Who are we fighting?

Don’t forget the message on ‘the bus’

David49

If polititians told the truth they would never get elected, the changes that need to be made in the UK are very unpalatable, revealing them before an election could be fatal. After the GE we had the begining of changes planned with WFA etc, there will be much more to come.

Quite often, it is not what is said, but how it is said and I think it is quite possible for politicians to indicate which direction policy will go after an election, without losing support.

Lets face it, that is how we make decisions to vote, we listen to the alternative scenarios and policies put forward by the different partys and decide which is the best one to support.

On WFA, its abolition was clearly an unplanned knee jerk reaction to a situation that was worse than expected, inadequately thought through and badly applied.

That this was a policy badly planned and badly applied is evidence by the considerable unease expressed by many better off pensioners for many years, on GN, including myself, and on other media outlets about receiving WFA, and quite a number said that when they received it they immediately donated it to an appropriate charity.

This policy could have been a resounding success, if its application had been carefully thought through and its application been more sensitive. Obviously political parties do not announce in advance that they are not capable of organising the proverbial in a pub, but that is because they never seem to realise this.

I remember a really racist one around in the 1960s which I won’t repeat. It involved a ‘neighbour’ and ‘vote Labour’ It was awful and made all the people I was friends with vote Labour because of it, so it really backfired on them.

“Quite often, it is not what is said, but how it is said and I think it is quite possible for politicians to indicate which direction policy will go after an election, without losing support.”

The classic is Johnson’s election landslide, say what most voters want to hear and they will vote for you, at best it was unrealistic, some of it blatant lies. Starmers election policies were different “soak the rich” and nothing about the extra ordinary voters were going to pay.

Something else.. Politicians always say people want change.
Not sure that's true. Think people on the whole want some improvement but not dramatic change.
Think we want stability and steady growth.
Think the best thing Starmer could do at some point is have a reshuffle and get rid of Rachel Reeves.

^ Think the best thing Starmer could do at some point is have a reshuffle and get rid of Rachel Reeves.^

Sadly, I don’t think that would make any significant difference to the way the economy is being run. Most people have just the same belief that a national economy should be run in the same way as a household or business and that the rich are going to save us.

Is it Starmer that wants to get rid of Latin, and British history?

fancythat

Is it Starmer that wants to get rid of Latin, and British history?

Yes.
I think he also called visits to museums and art galleries in the curriculum, highbrow pursuits and called to get rid of them too.
Silly use of vocabulary.

escaped

fancythat

Is it Starmer that wants to get rid of Latin, and British history?

Yes.
I think he also called visits to museums and art galleries in the curriculum, highbrow pursuits and called to get rid of them too.
Silly use of vocabulary.

Good heavens! Did he really say that ? I don’t believe it. Do you have a source?

LR10

I am really fed up with, and to tell the truth feeling a little insulted, by politicians of all and no particular party feeding us rubbish. Talking to us as if we're unable to understand the complexities of a situation. For example Keir Starmer's New Year pronouncements - he is going to "fight for Britain". Fight who? No meaningless sound bites please, just talk plain common sense man, you might be worth listening to then.

But isn't the OP "just a sound bite" or rather just another way to try and belittle Kier Starmer?

The phrase "fight for Britain" generally mean tacking action or making efforts to defend, support, or advance the interests of Britain, whether in a military, political, social, or cultural context. Historically, it may evoke images of military service during conflicts such as World War II, when British forces and civilians united to resist external threats.

In more contemporary usage, it can also encompass advocating for national values, sovereignty, or addressing various social and economic issues facing the country. The exact meaning can vary depending on the context in which it is used, including political discourse, campaigns, or discussions about patriotism and national identity.

Now do tell me who exactly doesn't know that?

MaizieD

escaped

fancythat

Is it Starmer that wants to get rid of Latin, and British history?

Yes.
I think he also called visits to museums and art galleries in the curriculum, highbrow pursuits and called to get rid of them too.
Silly use of vocabulary.

Good heavens! Did he really say that ? I don’t believe it. Do you have a source?

I heard snippets of a discussion on GB news.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/labours-decision-to-axe-latin-lessons-is-an-act-of-cultural-vandalism/

Just as well we have independent education then?

If you google, GB news getting rid of Latin, several articles pop up.

We do not need to 'try to belittle' Keir Starmer. He is doing it very effectively for himself.

He and his government have now been in power for 6 months and almost all polls show that his personal standing and support and that of his party have fallen faster than any other govenrment, of any party at a similar stage of their time in power.

Talk to people who voted for the party and people who have been long term Labour supporters and their sense of bitterness about the conduct of this government and its leaders is corrosive.

From the time we realised that Labour leaders had their snouts in the trough just as enthusiastically as any Conservative back bencher, and all were expensively dressed by one Labour donor, who was now on an inside track to advise government, we knew we had a cloth-eared government who hadn't got a clue.

MaizieD

escaped

fancythat

Is it Starmer that wants to get rid of Latin, and British history?

