What is going on in Starmer's brain?

I was v concerned by what I read in The Guardian this morning about No Spending Plans. Who expected that there would be? KS would do better to concentrate on telling the electorate what he Can prioritise to make this country a better and more compassionate place to live. And the measures he Can take to ensure that future cuts/austerities fall on the broadest shoulders not the frailest.

DaisyAnneReturns

MaizieD

DaisyAnneReturns

I only noticed The Guardian being behind Starmer whe they were aiming a foot at him Ilovecheese. He is certainly not popular with Polly Toynbee, et al.

Well, that's odd, DAR, because Toynbee has been consistently pro Starmer for months and months...

I have to admit I got so fed up with her I stopped reading her. Glad to hear sense has prevailed.

Oh, come on DAR. No apology for posting misinformation?

MaizieD

DaisyAnneReturns

I only noticed The Guardian being behind Starmer whe they were aiming a foot at him Ilovecheese. He is certainly not popular with Polly Toynbee, et al.

Well, that's odd, DAR, because Toynbee has been consistently pro Starmer for months and months...

I have to admit I got so fed up with her I stopped reading her. Glad to hear sense has prevailed.

Owen Jones really isn't a fan of Starmer!

Neither am I. I wish they had someone else as leader .

I'm going to find it very hard to vote for him.

MaizieD

DaisyAnneReturns

I only noticed The Guardian being behind Starmer whe they were aiming a foot at him Ilovecheese. He is certainly not popular with Polly Toynbee, et al.

Well, that's odd, DAR, because Toynbee has been consistently pro Starmer for months and months...

Yes, it’s Owen Jones who has been putting the boot in.

DaisyAnneReturns

I only noticed The Guardian being behind Starmer whe they were aiming a foot at him Ilovecheese. He is certainly not popular with Polly Toynbee, et al.

Well, that's odd, DAR, because Toynbee has been consistently pro Starmer for months and months...

The Guardian comments as quoted above reflect my thoughts.

We don't want him to blow it now when he is in with a chance, and the possibility of getting rid of this unprincipled government is there for the taking.

I only noticed The Guardian being behind Starmer whe they were aiming a foot at him Ilovecheese. He is certainly not popular with Polly Toynbee, et al.

Casdon

It’s just so clearly another attempt to run him down. The left are jumping on every bandwagon they can think of , as are the right. It must be immensely frustrating to realise that the majority of the electorate aren’t listening to them, they are making their own minds up. It’s like the rerunning of that old fable The Tortoise and the Hare.

I see it more like the Frog and the Scorpion, Casdon. Why do some people try to manipulate the truth? Because it is their nature.

A comment piece in the Guardian (who are pro Starmer) by John McTernan is titled "A word to the wise, Keir Starmer: whoever advised you to praise Thatcher got it wrong"

Of course you might not want to read it but i will just post a couple of quotes.

"The Labour party’s relentless pursuit of Tory switchers is in danger of backfiring badly. Keir Starmer’s praise of Margaret Thatcher in the Sunday Telegraph is a double danger – it wins over no wavering voters but risks losing the goodwill of a wide range of his supporters, old and new."

"Starmer is listening to focus groups of swing voters. But the brutal truth is that there are no swing voters left – when support for the Tory party has fallen to 25%, there is no longer a pond to fish in. You’re convening groups of voters who are undecided whether to vote Tory, stay at home or opt for Nigel Farage and the Reform party. Sure they have views on what would make them listen to Labour – but they will never switch."

This is from a newspaper that is broadly behind him and wants him to win. They have no reason to "attempt to run him down" and their commentators are not stupid or lacking in critical thinking skills. He is not above criticism nor should he be.

Elegran

A lot of people have criticised Starmer, both on Gransnet and in the media generally, for being a bit wishy-washy about stating what his intentions are for the future if he and Labour get a majority in the next general election.

I have always believed that he was keeping his powder dry until he had a battle plan ready and could "see the whites of their eyes" I think he has now crystallised the bones of his election campaign in his own mind, and is beginning to pin his colours to the mast. It will be interesting to watch the contest unfolding.

I think you could be right.

For LuckyGirl - your "I selected a particular item from the article as it reflected a particular concern I had with it and was interested to see what others thought" - is at best shortsighted. Of course lots of people wouldn't go and check all the precise wording!

Thatcher made a mass of mistakes, ("Poll Tax" anyone?!) and of course decimated all the heavy manufacturing in the Midlands and North -- though economists would argue that under the union domination that had preceded her, productivity was so low that they didn't actually manufacture that much by that stage.

She also designed the Rail privatisation model - criticised at the time but implemented anyway by Major (who still pops up to lecture people) - and we know how well that went, costing us all masses of funding with huge fares and a crackpot ticketing system ("Yes, you might save £3.75 if you get 7 tickets for your journey. You might also get to Edinburgh from London for £24 if you find the one ticket on our system at that price and travel at 3am one day 5 months away").

