Keir Starmer removes 'unsettling' portrait of Margaret Thatcher ...

[Nearly Sane]

....from Downing Street, sparking claims of 'pettiness'


Not sure how you can take a side with it not being petty here.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-removes-portrait-margaret-thatcher/

[ProfessorDavey]

....from Downing Street, sparking claims of 'pettiness'


Not sure how you can take a side with it not being petty here.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/keir-starmer-removes-portrait-margaret-thatcher/

Complete non-story.

The portrait hasn't been 'removed' from Downing Street as your post (and the article) erroneously claims. No, it has been relocated to another location in no10.

No10 is both a work place and a home - it is perfectly reasonable for a new PM and government to wish to make reasonable changes to that work and home space. Don't forget that this portrait has only been around since about 2010 and presumably some other painting was either removed or relocated to allow it pride-of-place space in the no10 study. The Tory led administrations were (not unsurprisingly) fine with meeting dignitaries and photo ops in the study in front of the portrait. A Labour administration (also not unsurprisingly) would prefer a little different messaging. Doubt the tories would be happy if there was a pride-of-place portrait of Tony Blair above the fireplace in the main no10 study and I'd have no issue were they to relocate that to a different location.

[Nearly Sane]

Complete non-story.

The portrait hasn't been 'removed' from Downing Street as your post (and the article) erroneously claims. No, it has been relocated to another location in no10.

No10 is both a work place and a home - it is perfectly reasonable for a new PM and government to wish to make reasonable changes to that work and home space. Don't forget that this portrait has only been around since about 2010 and presumably some other painting was either removed or relocated to allow it pride-of-place space in the no10 study. The Tory led administrations were (not unsurprisingly) fine with meeting dignitaries and photo ops in the study in front of the portrait. A Labour administration (also not unsurprisingly) would prefer a little different messaging. Doubt the tories would be happy if there was a pride-of-place portrait of Tony Blair above the fireplace in the main no10 study and I'd have no issue were they to relocate that to a different location.

  And to repeat

Not sure how you can take a side with it not being petty here.

[ProfessorDavey]

  And to repeat

Not sure how you can take a side with it not being petty here.

It isn't petty - it is perfectly reasonable for a new administration to take their own decisions about how the work/home space that is no10 should look as that reflects on the administration when the spaces are used for meeting dignitaries etc.

So will you correct your (incorrect) claim that the portrait has been 'removed' from Downing St - it hasn't - all that has happened is that it has been relocated to a different location in no10.

BTW - I have no doubt that the famous no10 set of former PM portraits up the stairs remains. That will include Thatcher (and Truss!!! etc).

[Nearly Sane]

It isn't petty - it is perfectly reasonable for a new administration to take their own decisions about how the work/home space that is no10 should look as that reflects on the administration when the spaces are used for meeting dignitaries etc.

So will you correct your (incorrect) claim that the portrait has been 'removed' from Downing St - it hasn't - all that has happened is that it has been relocated to a different location in no10.

BTW - I have no doubt that the famous no10 set of former PM portraits up the stairs remains. That will include Thatcher (and Truss!!! etc).

Taking any position on it seems enormously petty to me. I don't care. The title of the post is from the article. I'm just amazed at the fuss, to which you are adding

[ProfessorDavey]

Taking any position on it seems enormously petty to me. I don't care.

Disingenuous in the extreme - why on earth would you start a thread on a matter that you claim not to care about.

The title of the post is from the article. I'm just amazed at the fuss, to which you are adding

You reposted the words - you now own them as we all know. Hence you can distance yourself from the erroneous claim (or chose not to - your choice).

Again disingenuous to seem amazed at the fuss, yet being the person who started a thread on it.

If you want my view - it is summarised in the first two words (assuming a hyphenated word is one word) of my reply.

[jeremyp]

Complete non-story.

The portrait hasn't been 'removed' from Downing Street as your post (and the article) erroneously claims. No, it has been relocated to another location in no10.

I'd be interested to see your source for this. I found a quote that "portraits of Margaret Thatcher will remain on display in No. 10". That's not the same as saying that this portrait will remain in No. 10 or that it will be on display if it does remain in No. 10.

That said, I think the prime minister can decorate his work space in any way he sees fit within reason. It is a non story.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd be interested to see your source for this. I found a quote that "portraits of Margaret Thatcher will remain on display in No. 10". That's not the same as saying that this portrait will remain in No. 10 or that it will be on display if it does remain in No. 10.

The item on the Today programme this morning said that this portrait had been relocated to another part of no10. And that is backed up by this BBC article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvy87wgjzvo

"Tom Baldwin said he believed the painting of Lady Thatcher, who served as Conservative prime minister from 1979 to 1990, was now hanging in another part of the building."

That said, I think the prime minister can decorate his work space in any way he sees fit within reason.

