The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[cyrusr]

10 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

We have read it but giving even a inkling of praise to a tory leader despised by labour voters is not a good idea. Why not just praise other labour figures?

Also seen starmer say there wont be much spending if labour win. So sounds like more of the same as we currently have then. Yippee

But he does praise other labour leaders in the exact same paragraph that's in my post that you have quoted... 

In relation to spending he says the following. 

Quote

They will bequeath public finances more akin to a minefield than a solid foundation. Labour’s iron-clad fiscal rules will set this straight – but it will not be quick or easy. There will be many on my own side who will feel frustrated by the difficult choices we will have to make. This is non-negotiable: every penny must be accounted for. The public finances must be fixed so we can get Britain growing and make people feel better off.

i.e. the reason why the money won't be much spending is because the Tories have screwed up the economy so much, they actually need to figure out how that can best be spent to sort it out. If we had the money to throw at everything, well the economy wouldn't be as screwed up as it currently is. 

Is he going to provide all of the solutions to fixing the country? Probably not. Is Starmer going to be the best leader in the world? Almost certainly not. Is he going to be infinitely better than what we have at the moment? Absolutely. 

Dem, don't rise to the click bait. The current government/Tory party is probably the most corrupt/ill suited for ruling ever. Almost any incarnation of political party/leader would be better than what we have got right now.

[LondonLax]

8 minutes ago, Chindie said:

 

Secondly, by praising Thatcher for 'bringing Britain out of its stupor' he's pointedly throwing his antecedents under the bus.

 

He didn’t even go that far. He said she ‘sought to’. 

[cyrusr]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

The problem with what he said (and I know some posters will be whirring up their rebuttals already of how this is a wonderful thing for a Labour politician to say and/or how it's all just gameplaying and he doesn't really mean it, honest) is a twofold.

Firstly praising Thatcher for anything is a bit like the old Mussolini gag - at least he made the trains run on time. Wonderful, but you kinda miss the rest of it, which was awful and easily arguable is the foundation of why a lot of the country is ****. All the boosting of entreprenurial spirit isn't going to make up for the fact that that was built on **** over millions of people and sending whole communities to the dogs.

Secondly, by praising Thatcher for 'bringing Britain out of it's stupor' he's pointedly throwing his antecedents under the bus. Say something nice about Wilson, Keir, go on.

It also kinda underlines that he doesn't really want to change anything. He's the continuity bollocks. Sorry everything is shit, we'll stamp on your face with slightly softer soles.

To be honest, i read it more as a slow and steady solution rather than quick fixes. The more stable you make the public finance element, the more secure it will be for the future and actually withstand any future tinkering/manipulation.

Quite frankly I am looking forward to some normal politicians actually getting on with the job, not trying to squeeze every penny out of the country for their own benefits. It is not "continuity" its actually doing things properly.

And also, you miss that he comments on Atlee and Blair as well. OK, its not Wilson but again he is praising other labour leaders as well in the next couple of sentences. 

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Firstly praising Thatcher for anything is a bit like the old Mussolini gag - at least he made the trains run on time. Wonderful, but you kinda miss the rest of it, which was awful and easily arguable is the foundation of why a lot of the country is ****. All the boosting of entreprenurial spirit isn't going to make up for the fact that that was built on **** over millions of people and sending whole communities to the dogs.

Secondly, by praising Thatcher for 'bringing Britain out of it's stupor' he's pointedly throwing his antecedents under the bus. Say something nice about Wilson, Keir, go on.

On the first line, I pretty much agree. I know he's "reaching out" to baby eaters who read the Torygraph, and it's maybe his way of getting a bit of an "in" with them, but are those folks, those relatively few rabid tories going to switch to Labour? I doubt it. The demographic of Torygraph readers seems like retired Colonels and Mrs. Colonels who enjoy nothing more than a good thrashing of the servants and a good old animal murdering afternoon.

If he'd done something in the Sun or the Mail, maybe, maybe some even less obvious "in" might have been worth it, but I'm kind of unsure mentioning the witch at all was or would be very wise - it's likely to do what it's done to you and turn off (even more) a larger group of people.

On the second point he actually does do that relatively frequently, including citing Wilson as his favourite PM and stuff like that.

But ultimately it's just tomorrow's chip paper.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, cyrusr said:

Those criticising Starmer for the comment, have you read what he has actually said rather than articles about what he has said?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/02/voters-have-been-betrayed-on-brexit-and-immigration/

Paywalled sadly but the following is the only reference to Thatcher in question

That is it; 1 sentence about "entrepreneurialism" and its "praising" that she tried to do that and then goes onto Blair and Attlee. It's not even suggesting in language that he agrees with her policies or thought she actually did right but of course the language has been twisted by the Telegraph in their front page piece. 

The rest of the article is basically a PR bit for Telegraph readers to say we are also going to sort out immigration, small boats, finances etc. etc. etc. all what to be expected; and don't forget the audience that article is intended for. Don't just assume the click bait is anything more than that. 

I think the bigger story is that the Telegraph is actually allowing a different perspective to be held and they seem to know that the writing is on the wall for the Tories right now; might as well get on the side of the winners. 