And whilst she is STILL FONDLY REMEMBERED by all those (including in the affected regions) who took advantage of her policy to sell off council houses, she did of course forget to do anything about replacing all that lost stock, an error unaddressed by Bliar, Brown, Cameron, or the sad set of inadequates we've had as PM since.

The power of the press re Politics is greatly overestimated. Very few potential Labour voters would be reading the Telegraph anyway. Not many Tories will be reading the Mirror to get upset by whatever revelation they might print about BoJo's excesses. Etc.

As for ALL THOSE saying "surely we could have a PM with strong principles", er, look back at Thatcher?!! Or "why do politicos sway in the breeze, appealing to this or that group" - it's a feature, comes with their territory.

It’s just so clearly another attempt to run him down. The left are jumping on every bandwagon they can think of , as are the right. It must be immensely frustrating to realise that the majority of the electorate aren’t listening to them, they are making their own minds up. It’s like the rerunning of that old fable The Tortoise and the Hare.

The result from the polling stations at the next election will show, fancythat

A lot of people have criticised Starmer, both on Gransnet and in the media generally, for being a bit wishy-washy about stating what his intentions are for the future if he and Labour get a majority in the next general election.

I have always believed that he was keeping his powder dry until he had a battle plan ready and could "see the whites of their eyes" I think he has now crystallised the bones of his election campaign in his own mind, and is beginning to pin his colours to the mast. It will be interesting to watch the contest unfolding.

Of course it was praise.

Cant see that being enough to win over many tories. But who knows.

nightowl

But surely, someone with principles doesn’t write ‘for an audience’. I’m not particularly impressed by him but I am shocked by this. Does he actually know what change Margaret Thatcher inflicted on the UK? Does he really care?

His principles are stated elsewhere, and confirmed by those who have had dealings with him in his legal career.

If you are trying to get things over to a particular audience, then yes, you write with that audience in your mind. Starmer is a lawyer, remember, so he writes for a judge or jury who will make decisions based on whether he has persuaded them that he is right. If you read his whole article, then you too may be persuaded that he is right. If you only read what the opposing party pick out of his words, then you may not - but he has to state his case clearly for the audience. No point making the same speech to a largely Tory readership as he would to rally the faithful behind him.

His mention of various PMs who made brave changes in the course of Government policy (without either praising or condemning any of them) was the first salvo in his campaign for change in the next Parliament. I think this audience was chosen deliberately to air this, and I predict that we will hear a lot more about change in future election speeches.

But there was still no approval, Glorianny, except in the eyes of those who are looking for wholesale condemnation of even her wish to get the country moving.

Elegran

Repeat for anyone who still thinks that because he mentioned MT, he was praising her. Read again what has been posted in italic several times.

" Margaret Thatcher sought to drag Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism. " That is ALL he said about her. Where is the praise? He states a fact - that is what she set out to do, and by golly she DID shake Britain up and make changes that have had ramifications ever since. But where does he PRAISE her for those ramifications? Nowhere!!!

The approval is in the subtext. "Britain was in stupor"- there was something wrong with the country.
She "set free" - freedom is a desirable state for us all
"our natural entrepreneurship" something which was part of our natural state was released, so must have been locked away.
That's approval.
Arguably what she presided over was the selling off of our utilities and services, not for the benefit of British people into the hands of British people but to foreign governments. So no natural entrepreneurship.

Elegran

But he wasn't talking to you, Luckygirl He was writing in a Conservative paper largely read by a Conservative audience who are presumably familiar with political history. He wished to demonstrate that he too knows his history.

Well he was talking to me! - the article was in a national newspaper for all to read, including me - I find it hard to believe that he did not know how those words would be taken out of context. To me it lacks wisdom and foresight, two things I would like to see in a possible future PM.

Repeat for anyone who still thinks that because he mentioned MT, he was praising her. Read again what has been posted in italic several times.

" Margaret Thatcher sought to drag Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism. " That is ALL he said about her. Where is the praise? He states a fact - that is what she set out to do, and by golly she DID shake Britain up and make changes that have had ramifications ever since. But where does he PRAISE her for those ramifications? Nowhere!!!

Thanks Cossy I pray I’m correct too because, as you say, we all deserve better than what we’ve had for the past 14 years!

But he wasn't talking to you, Luckygirl He was writing in a Conservative paper largely read by a Conservative audience who are presumably familiar with political history. He wished to demonstrate that he too knows his history.

Elegran and LizzieDrip it's such a pleasure to read such well thought through posts.

Amma he did not "praise" Thatcher. I have quoted above the only part of the article where he mentions Thatcher. Where is the "praise"? People lie. Newspapers lie. You have swallowed that lie.

I do not think his para about former PMs was necessary or helpful and should have been omitted in full.