What is going on in Starmer's brain?

Luckygirl3 How could he write/talk about Prime Ministers who have initiated big changes without mentioning Margaret Thatcher? What could he have said about her that wasn't picked up by the media and interpreted as each editor saw it?

If he had criticized her the headlines would have been "Starmer condemns Thatcher". As it was, he said something neutral but factual about her, which was reported as praise. He has criticised her elsewhere, which can be read by anyone who isn't already so biased toward believing that he would approve the results of her policies that they believe as gospel the Tory Telgraph slant on it.

Anyone who has read of Starmer's childhood, studies and career would know how unlikely he is to be a Thatcherism fan. Don't vote against a Labour leader based on one headline in a newspaper that supports the Conservative party.

I feel that Starmer is trying to appeal to disaffected Tory voters.But praising Margaret Thatcher will not go down well with Labour supporters in the industrial heartlands.They have long memories.He needs to learn that he cannot be all things to all men.

Lizziedrip

Excellent appraisal, I pray you’re correct, as I think most of us deserve better.

I'm sure he, and those working with him did consider that nightowl They, I rather think, know a great deal more about than either you or I do about winning an election.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt however, I'm sure you are aware that, to have any power to change the direction of politics, your party (at least I assume it's your party) must first become the government. To do that they need people who have, in the past, voted Conservative. Where do you think, is a good place to find a Conservative audience? The paper often know as the Torygraph seems like a good start.

Why do you think you know better? Have you read what he wrote? My guess would be not. So what was the purpose of your post? What exactly did you achieve?

This is the only time Starmer mentioned Thatcher. Did he praise her, as the Telegraph said he had. No. They lied.

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 Tony Blair reimagined a stale, outdated Labour Party into one that could seize the optimism of the late 90s.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.

But, it appears that you would rather believe Telegraph writers than the actual words that were written.

Starmer is right. We need a completely transformative government. Where many old style Labour members (I won't call them supporters because they don’t) have got it wrong is that we cannot try simply returning to 1970's Labour. That isn't what the country needs nor is it what the country will vote for.

I too have not heard the entire speech. I guess Starmer is far more of a centralist that Corbyn and as such is attempting to appeal to the so call Red Wall Tories and those who are likely to vote for the Reform Party.

If I’m utterly honest I don’t believe many could be worse than the shower we e had to endure for 13 years and I don’t expect any much now from any politician. Sad times.

I have thought about this quite a bit because, on reading THE HEADLINE only, I was initially disappointed and surprised at Starmer’s alleged ‘praise of Thatcher’. However, I watched the excellent video posted by DAR and reminded myself to think critically and rationally. I have now come to the conclusion that, over years of Tory ‘soundbite’ politics, we have been ‘coerced’ into ‘headline thinking’. We often don’t look beyond the three word ‘shocker’ e.g. ‘stop the boats’, ‘take back control’ etc. Of course Keir Starmer is not praising Thatcher - he is commenting on her within the context of a paragraph about Prime Ministers who changed Britain. Of course he was not silly to mention her - why should he not? Of course he probably knew the Telegraph would use a headline to shock - as other posters have said, Starmer perhaps gives Labour supporters more credit than to fall for the one liner. I’m almost ashamed to say that, for a little while, I did, but thankfully I’ve got enough critical thinking skills to revise my initial viewpoint. I think Starmer is an intelligent, articulate, principled person - we’ve had such a shortage of these in politics for so long that it’s possibly difficult to recognise when one comes along🙈

nightowl

I’m happy to be one of the idiots DaisyAnneReturns as long as it means I’m not downright rude.

I think it’s important to consider how his words will be reported and received. He and his advisers should have been more careful.

I agree with both parts of this post.

It would be good if debate were not accompanied by rudeness. This is not the House of Commons!

Starmer and his advisors should have the nous to realise how this would be reported and its potential affects.

I am clear that we cannot continue with this current government and will cast my vote with that in mind. But I have always had reservations about Starmer.

Think in the opposite direction, Sazz1. Instead of "Who do I want to win this election?" ask yourself, "Who do I want to lose it?" That may clear your mind.

However careful they are about what they actually say, some newspapers will phrase their headlines so that it looks as though they said something entirely different.

Try it yourself. Write a longish sentence that exactly expresses your opinion of a political figure - either praising them or criticising them. Then look at it as though you are the editor of a paper well-known for holding the opposite view, and delete about two-thirds of the sentence, leaving just enough to give the impression that it means exactly the opposite of what you meant it to. It isn't hard to do.