 

Yes, I read it. You’ve not highlighted the bit that upset me. It’s the sentence before the one you’ve bolded.

Quote

"Every moment of meaningful change in modern British politics begins with the realisation that politics must act in service of the British people, rather than dictating to them,"

That part, that’s the lie, or the insult, or the ignorance.

Was she serving my town and my community when she closed working docks out of spite? When she closed factories out of fear working people were getting too big for their boots? When she had police from Bristol and Bedford touring my town at night looking for people to intimidate? Was she serving me when the jobs were removed and the schools and colleges made poorer? 

Is he genuinely utterly ignorant and tone deaf of the decade of madness she imposed on people and the repercussions we are still feeling today.

I’m sure centrist dads will see the sense in his words and the long game he is playing in chasing the sort of vote that thinks Thatcher was good for us. They’ll nod agreement and assure us we can’t aspire to something better than a choice of current tory politics or slightly nostalgic tory politics. We mustn’t rock the boat we must be grateful for a change of tie colour and just hope there are some other crumbs coming in the future if we are good and compliant. Nostalgia for a woman and a party that saw a generation and sections of the community and geographical swathes of the country as dispensable.

Politics serving the people rather than dictating to them? That’s some **** 1984 re writing of the facts that is. Tell that to the workers at BP and Dow, and the dockers, and the people that worked for Geest, the labour at the timber yards. Closing a town to teach the populous some weird **** lesson to comply or die. 

You can vote for him if you wish, with your fingers crossed he’s actually lying to someone else, not you. That he will circle round and back track on the promises he’s back tracked on. I’m less inclined to try and interpret which things he says are lies. I’m not seeing the wink that tells me he’s just pretending it’ll be more of the same, but with sadness in his eyes.

That’s my criticism of what we’ve seen of Starmer so far, not reading one headline. That headline just spelled it out in a way that would previously have been denied by his supporters that don’t want the boat rocked. 

[The Fun Factory]

Basically it's centre right versus hard right in the next election. It is quite impressive how much Starmer has moved the Labour Party to the right in such a short time. Kinnock slogged at it for a decade and he wasn't even halfway for the party to be electable again. It perhaps shows much more power the Labour Leader has nowadays in appointments and  overall control of the party. Back in the 80s the MP's voted on the shadow cabinet and the NEC was a far more powerful tool.

[blandy]

39 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

That part, that’s the lie, or the insult, or the ignorance.

Was she serving my town and my community when she closed working docks out of spite? When she closed factories out of fear working people were getting too big for their boots? When she had police from Bristol and Bedford touring my town at night looking for people to intimidate? Was she serving me when the jobs were removed and the schools and colleges made poorer? 

Is he genuinely utterly ignorant and tone deaf of the decade of madness she imposed on people and the repercussions we are still feeling today.

I’m sure centrist dads will see the sense in his words and the long game he is playing in chasing the sort of vote that thinks Thatcher was good for us.

Again, commenting on why he said it, and who to, not whether I agree with the content of it - firstly he’s saying it to Torygraph readers, who are far from these so called centrist dads (and that’s just another load of bollex anyway, along with Worcester woman, Mondeo man, Workington worker and all the other shite these focus group thingies come up with). But anyway @cyrusrhas covered the why he did it very well.
 

Personally I think it was a mistake, tactically because he’s going to get asked more questions about the witch, now in future and he absolutely does know the damage she did and in answering or swerving those questions he’s gonna end up talking about stuff that happened 40 years ago, not the future. It’s the future he needs to be filling in the details on, giving people some hope on.

But talking about that dangerous crone is like mentioning Brexit, it’s just super divisive and history anyway.

 

[cyrusr]

Yeah, I get your feelings @chrisp65 and I think what the fallout has been, whether intended or not, sadly suggests that this might come back to bite him in the long term given how toxic Thatcher is as what @blandy. It is also an exceptionally sad state of politics that she remains such an esteemed figure in politics (much like Reagan in America) rather than being tossed into the "we made a mistake here" pile. 

[chrisp65]

So a question to @blandy and @cyrusr would your opinion be that he is lying to people like me, to people that think Thatcher was a good thing, or that barrister is clumsy with his words? Or some other 4th option you can see that I can’t?

Genuine question, no trap, interested in whether its down to a greater tolerance of politicians slippery words for a greater good, or something I haven’t considered.

[ml1dch]

16 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

So a question to @blandy and @cyrusr would your opinion be that he is lying to people like me, to people that think Thatcher was a good thing, or that barrister is clumsy with his words? Or some other 4th option you can see that I can’t?

I think it's the fourth option. He's not explicitly saying that she was good or bad, he's talking in neutral terms. So he's not lying to you (here, anyway), and he's not lying to Sir Bufton-Tufton reading The Telegraph over his morning brandy. 

He's not being clumsy with his words, he's being pretty deliberate with them. He's framing Thatcher in the way that audience sees her, without really offering any opinion. Reassurance that he's Definitely Not Jeremy Corbyn, while not really saying anything at all. 

