Jareth Posted May 14, 2023 Share Posted May 14, 2023 4 minutes ago, bickster said: You realise to non-capitalised c makes a huge difference. I can only assume, you've stubbornly not read it. You seem to want to be against what he's saying because he used the word conservative. I'm sorry but that is idiotic Yes I’ve paid attention to starmer, yesterday he managed to announce a huge reworking of what Labour stands for, without saying how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ml1dch Posted May 14, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted May 14, 2023 4 minutes ago, Jareth said: Yes I’ve paid attention to starmer, yesterday he managed to announce a huge reworking of what Labour stands for, without saying how. So given the line you're objecting to refers to the Tories not trying to conserve "our rivers and seas, not our NHS or BBC, not our families, not our nation", which of those are you saying it's a bit too Toryish for Labour to want to conserve? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 14, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 14, 2023 What I would say is that the word conservative, no matter how big a C it contains is one that's loaded with meaning for any Labour leader - it's one that should be avoided really, it's an unnecessary choice of words, I don't see what he gains - he can make that speech without that line and it's fine, make the same points, in the same way - he's now on more than one occasion made this weird choice to include stuff that wilfully invites the criticism that he's a man with a blue streak. it does him no good. It's trolling a good section of his own base. I think there should be questions on how much he's prepared to sacrifice in order to make himself attractive to Tory voters - even though there's nothing wrong with the rest of the content of that speech. It's been clear since he arrived that the only people that Starmer saves any real invective for are those within his own party who maintain a fondness for the values of the party that Kier knows his backers don't like. He's a corporatist politician - something akin to what happens in the US - that doesn't make him a Tory, but jeez he's very happy to play with the idea that he is. A step in the right direction is better than a dream of home, so I'll be voting for Kier when the time comes, but it's very clear that the next step if we want to head in the right direction after he's won the election will be in finding a way to replace him. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted May 14, 2023 Share Posted May 14, 2023 Very similar to him going out of the way to cite Thatcher a few weeks ago. He knows exactly what he's doing, and I can see why people to the left of the party feel alienated by a Labour leader who keeps playing to the Tory voters while seeming to have a very real problem with the socialists in the party. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted May 14, 2023 Share Posted May 14, 2023 (edited) 17 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I don't see what he gains - he can make that speech without that line and it's fine, make the same points, in the same way - he's now on more than one occasion made this weird choice to include stuff that wilfully invites the criticism that he's a man with a blue streak. it does him no good. It's trolling a good section of his own base. It's odd though, when Johnson spend 2019 blathering on about how the Tories were now the real party of working people - did the right of the Tory party swoon and cry that he was betraying them with his socialist language, or did they just gleefully mop up all the extra votes that it got them? As I don't see the principles at play being all that different. Edited May 14, 2023 by ml1dch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 14, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 14, 2023 35 minutes ago, ml1dch said: It's odd though, when Johnson spend 2019 blathering on about how the Tories were now the real party of working people - did the right of the Tory party swoon and cry that he was betraying them with his socialist language, or did they just gleefully mop up all the extra votes that it got them? As I don't see the principles at play being all that different. I do love the image of Boris Johnson as the great left leaning Tory, desperately working to drag his party to a future that's focused on the needs of the working class. I mean it's garbage, but it makes me smile. The right of the Tory party were in on Johnsons plan - it was their plan - appeal to the plebs and win an election, in fairness there was very little disguise in the way they went about doing that. If Starmer were deliberately and obviously lying in order to trick Tory voters before getting elected, popping into a phone booth on polling day and coming out as some sort of socialist superhero, then I think the situations would be similar - I don't think that's what happening here, I think he is what he is - these two scenarios just don't equate at all. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted May 14, 2023 Share Posted May 14, 2023 1 hour ago, ml1dch said: So given the line you're objecting to refers to the Tories not trying to conserve "our rivers and seas, not our NHS or BBC, not our families, not our nation", which of those are you saying it's a bit too Toryish for Labour to want to conserve? But I’m not objecting to that, it’s the flirting with the blue folks, it’s been signalled repeatedly. Nobody could object to the tories being replaced with more competent politicians, but it sure would be nice at a national election to have a choice between parties that isn’t mostly based on who is less shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 14, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 14, 2023 1 minute ago, Jareth said: But I’m not objecting to that, it’s the flirting with the blue folks, it’s been signalled repeatedly. Nobody could object to the tories being replaced with more competent politicians, but it sure would be nice at a national election to have a choice between parties that isn’t mostly based on who is less shit. Where was the flirting with the blue folks in any of that speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted May 14, 2023 Share Posted May 14, 2023 4 minutes ago, bickster said: Where was the flirting with the blue folks in any of that