Great choice for the election. It looks like Conservative or kier-conservative. Really don't know who to vote for and that's a first for me

I’m happy to be one of the idiots DaisyAnneReturns as long as it means I’m not downright rude.

I think it’s important to consider how his words will be reported and received. He and his advisers should have been more careful.

Ilovecheese

His brain should have told him how this would be reported.

Your brain should have asked why you are agree with a misleading Telegraph headline rather than read the article. Youe brain appears to need some of those lessons in critical thinking.

Of course he knew some idiots would allow themselves to be misled but that shouldn't stop him talking to a group who he would otherwise not be able to reach.

As my linked post said, he has either already lost your vote or you will find some other article or video which agrees with your anti-Starmer thinking. He has almost certainly lost you and others like you. That is no reason not to talk to the centre right, many of whom are now politically homeless, and let them know the changes he wants for this country.

It’s all fine Ilovecheese it’s just those pesky far lefties getting it all wrong again

If only.

But until we do teach critical thinking skills, our politicians and/or their advisors need to be a bit more savvy

If you watch the post I linked he is very forthright about the lack of critical thinking generally.

If you are left-wing in your thinking and the headlines on the front of the Daily Telegraph appeal to you why are people not asking themselves how that can be? Why are such people not wondering what the bias is that makes them actually prepared to believe the "Torygraph" rather than read the article?

Phil suggests that such people either didn't bother to read the article before freaking out, which is common, or are disingenuous liars pushing there own agenda, which is also fairly common on social media.

It is so important to teach critical thinking skills. We do not want or need future generations that can be led by the nose in the way we have seen with this, and also with much bigger issues.

His brain should have told him how this would be reported.

This is such a non-story.
Several of us have said so in different ways. Those of us who actually read it.

No he didn't (and doesn't) admire Thatcher.

I don't see, Luckygirl3 that the article raises any questions regarding Starmer's brain and what is going on.

know no

There is the odd word I find I know longer hear Rosie But he is right to be angry with those who, while professing to be Labour fall hook, line and sinker for a Telegraph headline.

A Tory paper is read mostly by Tories, so the disenchanted ones are more likely to read his words there than in a Labour paper and think to themselves "This bloke knows his political history, and seems to be a damn sight more intelligent than any Tories in power at the moment. Maybe it is time for a change"

If he can get a percentage of the Tory party to add their votes, by writing an article in a Tory paper, that increases his chances after the election of being in a position to carry out the reforms that are needed.

If he were absolutely perfect to everyone in his own party but didn't get enough votes for Labour to have a majority, he would not become PM, all that perfection would go straight down the drain, and Labour will spend another spell in opposition.

I assume that Labour posters want a Labour government? If so, then their party leader has to see to it that they get there. To do that, he needs to preach to the unconverted as well as the converted. It all comes down to numbers.

However some people seem to be happier with Labour as a party of perfect socialist theory but no practical way to convert that into action because they are always the opposition. Do they think that votes from dedicated party members count for more in the poll than new votes from people persuaded to desert a different party?

Thanks for the link DaisyAnneReturns He doesn't mince his words does he 🤣🤣 He's absolutely correct though, too many people just read the headline.

Casdon

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.

Thanks Casdon. Apologies for posting, or ‘listing’ as my post said, from my phone. It has gremlins that scramble my words (seemingly after I press post)

Casdon expresses my views more clearly. I heard Starmer interviewed, challenged about writing in the Telegraph and saying something positive about Thatcher. He made it clear he disliked her and her policies. His point was she had a plan, people understood what she stood for.

Misleading Starmer Headline Causes Meltdown

The word "populist" seems to me to be changing in meaning.
Nowadays, it seems to denote an extremist agenda, appealing to a demographic which feels that centrist opinion is driving affairs in a way they perceive as negative.
I would regard Brexit as a populist movement. Unfortunately, people were conned by a lying protagonist.
I would also have regarded Corbynism as populist, though most members of the Labour party realised that his agenda made Labour unelectable.
As for Keir Starmer, he understands all too well that he has to appeal to the widest possible electorate. He can admire Margaret Thatcher, who did make real changes, and also Clement Attlee and Tony Blair. (I think he could have mentioned Harold Wilson too.)
Roll on the GE. The current government is a disgrace. Even their back-benchers think so.

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.