Originally Posted by
Pamplemousse
He's preferable to either of them; Blair was just an ersatz Tory in a smart suit, Corbyn sadly was a nobody who's achieved nothing in his entire political career - never sat on a committee, never put any papers forward and had politics at a level best suited to sixth-form debating society which might explain his youth appeal. That said, I liked some of his policies; but sadly, the 1970s have gone, never to return and he never seemed to realise that no matter how much the Three Quid Trots feted him. And let's be honest, the sort of people who lauded Corbyn were actually very comfortably-off people who'd have been shielded by the economic disaster he'd have brought.
Johnson is beneath contempt is all I'll say. He should never have been allowed to enter politics, never mind the highest office in the country. Nye Bevan was right.
Starmer, by comparison, is really boring; but right now we don't need 'characters' - you only have to look at the damage caused by Trump, Farage and Johnson to see what these types of people can do. What we need is a staid, boring and sensible person who can look at facts in the cold light of day and not play to the gallery. The fact that Starmer takes Johnson to pieces every week at PMQs says a lot - all Johnson is left with is name calling, playing to the gallery and bluster.
I know people will say "but Starmer's not working class" - well, actually he's a lot more 'working class' than Blair or Corbyn ever were! He is what old-fashioned people like me call "a working class boy made good", which is what older working class folk always wanted their kids to do, rather than this modern idea that you stay in your social groove and never climb out of it lest you be branded a 'traitor'.
Sorry, got very political there - my apologies!!