Two Years, From the Altar to the Exit: Starmer's Dejected Departure and the Mercilessness of Power — HSK 5-6 Chinese Listening Practice (5:22) | Fluentide

The Fluentide iOS app is here — download it on the App StoreFluentide for iOS is out — get the app

Two Years, From the Altar to the Exit: Starmer's Dejected Departure and the Mercilessness of Power — HSK 5-6 Chinese Listening Practice (5:22) | Fluentide

Read at your level

原文

Read the complete story in Chinese. Reveal pinyin and English only when you need them.

今天，我们聊一个，

关于权力的故事。

它发生在英国，

主角，

是英国首相，斯塔默。

就在这个星期，

也就是六月二十二号，

斯塔默正式宣布：

他将辞去首相一职，

并为选出下一任领导人，

定下了时间表。

这则消息本身，

也许并不算意外。

但当你把它，

和两年前的画面，

放在一起看，

就会感到一种，

近乎残酷的反差。

让我们，

先回到两年前。

二零二四年，

斯塔默迎来了，

他政治生涯的最高光时刻。

在那场大选中，

他带领自己的政党，

赢得了一场，

压倒性的胜利，

在议会拿下了，

高达一百七十多个议席的，

绝对多数。

那是几十年来，

英国少见的大胜。

一时间，

他几乎被视为，

未来十年英国政坛的，

绝对主角。

他本人也豪言，

要在唐宁街十号，

干满十年。

然而，

历史有时候，

就是这样讽刺。

仅仅两年之后，

这位曾经的大赢家，

就走到了，

不得不离开的地步。

那么，

他究竟是怎么，

一步步走到今天的？

故事的第一条主线，

始终是经济，

是老百姓的钱包。

这两年，

英国深陷，

持续的生活成本危机。

物价高企，

工资却追不上，

普通家庭，

为水电、

为吃穿，

精打细算，

日子过得越来越紧。

当人们的生活感到痛苦，

怨气，

自然会指向，

那个住在唐宁街的人。

雪上加霜的是，

他的政府，

还接连卷入，

各种丑闻与政策的反复。

今天说要这么做，

明天又改了主意。

渐渐地，

"说话不算数"，

成了很多人，

对他的印象。

这种不满，

最终汇成了选票上的，

惊涛骇浪。

在今年的地方选举中，

他的政党遭遇惨败，

丢掉了大量的议席和地盘。

这无异于，

选民用脚投票，

给他判了一个，

响亮的"不及格"。

而比民意流失更致命的，

是他身边人的，

集体转身。

从今年春天起，

与他共事的官员，

便如同多米诺骨牌一般，

一个接一个地，

递交辞呈。

先是负责医疗的大臣，

随后蔓延到整个内阁。

到了这个月，

又因为在国防开支上，

始终谈不拢，

国防大臣，

连同另外几位，

一同请辞。

要知道，

此时的世界并不太平，

战火与冲突，

让"军费"二字，

格外敏感。

而每一次辞职，

都是一次公开的宣告：

我们，

已经不再信任，

这位首相。

压垮他的，

或许还有，

另一个名字的崛起——

安迪·伯纳姆。

伯纳姆，

是英国一座大城市的市长，

也是眼下，

英国政坛少有的，

还拥有超高人气的政治人物。

耐人寻味的是，

在斯塔默最为艰难的时刻，

有人特意，

为伯纳姆，

腾出了一个，

重返议会的席位。

就在这个星期，

伯纳姆以超过一半的得票，

赢得了那场关键的补选，

重新回到了，

权力的中心。

几乎所有人都看懂了，

这一步意味着什么：

一个更受欢迎的人，

正在向首相之位，

步步逼近。

前有汹涌的民意，

后有强劲的对手，

内有离散的人心。

最终，

斯塔默，

选择了放手。

说到这里，

我想和你，

聊聊这件事，

更深的一层。

两年前那个，

站在掌声中央的人，

和今天这个，

黯然转身的人，

是同一个斯塔默。

真正改变的，

从来都不是某一项政策，

而是那两个字——

人心。

权力来临时，

往往轰轰烈烈，

让人误以为，

可以永远握在手里。

可它退场时，

却常常毫不留情，

不会因为，

你曾经多么风光，

就对你，

手下留情。

节目的最后，

我想把两个问题，

留给你。

第一，

你认为，

衡量一个领导者，

真正的标准，

是他赢得权力的那一刻，

还是，

在最艰难的低谷里，

他是否，

还能让人们，

继续选择相信？

第二，

当一个人，

清楚地意识到，

自己已经失去了，

最重要的信任，

那么，

体面而清醒地，

转身离开，

究竟是一种失败，

还是，

另一种形式的，

清醒与勇气？

这两个问题，

没有标准答案。

但是它们，

值得你，

慢慢地想。

English transcript reference

Today, we'll talk about

a story about power.

It takes place in Britain,

and its protagonist

is the UK prime minister, Starmer.

Just this week —

that is, June 22nd —

Starmer formally announced:

he will step down as prime minister,

and, to choose the next leader,

has set out a timetable.

The news itself,

perhaps, was no great surprise.

But when you set it

beside the scene of two years ago,

and look at the two together,

you feel a kind

of almost cruel contrast.

Let us

first return to two years ago.

In 2024,

Starmer reached

the high point of his political career.

In that general election,

he led his party

to win

an overwhelming victory,

taking in parliament

an absolute majority of

more than 170 seats.

It was, in decades,

a triumph rarely seen in Britain.

For a moment,

he was seen almost as

the undisputed lead of British politics

for the next ten years.

He himself boldly declared

that at 10 Downing Street

he would serve a full ten years.

And yet,

history, at times,

is exactly this ironic.

Just two years later,

this former big winner

had arrived at

the point of having to leave.

So,

how exactly did he,

step by step, arrive at today?

The story's first thread

is, throughout, the economy —

ordinary people's wallets.

These two years,

Britain has been mired

in a prolonged cost-of-living crisis.

Prices stayed high,

while wages couldn't keep up,

and ordinary families,

over utilities,

over food and clothing,

counted every penny,

their lives ever more pinched.

When people's lives turn painful,

resentment

naturally turns toward

the man who lives at Downing Street.

To make matters worse,

his government

was caught up, one after another, in

various scandals and policy flip-flops.

Today saying it would do this,

tomorrow changing its mind.

Gradually,

'his word means nothing'

became, for many people,

their impression of him.

This discontent

finally swelled, at the ballot box, into

a raging storm.

In this year's local elections,

his party suffered a crushing defeat,

losing a great many seats and strongholds.

This was nothing less than

voters voting with their feet,

handing him

a resounding 'fail'.

And more deadly than the loss of public support

was the collective turning-away

of those around him.

From this spring on,

the officials who worked with him,

like a line of dominoes,

one after another,

handed in their resignations.

First the minister for health,

then it spread to the whole cabinet.

By this month,

again, over defence spending,

with no agreement ever reached,

the defence secretary,

along with several others,

resigned together.

Mind you,

the world at this time is far from peaceful;

wars and conflicts

make the words 'military spending'

especially sensitive.

And every resignation

was a public declaration:

we

no longer trust

this prime minister.

What crushed him,

perhaps, was also

the rise of another name —

Andy Burnham.

Burnham

is the mayor of a big British city,

and is, right now,

a rare figure in British politics

who still commands sky-high popularity.

Tellingly,

at Starmer's most difficult moment,

someone deliberately

for Burnham,

vacated

a seat back into parliament.

Just this week,

Burnham, with over half the vote,

won that crucial by-election,

returning to

the center of power.

Almost everyone understood

what this move meant:

a more popular man

is, toward the prime minister's chair,

closing in step by step.

Surging public opinion ahead,

a formidable rival behind,

and scattered loyalties within.

In the end,

Starmer

chose to let go.

Speaking of this,

I want, with you,

to talk about

a deeper layer of this.

The man two years ago

standing at the center of the applause,

and the man today

turning away in dejection,

are the same Starmer.

What truly changed

was never any single policy,

but those two words —

the people's hearts.

When power arrives,

it often comes with great fanfare,

making one mistakenly believe

it can be held forever.

But when it exits,

it is often utterly merciless,

and will not, because

of how glorious you once were,

show you

any mercy.

At the end of the show,

I want to leave you

with two questions.

First,

do you think

in judging a leader,

the real measure —

is it the moment he wins power,

or

is it whether, in the hardest valley,

he can

still make people

go on choosing to believe?

Second,

when a person

clearly realizes

that he has already lost

the most important thing — trust —

then,

to turn away

with dignity and clear eyes,

is it, after all, a defeat,

or

another form of

clarity and courage?

These two questions

have no standard answer.

But they

are worth your

thinking about slowly.

Listen again

Try it without the transcript and notice what sounds clearer.