Starmer's speech 27th Aug 24

On the contrary, I think it shows that he is strong.
Who would want to look at Margaret Thatchers face in their office?

Not me MissA - all this faux outrage, accusations it makes Starmer look weak. No it doesn’t. She was and remains a divisive figure. She began the damaging move to the cult if the individual

How does not wanting a picture of someone on your wall make someone weak? I may be being dim, but I don't understand.

I don’t understand either.
I don’t think it makes him weak, but I understand his reluctance to have a reminder of someone who used his current things will get worse before they get better mantra, facing him every day.

Mollygo. Now you mention it, the mantras keep appearing. Rule by mantra
gets a bit tedious after awhile.

Oh, it absolutely does. I’ve been saying since before the election that the slogans and cliches are getting in the way of actual thinking (never mind truth or accuracy). I find it worrying that people trot out ‘witty’ phrases coined by others and seem to see it as analysis - it feels like 1984 (the book, not the date😀).

Ditto the cod psychology - there are 100 possible reasons why he doesn’t want to look at MT’s face every day. We don’t know why, but what does it matter? It’s not like the portrait will be destroyed, and it’s not being charged to the taxpayer.

That’s funny.
We don’t know why, but he did decide to use her things will get worse before they get better idea-which she used after the mess left by the Labour Party.
Then of course his removing the WFA is wrong until I do it.
I wonder what his cod psychological reason was for doing that?

Do you understand the term? People don’t do things for cod psychology reasons- others use cod psychology to describe things that people do.

Maybe the portrait reminded him of his Great Aunt Nellie, who made him eat prunes and custard on Wednesdays? Or the frame might clash with the curtains?

Are those invented reasons more or less likely than the fact that MT used to say something that KS is saying now? To me they seem on a par, probability-wise, but we don’t know. Why does it matter?

I would say it’s surprising that he had to remove any portrait of a previous PM in Downing St, presumably there are lots if not all past PM’s there.He’ll have his own portrait there one day which the next PM may feel he has to take down and hide.😂

Do you understand the term? People don’t do things for cod psychology reasons- others use cod psychology to describe things that people do.
Yes I understand the term. I should do, having watched it being applied frequently on GN, currently to anyone who criticises KS.
But exactly.
We don’t know -
We don’t know why he decided to do something he criticised the conservatives for wanting to do, for the same purpose i.e. filling in a black hole
We don’t know why he claims to know nothing about the Black hole, when he can clearly be seen speaking about it in the House of Commons, regardless of the “oh but it’s so much bigger than he thought” excuses.
We don’t know why he’s decided to use the same tactic he sought to discredit, for the same purpose, now he’s in power.
We don’t know why he chose to use Margaret Thatcher’s words rather than come up with his own.

I don't understand the upset over a picture being taken down. Has it been removed to another room. There may have been a very good reason why it had to go other
than that Starmer didn't like it.
I'm not a Labour supporter but this seems petty.

AGAA4
Yes it could be called petty, but you have to be careful about analysing why people say things.
It’s just something else to talk about, like the fact that Sunak’s wife wore a dress that looked like a zebra.

MollygoI'm not analysing what others say or think I am just giving my own opinion. I sometimes feel there is a lot of undue criticism on here like the wrong trousers thread.
Of course people can talk about whatever they like but I can also have an opinion and it may be contrary to others but still valid.

Mollygo

Do you understand the term? People don’t do things for cod psychology reasons- others use cod psychology to describe things that people do.
Yes I understand the term. I should do, having watched it being applied frequently on GN, currently to anyone who criticises KS.
But exactly.
We don’t know -
We don’t know why he decided to do something he criticised the conservatives for wanting to do, for the same purpose i.e. filling in a black hole
We don’t know why he claims to know nothing about the Black hole, when he can clearly be seen speaking about it in the House of Commons, regardless of the “oh but it’s so much bigger than he thought” excuses.
We don’t know why he’s decided to use the same tactic he sought to discredit, for the same purpose, now he’s in power.
We don’t know why he chose to use Margaret Thatcher’s words rather than come up with his own.

What has any of this got to do with taking down a portrait?

It’s been moved to another room. That’s it, it’s totally unimportant in the scale of things Starmer is dealing with

Quite so, Iam. Thank goodness Parliament will be back soon. This really has been the silliest of silly seasons.

Iam64

It’s been moved to another room. That’s it, it’s totally unimportant in the scale of things Starmer is dealing with

It’s just something in the news to talk about Iam64 no need to be protective of Starmer, any PM has to deal with more important things come to that.
It was reported that he had taken down a portrait of a previous PM, we don’t know where it’s ended up but will be restored by the next PM to its former place I bet.

I can’t see Angela wanting it there either

Doodledog

I can’t see Angela wanting it there either

Iam64

It’s been moved to another room. That’s it, it’s totally unimportant in the scale of things Starmer is dealing with

Eager to seize on anything, it's dramatically announced the portrait had been "cancelled" - when in fact its just been moved.

Iam64

It’s been moved to another room. That’s it, it’s totally unimportant in the scale of things Starmer is dealing with

If that was Boris, I’m quite sure comments on here would be about what was he trying to hide by starting a trivial news story like this.

I do wonder why people feel the need to be so protective of Starmer.

Probably for the same reasons they find themselves defending Meghan, when they actually have or had little interest in her.

'Storm in a teacup' over portrait being moved.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not being protective of Starmer. I am bewildered as to why people think they can see into his head and know why he doesn't want a portrait of MT in his office. Why do they think they have such powers of perception?

Why did I move the green vase from my sitting room to the bookcase on the landing? Was there a deep psychological motive, or did it just match the paintwork better?

I'm wondering where it was stated that Starmer moved the portrait?
Was it in the news?