Yes.
I think he also called visits to museums and art galleries in the curriculum, highbrow pursuits and called to get rid of them too.
Silly use of vocabulary.

Good heavens! Did he really say that ? I don’t believe it. Do you have a source?

It was in The Times, very recently I think. Something to do with not mentioning skiing trips too in the classroom because that showed "middle class bias."
All to do with the educational review being considered. I'd need to delve back.

I don't see how you can urge people to "fight for Britain" if you aren't prepared to let them learn about all aspects of our rich heritage and history.

Now do tell me who exactly doesn't know that?

Know what exactly?

As you have rightly pointed out, PoliticsNerd, The exact meaning can vary depending on the context in which it is used

So to which context is Sir Keir referring and what exactly does he mean?

It's unclear, it's just another soundbite such as politicians and others have used.

"Britons - Your Country Needs You!"

fancythat

If you google, GB news getting rid of Latin, several articles pop up.

😯

Stop him, someone, before he crosses the Rubicon!

Unfortunately for politicians, sound bites are what get picked up and remembered. By trying to be too relevant with speech they run the risk of every Tom, Dick and Harry picking up the wrong end of the stick.
(If you speak all scholarly and cultivated it apparently turns people off.)

Think the best thing Starmer could do at some point is have a reshuffle and get rid of Rachel Reeves

I don't agree loopyloo. And there you have democracy and our right to freedom of expression (not speech. We are not, thank heavens, the USA.)

I am aware that it takes time to bring about the changes we wanted and need. Those with the attention span of a gnat, egged on and manipulated by our right wing press, talk as if all changes can be made much more quickly than is realistically possible. Changes take time. Rachel Reeves was laying the foundation and taking steps towards a sound economy. Neither the far-right, right or far-left will agree. Not because she is wrong but because they have nothing to offer except the Trussanomics of either the left or right.

Most people are factually better off this winter than last winter but haven't felt it yet and are constantly being told the opposite is true (a bit like Brexit).

The polls tell us that people feel "Labour lacks a coherent story". I can agree with that. However, I do have both a life and patience and am happy to see that come together next year as the Bills go through Parliament and changes start to take shape in 2026/2027. Thankfully this is shorter than the Tories had trashing the economy.

I'd like correct full sources on museums etc because I read that he wasn't suggesting discontinuing them but including a broader cultural base for arts/culture visits Beware of part-quotes that don't include this.

As for saying this :Cancels British History" well thats just ludicrous, what do you think children learn in schools?

fancythat

MaizieD

escaped

fancythat

Is it Starmer that wants to get rid of Latin, and British history?

Yes.
I think he also called visits to museums and art galleries in the curriculum, highbrow pursuits and called to get rid of them too.
Silly use of vocabulary.

Good heavens! Did he really say that ? I don’t believe it. Do you have a source?

I heard snippets of a discussion on GB news.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/labours-decision-to-axe-latin-lessons-is-an-act-of-cultural-vandalism/

How many schools teach latin these days? I think it's been effectively axed for decades...

What other absurdities can the Spectator and GB News (aren't they owned/funded by the same person?) find to get their underwear knotted about, I wonder...

Nothing to stop private schools still teaching it, of course...
Nothing to stop a state school teaching it, either, if they have the resources and the will to do it.

Now, where did the nonsense about museums and art galleries come from?

Not ludicrous, as I didn't say anything about "cancelling" British History, just choosing not to include certain aspects in the curriculum.
So I was misinterpreted.

Latin is a strange one.
Coming from a London comp I'd never seen a word of Latin in my life. My unconditional offer at a top university to read French and German came with the insistence that I would need twice weekly Latin lessons, given by some professor at the college. It was just me and one other student, and after half a term the professor gave up on and we on Latin.
I still managed a 2:1 without it!!

I should have quoted specifically escaped,

it was Fancythat that said,

"Is it Starmer that wants to get rid of Latin, and British history?"

I'm totally unclear of what he isn't "including" anymore.

MaizieD

fancythat

MaizieD

escaped

fancythat

Is it Starmer that wants to get rid of Latin, and British history?

Yes.
I think he also called visits to museums and art galleries in the curriculum, highbrow pursuits and called to get rid of them too.
Silly use of vocabulary.

Good heavens! Did he really say that ? I don’t believe it. Do you have a source?

I heard snippets of a discussion on GB news.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/labours-decision-to-axe-latin-lessons-is-an-act-of-cultural-vandalism/

How many schools teach latin these days? I think it's been effectively axed for decades...

What other absurdities can the Spectator and GB News (aren't they owned/funded by the same person?) find to get their underwear knotted about, I wonder...

Nothing to stop private schools still teaching it, of course...
Nothing to stop a state school teaching it, either, if they have the resources and the will to do it.

Now, where did the nonsense about museums and art galleries come from?

So that I know for now and another time, which news sources do you reply on please, MaizieD.