleges to get into at Oxford though maddyone. It’s unlikely many ‘ordinary’ students end up there, the posh kids group together, and often don’t mix with the rest. It is an excellent university - but it’s not a level playing field.

Urmstongran

There'll be no more "Frank Fields", unfortunately!

Are we being nasty about dying men tonight then? What larks.

No. You misunderstand me. I loved and admired Frank Field as a Labour MP. One of the very best. The Labour Leader we never had in my opinion.

This extract from a piece by James Kirkup in The Critic magazine says a lot about Johnson:

THE FINAL YEARS OF MY TIME IN NEWSPAPERSwere spent on the comment desk of the Daily Telegraph, where the worst days were the ones where both Boris and Charles Moore were filing columns. That meant negotiating with both about the topics they’d write about, usually with the requirement that they cover different issues, since readers crave variety and editors abhor duplication.

Unlike some, I generally found Boris a fairly reliable columnist, usually making contact mid-morning for a chat about ideas, before filing in decent time. In those mid-morning chats, often before volunteering his ideas for the column, he’d be keen to know: “What’s Charles writing about?”

Answering this question candidly was a bad idea. The Baron Moore of Etchingham in the County of East Sussex is a punctilious columnist who calls early in the morning to propose his thesis for the day, which is, quite naturally, often about the biggest story of the moment. And as an ex-editor, his suggested topic would, in most circumstances, be accepted nem con.

Except if someone on the comment desk was daft enough to blab to Boris about that topic. In which case, the Johnsonian nostrils would fill with the musky scent of prey: “Ah. Um. I see. You know, that’s exactly what I was going to write about. Do you, ah, think you could ask Charles to do something else?”

Did Boris change — or simply invent — his plans for what to write about purely to snaffle a topic from his colleague and ex-editor? I can offer no answer, though I will say I never took this sort of behaviour as indicating any animus towards Moore, whom Boris did after all make a peer.

Instead, I think that Borisonian demand for first pickings from the news agenda says something about him, as a journalist, politician and, in due course, a former politician. He wants and needs to have his say, and he fully expects that he will be heard, and heard first.

HE ALSO KNOWS EXTREMELY WELL how to play the game and work the machinery of the media. People need and want things to talk about, and he is very good at providing them. Johnson is sometimes lazily described as “gaffe-prone”, but most of his “gaffes” are perfectly deliberate, words carefully gauged to catch attention and put him where he wants to be, at the top of the agenda.

^Why should anything change when the inevitable day comes and he’s turfed out of Number 10? Even members of his team at Number 10 privately despair that he often approaches the business of government with the sensibilities of a journalist looking for headlines: some complain that meetings are not so much “how are we are going to change the country today?” as “what’s the line on that story, then?”

Aside from the obvious sense of entitlement, that he must always be first, that paragraph HE KNOWS EXTREMELY WELL ... is spot on. Johnson needs to be talked about even if negatively. It's all a public show. It's all about headlines - all about the publicity.

Recall his recent trip to India, puffing his mate and massive Tory donor Bamford's JCBs while they were simultaneously being used to illegally demolish Muslim settlements. Which do people think was more important to him:

1.That Johnson was getting publicity?
2.That Bamford's company was getting publicity?
3.That Muslim homes and businesses were being illegally destroyed?

Answer 1 & 2. I doubt 3 even occurred to him.

I think you’re right Doodledog.
Cameron was much easier on the eye than BJ.
I’m rather pleased that Margaret Thatcher didn’t take up jogging, that would have been a sight to behold.
Tony Blair would have been quite easy on the eye too.

Casdon

Balliol is one of the most prestigious colleges to get into at Oxford though maddyone. It’s unlikely many ‘ordinary’ students end up there, the posh kids group together, and often don’t mix with the rest. It is an excellent university - but it’s not a level playing field.

My son went to St Johns. I think it has a reputation for being quite academic. I enjoyed visiting him there and having meals there. It was so full of tradition.
He made some lovely friends, friends for life. Many of them came to our very ordinary house and joined in with barbecues and celebrations with us. None of them were ‘posh’ and as said before, some went to comprehensives and some to minor independent schools. Only one went to a major and well known public school and he was a lovely chap. He still is, when I see him.

I think the English love being bossed about by Toffs.
The rest seem to have a bit more sense.

I don’t understand Bj’s continuing popularity, but one of Starmer’s problems is that he’s a lawyer.

Yes, a highly qualified lawyer too. I believe he’s QC.

Molly why is Starmer being a lawyer a problem for him? I think there are many lawyers in the H of C.

maddyone

Molly why is Starmer being a lawyer a problem for him? I think there are many lawyers in the H of C.

My only acquaintance with lawyers is where they seem to charge vast amounts for doing very little. It’s made me cynical.

Oh I see. Certainly my lawyer son works extremely hard and puts in many hours on his cases. Perhaps high street lawyers don’t work so hard, but Starmer is a barrister, like my son, and a QC, so he will have done well at his work and worked very hard to achieve what he has achieved. I don’t know but I would guess he worked for one of the big set of chambers in London.

I hope you have better experiences of lawyers, I guess solicitors, whenever you need legal advice again.

maddyone

He may think he did, but as I watched my son go through the admissions procedures, I know first hand that this is not true, but merely what many people, including some from Oxford, like to believe. It suits their narrative. My son had many friends, some from comprehensive schools, some from independent schools. Only one that I know of from a major public school, but it wasn’t Eton.
I guess the wallet of Prince Charles is pretty thick, but his son William, despite a public school education, wasn’t considered good enough for Oxbridge. His other son, wasn’t good enough at all for university apparently.
It is a popular narrative from many in society to pretend that Oxbridge students only go there because because they’re rich and not particularly intelligent. However I don’t consider either Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher to be unintelligent and both attended Oxbridge. If people don’t like BJ that’s absolutely fine, but at least don’t try to do down a school or universities because he attended them. At least be honest and not simply join in trying to discredit such institutions because it suits the narrative.

I'm not discrediting Johnson because he went to Eton. I discredit his intelligence because I've never seen any evidence of it. Occasionally, I've had the opportunity to mix with some of the best brains in this country (and even the world) and Johnson would be totally out of his depth.

The statistics speak for themselves with regards to Oxbridge entrants. Certain schools prepare their pupils for Oxbridge - Sir Anthony Seldon, the former Master of Wellington, called it "oiling". It's not about being highly intelligent or even performing stunningly well academically. It's about having a certain kind of confidence and belief that you are better than others. The opportunities to network help too.

I'm absolutely honest. I've come across Oxbridge graduates and seriously wondered how on earth they got in. I've come across people from all walks of life who have demonstrated quick wits and an ability to understand complex issues, some of whom didn't even go to any university.

No, Oxbridge students aren't only there because they're rich. The days of Brideshead Revisited are gone. However, those whose parents can afford the kind of schools which cram their pupils have a huge advantage.

I've come across many "cheeky chappies" like Johnson in bog standard comprehensives. Some of them walked through exams and wouldn't ever have considered going to university because they didn't have a family history of university and didn't see the point. Many of those pupils went on to be very successful by relying on their own inner resources. They didn't need the letters after their name or the kudos of being able to say they went to Oxford. Their "party tricks" were somewhat more impressive than being able to recite Greek.

maddyone

Oh I see. Certainly my lawyer son works extremely hard and puts in many hours on his cases. Perhaps high street lawyers don’t work so hard, but Starmer is a barrister, like my son, and a QC, so he will have done well at his work and worked very hard to achieve what he has achieved. I don’t know but I would guess he worked for one of the big set of chambers in London.

I hope you have better experiences of lawyers, I guess solicitors, whenever you need legal advice again.

Many people put in hours at work, but it doesn't make them highly intelligent nor even necessarily good at their job.

GrannyLondon

I think the English love being bossed about by Toffs.
The rest seem to have a bit more sense.

Not a lot has changed:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDIHrX-Jp2E

My son is extremely good at his job. That’s why he works in the top Set of Chambers in London, why he won a scholarship to pay his Bar School fees, and why he is sought after by many big companies to represent them.
Please do not do down other people’s efforts. By the way, he didn’t go to a public school!

A few years ago at an event in central London, I was bored rigid by a speaker, droning on blah blah blah & the usual worthy self-righteous tear-jerking tropes of the world-wide awe at our glorious NHS. To my amazement, the speaker was thanked as he was shuffled off the stage & I then found out he was the local MP Kier Starmer.

I was gobsmacked at how insubstantial he was as a speaker & an unlikely choice as a local MP, especially after the previous MP, the late Frank Dobson. I could only wonder what the constituency party were doing selecting Starmer. I have not yet seen the evidence to adjust my initial disappointment. When people speak of his success as a Barrister & his forensic intelligence, I assume that he got very lucky early in & left the legal profession before anyone found him out. His mission as Labour Party leader was to unite the party & lead the party to an election. Under Starmer’s leadership, the stigma & shame of anti-Semitism in the party has not been resolved, dropped on his knees as an empty gesture & he is unsure how to answer a simple question about what makes a woman. I find him as insincere & opportunistic as Boris.

Boris? Where to start…

Popularity is not a quality necessary for a good leader. That is clearly the case when you look at Johnson.

What is important is trustworthiness, competence, integrity, and intelligence.

Johnson fails.

If your not popular people won't vote for you ?