What is going on in Starmer's brain?

I don't feel I can copy more over because of copyright rules but it really isn't behind a paywall, you just need to navigate a bit.

He is obviously reaching out to Telegraph readers but why is thst a bad thing?

DaisyAnneReturns

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

There is no paywall(£) on this article. It's there for all to read.

You have to agree to a 'free trial' in order to read it. That means months of emails clogging up my inbox begging me to take out a subscription. Not what I want to be bothered with.

Of course Starmer needs to appeal to Tory voters, how could he win without them? Every leader does this at every election, that's what it's all about isn't it? Why is this a surprise to anyon

Labour can only win if some of the 'terrible' Tory voters vote labour. It probably was never a good idea to demonize this part of the electorate.

MaizieD

DaisyAnneReturns

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

There is no paywall(£) on this article. It's there for all to read.

You have to agree to a 'free trial' in order to read it. That means months of emails clogging up my inbox begging me to take out a subscription. Not what I want to be bothered with.

I didn't Maizie; I just said no. The free trail advert stays at the bottom but it's still easy to read.

... or I may have special powers

Galaxy

Labour can only win if some of the 'terrible' Tory voters vote labour. It probably was never a good idea to demonize this part of the electorate.

Some Tory voters aren't terrible. Some people don't think of themselves as political. He is asking them to think about it. I'll risk the last paragraph.

Britain’s priorities are once again Labour’s priorities. Delivering them is going to require all our efforts. That’s why we extend the hand of friendship to you, no matter where you are or who you have voted for in the past. National renewal demands it. It is only together that we will build the better future we all want.

nightowl

Whatever James Callaghan did or didn’t do, Thatcher more than made up for it. She didn’t just ‘go too far’ she set about to destroy the unions and in so doing totally destroyed the north, which has never recovered. Starmer may know history from afar but he certainly did not live in those areas, nor was he involved in parliamentary politics at that time. I think, in trying to be all things to all people, he is in danger of being nothing to anyone.

I was at college in the early 70's a girl in my year's dad worked in the car industry and stikes were rife at the time. She was the oldest child and she didn't know from week to week whether her parents wuld be able to keep the family fed and housed and keep her at college. She told us that her father, and qiuite a few of his friends didn't want to strike but knew that they had to comply or see their lives ruined for good for being "scabs" Do not talk to me about the power of the unions being a good thing.

It isn’t just Scotland that missed out on the oil. It should have been used to make the UK a better place. Heaven knows where all the money went.

It went on tax cuts to sow the seeds of the wealth inequality that we have now. The cuts threw crumbs to the poor and cake to the wealthy...

Did it benefit the UK economy? This article from the Office for National Statistics says no

Look at the very first table:

The gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate and the unemployment rate have generally been falling since the mid-1980s

www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/articles/changesintheeconomysincethe1970s/2019-09-02

DaisyAnneReturns

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

There is no paywall(£) on this article. It's there for all to read.

Thank you DaisyAnne

It doesn't actually read quite as people are determined to think, does it!

It's about radical change (and hope).

There's nothing that I read that sounds like actual praise for her or her methods. She is mentioned, yes, in passing and amongst others.
Yes he uses the word "meaningful" in respect of change in my opinion.

Of course most people have obviously not read the article. Most, on both sides of the spectrum will just make a headline out of it.
So lazy!

Who are the "shouty ones"?

I suppose the alternative would be to call them the selfish ones, Luckygirl3. They are the people (a minority) who say they want a Labour government, but only on their terms - usually a populist far-left view. Otherwise they are quite prepared to undermine Labour.

When a man like John Cauldwell ( richer than Croesus and a generous donator to the Tory party) is speaking more favourable towards kier Starmer than Rishi Sunak you know there is something going on.

Though if you read the comments under the article I don't think many are being persuaded.

Thanks NotSpaghetti; you've summed it up well.

I think I would go further than lazy and say this ignorance of the facts is dangerous. Do we really want to go back to being run by and for the MSM and an extremist populist government.

Whatever people may think of Mrs Thatcher, I do think she believed in the change she was looking for. She did get some of the methods of achieving it very wrong but we are now living with a government who go by the "write two lists and see which is the best for me and I'll believe in that one" ideology.

MerylStreep

When a man like John Cauldwell ( richer than Croesus and a generous donator to the Tory party) is speaking more favourable towards kier Starmer than Rishi Sunak you know there is something going on.

Could it be that a majority are beginning to believe Starmer talks sense for them?

Doesn’t everyone want a Labour (substitute any party here) government on their terms though DAR? Surely we are allowed to criticise the party we support as well as the opposition? I wasn’t aware of Labour Party members or supporters rallying to support Jeremy Corbyn when he was the democratically elected party leader, quite the opposite in fact.

Well, as an aside, I think Wes Streeting (shadow health minister) is talking great sense about the future of the NHS. ‘No good just throwing more money at it - it desperately needs reform’. He’s in Oz currently, looking at their way of doing things. “You keep pinching all our doctors I need to see why! It’s not all about the sun, sea and surf.”