I agree - and looking at the photo on the BBC article - where the portrait was was prime 'photo-op' with foreign dignitery space. Not unreasonable for a Labour PM not to want a photo-op with perhaps a foreign head of state to be dominated by a portrait of a former PM from a different party. Cannot imagine that any tory PM would have been happy had the portrait been of Blair rather than Thatcher.

It is a non story.

Absolutely.

[ProfessorDavey]

On another thread I was talking about the importance of the wording used in polling. Here is a good example. Even though the polling found that the public broadly supported Starmer on his decision on the portrait the wording is pretty clearly designed to push towards the opposite:

https://x.com/YouGov/status/1829542362265387114

"Was it acceptable or unacceptable for Keir Starmer to have Margaret Thatcher's portrait removed from her former study in Downing Street?" - (my emphasis)

So by her former study they actually mean his current study which ceased to be hers over 30 years ago.

So do you think the result would have been the same had the wording been:

"Was it acceptable or unacceptable for Keir Starmer to have Margaret Thatcher's portrait removed from his study in Downing Street?"

Or even (which would be more accurate):

"Was it acceptable or unacceptable for Keir Starmer to relocate Margaret Thatcher's portrait from his study to another location in Downing Street?"

As I said previously - don't comment on polls unless you've seen the actual wording and link to the polling itself not just an editorial piece which may, or may not, report the poll appropriately.

[jeremyp]

On another thread I was talking about the importance of the wording used in polling. Here is a good example. Even though the polling found that the public broadly supported Starmer on his decision on the portrait the wording is pretty clearly designed to push towards the opposite:

https://x.com/YouGov/status/1829542362265387114

"Was it acceptable or unacceptable for Keir Starmer to have Margaret Thatcher's portrait removed from her former study in Downing Street?" - (my emphasis)

So by her former study they actually mean his current study which ceased to be hers over 30 years ago.

So do you think the result would have been the same had the wording been:

"Was it acceptable or unacceptable for Keir Starmer to have Margaret Thatcher's portrait removed from his study in Downing Street?"

Or even (which would be more accurate):

"Was it acceptable or unacceptable for Keir Starmer to relocate Margaret Thatcher's portrait from his study to another location in Downing Street?"

As I said previously - don't comment on polls unless you've seen the actual wording and link to the polling itself not just an editorial piece which may, or may not, report the poll appropriately.

I'm not sure it actually is his study.

[SteveH]

She's got a portrait on the stairs, like every other former PM- I don't see why she alone should have an extra, large portrait elsewhere - and what was Gordon Brown thinking of, commissioning it in the first place?

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not sure it actually is his study.

Technically true - but as current PM it is much more his study than hers given that she ceased to be PM over 30 years ago and has been dead for a decade.

But my point was about the wording of polling questions - by describing the location as her former study it implies some level of expectation with regard to the portrait's location. As such I suspect that working would be more like to elicit a negative response in polling to its relocation than the two alternative wording examples I gave.

[ProfessorDavey]

She's got a portrait on the stairs, like every other former PM- I don't see why she alone should have an extra, large portrait elsewhere - and what was Gordon Brown thinking of, commissioning it in the first place?

I don't think it unreasonable for their to be additional portraits of former PMs in Downing St beyond those on the stairs. And whether or not you liked Thatcher she was significant both in being the first female PM but also due to her time in office and being the winner of three elections.

But that is a separate point to the location of the portrait - that, to my mind, should be a matter for the current administration on the basis that this is now their workplace/home.

Interesting, however that Brown was magnanimous to commission a portrait of Thatcher 16 years after she left office. Any evidence that any of Boris, Truss or Sunak has similarly commissioned a portrait of Blair (also three times election winner) in the last two years (also about 16 years after he left office).

[jeremyp]

Technically true - but as current PM it is much more his study than hers given that she ceased to be PM over 30 years ago and has been dead for a decade.

So not his study.

The wording is not as biased as you want to make us think.

But my point was about the wording of polling questions - by describing the location as her former study it implies some level of expectation with regard to the portrait's location. As such I suspect that working would be more like to elicit a negative response in polling to its relocation than the two alternative wording examples I gave.

And the room in question is known as "The Thatcher Room", although that's not official. The question seems perfectly appropriate to me given the room has deep associations with Margaret Thatcher, apparently.

[Outrider]

So not his study.

It's the study in #10, and he's the Prime Minister. If it's not his, then it wasn't Thatcher's either, presumably.

The wording is not as biased as you want to make us think.

It pretty much is.

And the room in question is known as "The Thatcher Room", although that's not official.

By Thatcher's party, who've been in there for a decade. It's probably well-past time people stopped associating it with her, whether in a good way or not.

The question seems perfectly appropriate to me given the room has deep associations with Margaret Thatcher, apparently.

