What is going on in Starmer's brain?

Today 11:40 greenlady102
Friends and family were badly affected by the constant striking in the industries around us and the concern you mention about how being a scab could ruin your life was very true, even while being unable to keep your family warm and fed was also ruining life.
It was bad back in the times when the bosses held all the power, and setting up unions seemed like a good idea, but then they grew too powerful. Now it seems like a battle if two equal powers, both of them heading for destruction.
Lord Acton spoke truly ^ Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.^

Because Starmer wrote Margaret Thatcher for " setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism" does not mean that he agrees "it was she who fostered the cult of the individual over and above collective and community cohesion,"

I am sure that many people, not of a left wing persuasion, would agree with the favourable comments made about Alastair Darling recently.

He did what he needs to do to appeal to all voters not just Labour ones. Nothing wrong with that, especially if he does admire certain things about Margaret Thatcher.It doesn’t turn him into a Tory overnight.

My concern about the article - and hence my comment about what might/not be going on in Starmer's brain - relates to the fact that all the news media have latched onto the Thatcher comment - he must have realised that this is what would happen. He is playing a dodgy game as he might gain a few Tory voters (presumably the aim), but risks losing core Labour voters.

You are absolutely right Luckygirl3 he must have known that the press would latch on to that comment. So that means he really didn't care if he upsets core traditional Labour voters, as he thinks he can take them for granted.

Or that he thinks labour voters can cope with reading that. I know I can.

My concern about the article - and hence my comment about what might/not be going on in Starmer's brain - relates to the fact that all the news media have latched onto the Thatcher comment - he must have realised that this is what would happen. He is playing a dodgy game as he might gain a few Tory voters (presumably the aim), but risks losing core Labour voters

I agree Luckygirl. That was my reaction on hearing what he had written. I am a member of the Labour Party and have supported Keir Starmer since he became leader, but even I thought, ‘what is he playing at’. Labour still has my support but it won’t take much to push some left wing voters away from the party - I hope Keir’s comment won’t give them that push.

Galaxy

Or that he thinks labour voters can cope with reading that. I know I can.

Yes, this.

Galaxy

Or that he thinks labour voters can cope with reading that. I know I can.

Quite.

I hope you’re right Galaxy🤞

I have had my moments with Starmer, but that's to be expected, no leader will provide an individual voter with everything they need, however his conduct in the last couple of months has been exemplary.

greenlady102

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.

All this us true but it doesn't mean that people who supported Thatcher then have not move their view for what is needed now. Stick to the past and we cannot move forward.

nightowl

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.

Not really. There isn't even a party that currently represents me and I think a few others on here would say the same so expecting to get exactly what we want would be foolish. On the other hand I do think trying to destroy the party that offers you the nearest to what you want seems selfish and dangerous.

I’m listing without RLBT but I did hear Starmer interviewed on radio 4 about the article. I agreed with his points. Especially the way he stressed he didn’t like her policies or what she did to the ciuntry but she was s PM with a plan

Glorianny

It proves what I have always suspected that Starmer will say or do anything which he thinks will win him votes. The possibility of a labour government is now highly likely. He sees Labour supporters as having no choice and regards their votes as already won, so he's going for the right wing. It's actually terrifying. We will once again have a PM with no real values, who will shift according to what he thinks will make him more popular.

Seems like this to me.

Which is partly why I asked what populist means.
I see the word quite often on GN.
Has there been a thread written about what it means? Not sure if I have seen it or not.

paddyann54

We dont call them Red Tories here for no reason! Labour kept us under WM's thumb signed over thousands of sq miles of our castal waters before devolution....did you know if you look out to sea at St Andrews those coastal waters are English? Done to ensure England has OIL ...to sell if/when we got control of our own country .
Wee Anas Sarwar is pulled by labour strings ,he'll never put Scotland first .We need out of this toxic "union " that never was a union ,WM is draining us dry and squandering our wealth just as thet have done for centuries in their colonies...45Trillion they stole from India while telling the world INDIA couldn't run its own affairs !Lets be honest here ....there are school kids who could run Englands parliament.for thats what WM is ,better than any of the unionist parties there

Just been reading about the SNP losing 500 million loss of public money during Edinburgh tram scandal, Humza Useless ' foreign government ' slur, exposing the very ugly side of Scottish Nationalism. I never hear that from our side of the country. So anything you say holds no truck with most of us I would say.
I will be ignoring anything else you spout.

Fancythat
Why haven’t you serched what populist means?

I did!
Very confused.

It only seems populist to people whose ears are closed because they have already decided that whatever he does or says is wrong. I’d suggest actually reading what he said and putting it into context. What he actually said is very far from Glorianny’s depiction. If people aren’t able to recognise that when people mention something or somebody as part of a detailed speech, it’s routinely taken out of context by those who have their own agendas I despair. Actually no, I don’t, I just get very irritated indeed.
In the meantime the polls are holding steady, Labour have a 20 point lead, which makes one question whether anybody is listening to all the numerous attempts to rubbish everything he says and does.

a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups

This is one meaning, MerylStreep.

Who are the "established elite groups" supposed to ne, for instance?
Politicians? Wealhy Bankers? UN? Wef?

I dont want to flood this thread with other meanings.

But the word has been used on this thread already, and elsewhere on News and Politics on numerous occasions.

Seems to me, could be very wrong, that this word matters in the context of this thread in particular?

If people aren’t able to recognise that when people mention something or somebody as part of a detailed speech, it’s routinely taken out of context by those who have their own agendas I despair

I wold largely agree with that.
But I personally cannot be sure, unless I understand more of the comments on this thread.

And I am hugely aware there are many on GN who only read the News and Politics and do not comment, as like me, they dont understand everything, and often do not want their heads bitten off for that.

Here you are fancythat.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-43301423
Do you really think Starmer is a populist?
On the one hand he is accused of being a populist, on the other he’s dull and boring and has no policies, doesn’t respond to demands to do A,B or C that various factions want him to. Or, is he just somebody who wants to do a good job against the odds (and the nonsense)?

No idea really Casdon.
Thank you for the link. I will take a look.

Taken from the link
*She argues that populist content is "made of negatives" - whether it is anti-politics, anti-intellectualism, or anti-elite. Here lies one of the populism's strengths - it is versatile.

It is "extraordinarily powerful because it can adapt to all situations," she said.*

No wonder I dont understand the word.
Plus which, it sounds like it can depend on which political "side" you are on, as to whether populism is seen as good or bad.
As I am reading the link at first glance.