🤞 crossed the BMA let him at it.

Does "populist" mean stick to your principles?
I really dont know what the word means nowadays, or perhaps in relation to governments?

I suppose, Urmstongran we were "early adopters" of medicine "systems" as we were "early adopters" of engineering and technology - the agrarian and industrial revolutions...
And then we hung on to things too long without a radical reshuffle/repurposing to meet newness and challenges.
This is why other countries now do both manufacturing and health care better I think.

Not "newness" - new times!

How does reading that "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. Margaret Thatcher sought to drag Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism. Tony Blair reimagined a stale, outdated Labour Party into one that could seize the optimism of the late 90s. A century ago, Clement Attlee wrote that Labour must be a party of duty and patriotism, not abstract theory. To build a “New Jerusalem” meant first casting off the mind-forged manacles. That lesson is as true today as it was then." become "serious praise" for Margaret Thatcher for "setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism" ?

It was a comment by Starmer about what she intended and what she thought she would accomplish by the policies that she set in motion.

The long-term effects of those policies went far past those intentions but when Government was stagnating it needed a drastic change of direction to get people thinking about how to wake up and start moving forward.

Starmer sees the stagnation and confusion today, and says that a new initiative is needed to shake Parliament out of the rut that it is in. He is right!

You can't go back to an imagined Shangri-la where all was sunshine, and employees and bosses all worked selflessly for the benefit of the country and for all parts of society and the economy. That was (maybe) then. This is now, and fresh challenges have to be faced. You can't face them with your back to them, gazing into the past.

"A century ago, Clement Attlee wrote that Labour must be a party of duty and patriotism, not abstract theory. To build a “New Jerusalem” meant first casting off the mind-forged manacles."

Like the old saying of forging swords into ploughshares, the manacles need forging into machinery to lift the whole country out of the doldrums. That will take carefully planned engineering - and co-operation, not confrontation. Starmer is trying to get co-operation from Tories, so he needs to persuade them in terms that they will understand and accept.

If he succeeds, he will be hailed as a statesman, not just a politician. How many other party leaders are likely to succeed?

DaisyAnneReturns

So yea of opinions not facts, below is the only time Thatcher is mentioned in a long article. But could the extremists be bothered to look it up? Not when they could attack, in the standard populist anger we have decended to in this country, apparently.

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. Margaret Thatcher sought to drag Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism. Tony Blair reimagined a stale, outdated Labour Party into one that could seize the optimism of the late 90s. A century ago, Clement Attlee wrote that Labour must be a party of duty and patriotism, not abstract theory. To build a “New Jerusalem” meant first casting off the mind-forged manacles. That lesson is as true today as it was then.

I do wonder if the shouty-ones know what the rest of the article said

I do wonder if the shouty-ones know what the rest of the article said
I hadn't noticed any shouting DaisyAnneReturns

Posters are commenting on the OP and the whole article was behind a paywall.
It seems not many posters want to pay for the privilege of reading The Telegraph.

*Anniebach^Sun 03-Dec-23 11:00:38
The unions gave us Thatcher
Yes, she was their gift to the nation!

Ignore my post about a paywall please.

Multi-tasking, didn't read all the posts, dashing out.

Just like the thread about DWP planning on checking the bank accounts of those on disability benefits to make sure they are genuine ( and applauded by a disturbing number on here), this is a story made out of one comment in an article and then used as a weapon. I haven't read every comment, but I am sure there will be at least one 'they are all the same' which is shorthand for I can't be bothered to do my research before I vote.

Many of us ex-workers are in receipt of pensions from pension funds that rely on shareholder dividends and income from corporate bonds. Demonising shareholders isn't sensible. Although Thatcher attacked trade union power one has to recognise that the size of the working class has systematically diminished since the 1920s which has had a weakening effect on unions and the Labour vote. Moreover, technological development, in e.g., the printing industry, rendered many skilled jobs unnecessary (such as printer's compositors) and that led to reducing union membership and hence the amalgamation of small unions (the Typographical Association was absorbed).

He was trying to appeal to former Tory voters I'm sure, and he needs to to win, Labour needs more votes than the Tories, I'm not sure why.
In the industry I work in privatisation has been a good thing, I work in a private fostering agency, years ago if you wanted to foster or adopt you could only go through the local authority & as a social worker I worked in one where the team manager, AB, was a dreadful, petty, angry person & if you fell out with him either as a foster carer or social worker there was nowhere else you can go. Nowadays you can take your pic of any number of fostering agencies & they can specialise & do a really good job. Part of the reason for this is that they're given more money so they can run a better service which I do agree with, but I don't agree with the extra they get that goes to shareholders, that money should be reinvested in front line services.
I believe Keir etc will make a positive difference to our services, that's what Labour do, & with Rachel Reeves etc setting up a 'value for money' office, we won't be paying shareholders etc they whopping profits we've seen under this gov't