Whether it's good or bad politics (I've read convincing things from people saying both), I guess we wait and see what happens next year. As Blandy says, I don't think it'll really move the dial much either way. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by ml1dch

[chrisp65]

12 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

I think it's the fourth option. He's not explicitly saying that she was good or bad, he's talking in neutral terms. So he's not lying to you (here, anyway), and he's not lying to Sir Bufton-Tufton reading The Telegraph over his morning brandy. 

He's not being clumsy with his words, he's being pretty deliberate with them. He's framing Thatcher in the way that audience sees her, without really offering any opinion. Reassurance that he's Definitely Not Jeremy Corbyn, while not really saying anything at all. 

Whether it's good or bad politics (I've read convincing things from people saying both), I guess we wait and see what happens next year. As Blandy says, I don't think it'll really move the dial much either way. 

Thanks, yes I’m seeing lots of justification around what words mean when you truly analyse them. To me, that feels like the third option, slippery, rather than a fourth option. 

[ml1dch]

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Thanks, yes I’m seeing lots of justification around what words mean when you truly analyse them. To me, that feels like the third option, slippery, rather than a fourth option. 

Being clumsy and being slippery are two different things though. I think if you'd said the latter, I'd have no issue with it. But it's not clumsy.

[OutByEaster?]

I suspect it's sort of the fourth option, in so far as that Starmer doesn't really believe in anything - and indeed he's actively against believing in things - as a corporatist centrist, he sees his role as a sort of husbandry that won't go against the will of the pervading power of markets. 

 

 

[chrisp65]

44 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Being clumsy and being slippery are two different things though. I think if you'd said the latter, I'd have no issue with it. But it's not clumsy.

Yeah that’s my fault, I was deliberately putting clumsy with barrister to suggest he wasn’t really being clumsy but I think my ‘cleverness’ disappeared up its own.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

So a question to @blandy and @cyrusr would your opinion be that he is lying to people like me, to people that think Thatcher was a good thing, or that barrister is clumsy with his words? Or some other 4th option you can see that I can’t?

Genuine question, no trap, interested in whether it’s down to a greater tolerance of politicians slippery words for a greater good, or something I haven’t considered.

OK. Personal opinion. No he’s not lying. He’s saying to a Tory audience that Thatcher sought to get Britain out of its malaise. She did seek to do that. Now her medicine (in my opinion) was poison , but she believed it was “good” medicine, like Truss believed her medicine was what was necessary. Mad tories gonna mad Tory. But he picked his words precisely and accurately for that audience and limited them to only her motivation.

People like us, who aren’t Tories, who revile thatcher - well we’re not the intended audience. But we get to see and hear headlines and snippets about it and even if we’re still deeply unimpressed with it and think it wasn’t a smart thing to say politically or morally and we also strongly disagree with her motives as he put them we (I) can see that he’s doing his “get elected by numbers” strategy. I think it’ll work. Edit - the strategy, not this particular article, I mean.

[chrisp65]

If the polling figures were closer, I could maybe possibly understand. But for quite some time, the figures haven’t needed this promise everything to everyone schtick that is by definition bound to disappoint some voters that have imposed their own bias and wish list on the cleverly worded pitches to multiple audiences.

There is a significant risk that quite quickly voters that voted for something they thought they heard or thought they read will realise that yet another politician has had them over.

Meanwhile, the perceived middle has shuffled right yet again.

[bickster]

As much as what I said above about why he said it. I really don’t get why he’s doing it now. If it was 12 months ago, yep I'd have seen it from a tactical POV but now when the Tories are completely on the ropes, why?
 

My only thought as to why is rather odd, I remain to be convinced by it myself but maybe he's worried about the flow of votes from Tory to Reform and he's attempting to stem that flow by trying to attract the nutters to vote Labour. Makes no sense 

[Chindie]

Perhaps he's actually quite keen on her stuff.

And he's still trying to woo Tories because wooing Tories is what he likes and what he thinks is key to power. And if he does think that latter point it stands to reason he might think it's a good plan to stay there too. And people will handwave this as 'at least it's not the Tories', and ignore 'but things aren't actually better'.

It would be hilarious if he tickles Tory balls so much the weather vane flips and the Labour support suddenly realises 'oh this blokes a word removed' and stays home.

[markavfc40]

This caller to James O'Brien I think speaks for a lot of us (she does mention Starmer/Thatcher)

 

[blandy]

25 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

If the polling figures were closer, I could maybe possibly understand. But for quite some time, the figures haven’t needed this promise everything to everyone schtick that is by definition bound to disappoint some voters that have imposed their own bias and wish list on the cleverly worded pitches to multiple audiences.

There is a significant risk that quite quickly voters that voted for something they thought they heard or thought they read will realise that yet another politician has had them over.

Meanwhile, the perceived middle has shuffled right yet again.

You might be right. In that there the North, she’s still toxic. Same for Scotland and Wales, I’m sure. Those places what he said, particularly as portrayed, rather than his precise lawyer words, are not gonna go down well. But I also suspect that in 6 months time no one will care that he said the witch wanted to get Britain out of its malaise 45 years ago.