What is going on in Starmer's brain?

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

How about aiming for both countries to work together to make the UK a better place for everyone? Because that’s what I want. 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 was discussed on r4 this morning . People need to read the articles in its entirety. It mentioned Margaret thatcher briefly but not without criticism.
You are right maddy He is trying to appeal to and persuade conservatives to vote Labour and I hope he succeeds.

maddyone

Unfortunately there is a pay wall on the article so I can’t read it.
Without reading it I can’t comment except to say that KS is apparently writing in The Telegraph so possibly trying to appeal to the centre/right population.

I don't have a subscription Maddy and I could read it. I think you have to say no to a couple of adverts first.

What you picked up was exactly what the Telegraph front page picked up on Luckygirl3, and they have a very clear adgenda. Why would I not think that was exactly the adgenda you were pursuing .

You disregarded all the rest of the article and the fact that the passing mention of Thatcher makes sense in the overall piece which highlight times of change, and the casting off the mind-forged manacles (Clement Attlee)

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

Apart from the insult to the North of the country, the comment doesn't make sense. How exactly did this unleashing of entrepreneurs happen due to her?
Or did he mean the shareholders in the energy and water companies?

Getting Labour elected. Without that there is no hope under the Tories.

Unfortunately there is a pay wall on the article so I can’t read it.
Without reading it I can’t comment except to say that KS is apparently writing in The Telegraph so possibly trying to appeal to the centre/right population.

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

In my OP 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 about this.

Why would you extrapolate to the idea that the rest of the article was not read?

Who are the "shouty ones"?

Luckygirl3

How could he seriously praise Margaret Thatcher for " setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism" and not recognise that it was she who fostered the cult of the individual over and above collective and community cohesion, something he should be advocating for?

How can you start a discussion thread when you haven't, it seems, read the actual article you wish people to discuss?

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.

The unions gave us Thatcher

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

A risky strategy, I feel. From my perspective as a retired health and care professional, I trace many of our Health and Social Care woes - in their widest sense eg social housing - back to Mrs Thatcher and actually (cynically, I thought at the time) predicted that she ' would do something like go to war' to distract from the mess the UK was in. I was particularly dismayed by her government's policies on the NHS which were led by her devotion to managerialism, so much so that I left the hospital job I loved in 1995 to work for the MOD! I have yet to see what Mr Starmer has actually said but my initially reaction has been dismay.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/02/keir-starmer-praises-margaret-thatcher-for-bringing-meaningful-change-to-uk

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.

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?

Does no-one remember what life was like under James Callaghan's Government? It brought about a vote of No Confidence which the Government lost.

Things needed to change but Margaret Thatcher did go too far as we all know and was ousted.

Starmer, I'm sure, knows his history and how and why the more moderate Blair government was elected.

I need to know more about what he said and what the interpretation means.

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?

NotSpaghetti

I didn't hear this so have no context, actual words used or any other info as I've just read it here.

I think I'd need to know more before offering an opinion to be honest. He almost certainly wasn't praising her "overall" as I have heard him commenting on her before.

It's from an article he has had published in the Telegraph today.

Although I am utterly horrified by what has been reported about it my first thought was that he was writing for s specific audience..

I didn't hear this so have no context, actual words used or any other info as I've just read it here.

I think I'd need to know more before offering an opinion to be honest. He almost certainly wasn't praising her "overall" as I have heard him commenting on her before.

Margaret Thatcher broke the power of the unions, and how will that go down with A. Rayner, the albatross hanging round his neck?

I don’t think he will be any better than what you have now. He could be worse. I hope not but in some ways he reminds of our useless piece of you know what , trying to please, being a puppy dog. Wouldn’t it be good to get a real statesman politician with clear,honest views? Do they even exist anymore?

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.