speech? Seriously? I mean I think this is why we struggle to find common ground on this because we're obviously reading the same thing in entirely different ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 14, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 14, 2023 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: What I would say is that the word conservative, no matter how big a C it contains is one that's loaded with meaning for any Labour leader - it's one that should be avoided really, it's an unnecessary choice of words, what word should he have used to make his point instead that would have satisfied you? It was absolutely the only word he could have used to get his point across in context. How do you say the Conservative Party are no longer the party of conservatism without saying the c word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 14, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 14, 2023 Just now, Jareth said: Seriously? I mean I think this is why we struggle to find common ground on this because we're obviously reading the same thing in entirely different ways. Seriously, quote the bits that flirt with the blue people? It also appears from that idea that you only want Labour to win if they do it with the votes of people who've never voted Tory in their lives, like a Labour victory is somehow wrong and impure if former Tory voters vote for Labour As a non-Labour voter I find it hilarious the lengths people go to to not want their "side" to win 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 14, 2023 Share Posted May 14, 2023 He could have gone with ‘back to basics’, ‘family values’, he could have cited warm beer and cricket, he could have said he wasn’t for turning, he could have gone with labour isn’t working. There are any number innocent phrases his team of speech writers could innocently use innocently to court Worcester Woman and Mondeo Man. He’s got a legal background, he hasn’t accidentally bumbled across the word conservative without thinking it through. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted May 14, 2023 Share Posted May 14, 2023 1 minute ago, chrisp65 said: he could have said he wasn’t for turning Think he'd struggle to get away with that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 14, 2023 Share Posted May 14, 2023 1 minute ago, ml1dch said: Think he'd struggle to get away with that one. I edited that from rivers of blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted May 14, 2023 Share Posted May 14, 2023 21 minutes ago, Jareth said: But I’m not objecting to that, it’s the flirting with the blue folks, it’s been signalled repeatedly. "The bit I object to is trying to convince people who voted for the other side last time to vote for our side this time"? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted May 14, 2023 Share Posted May 14, 2023 1 minute ago, bickster said: Seriously, quote the bits that flirt with the blue people? It also appears from that idea that you only want Labour to win if they do it with the votes of people who've never voted Tory in their lives, like a Labour victory is somehow wrong and impure if former Tory voters vote for Labour As a non-Labour voter I find it hilarious the lengths people go to to not want their "side" to win I'd have to cut and paste the whole piece, it's a letter to tory voters where the subtext is I'm your man, and if that means I'm blue then I'm proud about that. You may read it on a more granular level, but that's what it says to me. As a Labour member I had already voted for Starmer, to be leader, just it was the Starmer from 3 years ago, not the current one. I also want Labour to win, can't remember saying otherwise? If I'm grumbling then yep, it's about what's being presented to me as a voter, in comparison to what Starmer of 3 years ago said. For example, nationalisation isn't some dirty word, all over Europe they perform it successfully, but Starmer now wants the opposite - to me that's not what Labour should be doing but there isn't another party to give a vote to that'll be worth anything. That's frustrating. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 14, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 14, 2023 18 minutes ago, bickster said: what word should he have used to make his point instead that would have satisfied you? There are any number of words to make the points he's making - he's a lot of things, but he's not a fool, he's picked that word deliberately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 14, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 14, 2023 Just now, Jareth said: I'd have to cut and paste the whole piece, it's a letter to tory voters where the subtext is I'm your man, and if that means I'm blue then I'm proud about that. You may read it on a more granular level, but that's what it says to me. As a Labour member I had already voted for Starmer, to be leader, just it was the Starmer from 3 years ago, not the current one. I also want Labour to win, can't remember saying otherwise? If I'm grumbling then yep, it's about what's being presented to me as a voter, in comparison to what Starmer of 3 years ago said. For example, nationalisation isn't some dirty word, all over Europe they perform it successfully, but Starmer now wants the opposite - to me that's not what Labour should be doing but there isn't another party to give a vote to that'll be worth anything. That's frustrating. It was a speech to the Progressive Britain Conference A conference that discusses Labour Party policy with Labour members Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 14, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 14, 2023 2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: There are any number of words to make the points he's making - he's a lot of things, but he's not a fool, he's picked that word deliberately. Of course he did, no one is saying he didn't. What I'm saying is it would have been very odd not to have used it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 14, 2023 Moderator Share Posted May 14, 2023 2 minutes ago, bickster said: Of course he did, no one is saying he didn't. What I'm saying is it would have been very odd not to have used it. I'd say it's a very odd choice to have selected it - you almost have to build the speech around the word in order to get it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts