Why is Johnson more popular than Starmer?

But pop stars and 'celebrities' aren't responsible for writing legislation or handling the country's finances.

Tony Blair, like him or loathe him undeniably had charisma, so did Harold Wilson, I can't think of anyone else. Prince William did pretty well at Eton, getting into a decent university on his own merit. Prince Harry was not remotely academic, and only got into Sandhust by backdoor methods.?

growstuff

But pop stars and 'celebrities' aren't responsible for writing legislation or handling the country's finances.

No, growstuff, I didn’t mean that.
Simply that the bad behaviour of politicians is likely to have less impact on young people and behaviour of those I mentioned.

New Statesman
Can Zarah Sultana save the Labour left?
The 28-year-old socialist MP on her viral fame, social media abuse and Keir Starmer’s leadership.

How does Sultana view Starmer’s leadership to date? “There are things that I definitely wouldn’t approve of, in particular the shift from the pledges that were made during the leadership race… The focus on attacking the left hasn’t been constructive. To have a Labour prime minister in Downing Street, the electoral coalition that you need is young people. It’s ethnic-minority communities, its Muslims and its progressives. And the local election results in England suggest that we are perhaps losing prospective Labour voters to the Greens and to the Lib Dems. And that’s something that I think the leadership should pay a lot of attention to.”

As for those on the left who argue that Labour is no home for socialists, her message is clear. “I am a firm believer that to address the crises we face, we need to win state power. And as socialists, the vehicle for that is the Labour Party. If people on the left abandon Labour, how are we going to rapidly decarbonise? And as a Liverpool fan, our anthem is ‘at the end of the storm, there’s a golden sky’. And that’s very much politics as well. You have to go through the storm.”

Interesting that in her definition of an electoral coalition, Sultan doesn't even mention the people who would benefit most from a Labour government ie the poor - and not just those right at the bottom, but half the electorate, who are (by definition) earning less than average pay. Dividing and conquering and identity politics has succeeded in getting potential Labour supporters to disagree with each other.

Mollygo

growstuff

But pop stars and 'celebrities' aren't responsible for writing legislation or handling the country's finances.

No, growstuff, I didn’t mean that.
Simply that the bad behaviour of politicians is likely to have less impact on young people and behaviour of those I mentioned.

I honestly don't know. The "young people" I know aren't the airheads people imagine them to be.

The answer to your question- for me, he isn't.

Zarah always attacks this Tory government standing up for the poor growstuff in parliament and on various social media. And on TV

Grany

Zarah always attacks this Tory government standing up for the poor growstuff in parliament and on various social media. And on TV

Which is why I was surprised that she didn't include them in her "electoral coalition". The article doesn't seem to recognise them as partners in producing a Labour government. It's as though they're the tools for getting ideological socialists into power, which incidentally is why (I think) Labour lost so many "red wall" seats. It certainly wasn't because people didn't think Labour wasn't socialist enough.

I struggle to understand why Zara and her small group are seen by some as the
Only hope of a Labour government. History teaches us labour fails miserably to convince the electorate it’s a safe pair of hands when the leadership is viewed by the majority as ‘extreme left’.

To be honest, I don't think I've seen Sultana speaking up for the poor. I'm afraid I really don't rate her and I certainly don't think she's the saviour of the Labour Party.

She’s a Corbynite. It’s not going to happen, is it? I can understand the left championing her, but she won’t appeal to the majority of Labour voters.

Me neither.

If she and those who share her world views, don’t appeal to the majority if Labour voters, they’ll fail to appeal to the majority of voters.

Because Keir Starmer is a very worthy man and that means he is colourless, uncharismatic and boring. At least that is how he comes over.

Perhaps he should start doing something each day that attracts attention. Crossing the road at a pedestrian light controlled crossing when the the pedestrian red light is showing. Then gradually build up from there.

Starmer is not colourless, charismatic or boring when seen in real life.
It’s a sad reflection when a narcissist who lies can be seen as a better PM than ah honest, intelligent man whose professional and personal life are a reflection of that

Murdoch controlled Media will ensure Starmer is never given positive publicity.

The good thing is that the DM circulation is dropping like a stone.

They don’t like it though and blame WFH??

Whatever he is in real life - and all the virtues you attribute to him Iam 64 are all the virtues of a man lacking in charisma and very worthy.

But in politics, as far back as you go, it is the charismatic and/or the rogues that win hands down over the worthy. Lord Palmerston, Disraeli, Lloyd-George, Thatcher, Blair.

A party is viewed through its leader, and if the leader comes over as dull and boring, that is how the party is seen.

There is a real difference between how we like to think people vote and how they ought to vote, and how they do and leaders who cannot come over to the electorate as having a strong and distinctive personality are death to their party.

At the end of day people are attracted to a rogue, especially a loud noisy ebullient one and have a respect for one that somehow always gets away with it. This applies on ordinary life. How often do you here people describe someone, a local man, or a neighbour, that leads his life on the edge of the law being described as 'a lovable rogue'.

I don’t and neither do my family members.

Expectation of behaviour should be higher than that.

Those “lovable rogues” always leave harm and heartbreak in their wake.

"Mr. Attlee is a very modest man. Indeed he has a lot to be modest about." (Winston Churchill)

Attlee still won the 1945 election and did more to shape post-war Britain than most PMs.

I don't think Thatcher would have thanked anybody for calling her a rogue.

growstuff

"Mr. Attlee is a very modest man. Indeed he has a lot to be modest about." (Winston Churchill)

Attlee still won the 1945 election and did more to shape post-war Britain than most PMs.

I'm glad you've pointed Attlee out, growstuff. A quiet and uncharismatic figure who had a profound and benign influence on the country that our generation was born into and profited from in a way that our children and grandchildren will not have the chance to unless ideas change very radically..

And Churchill was a most unpleasant, uncaring character. There actually are some similarities between him and our current Churchill wannabe PM.

I didn't call Mrs Thatcher a rogue, I listed prime Ministers who were Charismatic and/or rogues. She was charismatic.