Given that her party have been ousted, after she was ousted, it's time those 'deep associations' were let go. We have to move forward, or we'll run out space to cram #10 with favoured legends of yesteryear.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The wording is not as biased as you want to make us think.

I think the use of the term her former study is non-neutral and will bias responses towards being against moving the portrait. Wording in polling matters and how a question is worded can markedly influence the outcome of the poll.

Do you really think that had the wording been:

"Was it acceptable or unacceptable for Keir Starmer to have Margaret Thatcher's portrait removed from his study in Downing Street?"

Or even (which would be more accurate):

"Was it acceptable or unacceptable for Keir Starmer to relocate Margaret Thatcher's portrait from his study to another location in Downing Street?"

That there would have been an identical response in the polling?

And the room in question is known as "The Thatcher Room", although that's not official.

Err ... so it isn't called the Thatcher room then.

The question seems perfectly appropriate to me given the room has deep associations with Margaret Thatcher, apparently.

It is a room in the workplace/home space that is Downing St. I image it has been used extensively, and therefore that it has deep associations, with every PM, not just, or even especially Thatcher.

[jeremyp]

It's the study in #10, and he's the Prime Minister. If it's not his, then it wasn't Thatcher's either, presumably.

What do you mean "the study"? Do you not realise that 10 Downing Street is a big place with many rooms? There's no indication that it was also his study.

[jeremyp]

I think the use of the term her former study is non-neutral

It's factually correct.

"Was it acceptable or unacceptable for Keir Starmer to have Margaret Thatcher's portrait removed from his study in Downing Street?"

Or even (which would be more accurate):

"Was it acceptable or unacceptable for Keir Starmer to relocate Margaret Thatcher's portrait from his study to another location in Downing Street?"

There's no evidence that it is his study.

[ProfessorDavey]

There's no evidence that it is his study.

If it isn't his study then neither is it her former study. So either both are reasonable (but obviously Starmer's use is current while Thatcher's use is from over 30 years ago). Point being that if describing it as his study is wrong then describing is as her former study is equally (arguably more) wrong.

So if it is neither his study nor her former study we are left with the following:

"Was it acceptable or unacceptable for Keir Starmer to relocate Margaret Thatcher's portrait from one room in Downing Street to another room in Downing Street?"

[ProfessorDavey]

It's factually correct.


There's no evidence that it is his study.

You are contradicting yourself JP - if it isn't Starmer's study then how can it be factually correct that it is Thatcher's former study.

[Gordon]

Even if moving it is a bit of political theatrics, I can't see that it really matters anyway: it's not as if this office is in a public area and it isn't a designated shrine of some sort - it's a place of work.

Don't care, and if anyone does care then maybe they need to get out a bit more.

[jeremyp]

If it isn't his study then neither is it her former study.

You seem to be hard of understanding.

The room is a room that Margaret Thatcher used as her study.

The room is not used by Kier Starmer as his study. He uses a different room.

Gordon Brown, who commissioned the portrait, used the room for meetings with foreign dignitaries. So it already wasn't being used as a study.

[jeremyp]

You are contradicting yourself JP - if it isn't Starmer's study then how can it be factually correct that it is Thatcher's former study.

Has it not occurred to you that rooms can change their purpose?

I am currently sitting in a room that a previous occupier of this flat used as her bedroom. I use a different room as my bedroom and this room as my study. This room is simultaneously the previous occupier's former bedroom and not my bedroom.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to be hard of understanding.

The room is a room that Margaret Thatcher used as her study.

The room is not used by Kier Starmer as his study. He uses a different room.

Gordon Brown, who commissioned the portrait, used the room for meetings with foreign dignitaries. So it already wasn't being used as a study.

My understanding is that Thatcher used it as a study and that is how it has continued to be used through to the current PM. No-one (that I've seen) has suggested that it has fundamentally changed use over the years.

Just because a room gets used for meetings doesn't preclude it being a study.

But all of that is irrelevant - let's imaging Starmer had turned it into a bedroom - the relevant question would be:

"Was it acceptable or unacceptable for Keir Starmer to have Margaret Thatcher's portrait removed from his bedroom in Downing Street?", rather than:

"Was it acceptable or unacceptable for Keir Starmer to have Margaret Thatcher's portrait removed from her former study in Downing Street?"

Given that the portrait wasn't there until long after she left Downing St, the use of the room when she was there (which didn't include the portrait) seems rather irrelevant to me.

[ProfessorDavey]

Has it not occurred to you that rooms can change their purpose?

And has it?

My understanding is that the room is used in a very similar way that it was decades ago. From what I've seen it has a couple of comfy chairs - for quiet work or one-to-one fireside chat type meetings. It also have a table that can seat about 10 people so suitable for small-ish meetings.

So it is (and was) a reasonably multi-purpose room for government/PM business.