Threepeaksphil
Well-known member
Writing in the telegraph This is really going to piss off the left of his party
Writing in the telegraph This is really going to piss off the left of his party
Not sure, IMO it's a good move by Starmer.
He is coming across as the adult in the room and is behaving, and being treated, like he is already PM.
Steady as she goes from Starmer, he is not talking to the Labour party here but to the voters beyond that can put him in number 10. The only important thing is to win.
Hero in the Falklands.
Has a bronze statue.
From a Falkland perspective she is loved.
Does that make Thatcher haters...not quite adult..?Not sure, IMO it's a good move by Starmer.
He is coming across as the adult in the room and is behaving, and being treated, like he is already PM.
Steady as she goes from Starmer, he is not talking to the Labour party here but to the voters beyond that can put him in number 10. The only important thing is to win.
Context. He says he didn't like a lot of what she did, but she had a vision to encourage entrepreneurialism, whereas the current lot have the vision to use a hammer sideways on.Writing in the telegraph This is really going to piss off the left of his party
To be honest I agree with him on both points. He is possibly not saying it just to attract the right, but because there is some truth in it. I admire him for thatContext. He says he didn't like a lot of what she did, but she had a vision to encourage entrepreneurialism, whereas the current lot have the vision to use a hammer sideways on.
I think what he said was probably nuanced as Wizard points out. People can hate Thatcher if they want, but these people are a small minority these days, Starmer is trying to unify the electorate as much as he can. He has / is taking the centre ground where he can win, making the Cons look like a fringe party for frothing nutjobs, which is pretty much what they have become.Does that make Thatcher haters...not quite adult..?
The manifesto will be pretty tame I would expect, There will be no ammunition for conservatives to say that Labour would bankrupt the country. The stuff about the green energy initiative will be at the centre and maybe some stuff about more state intervention in utilities without calling for nationalisation. It's all about projecting quiet competence and getting business inside, which it would seem they are. One step at a time, winning is all that counts in this election.Cards on the table, I started work in 1980 after leaving Uni. I hated Thatcher and everything she stood for. We are still living with her legacy up North as she radically widened the North South divide, indeed made it policy.
I still get what Starmer is articulating though. She was a conviction politician, something sadly lacking now. It's a dangerous thing on a number of levels for Starmer, as along with highlighting the lack of anything on the Tory side, he isn't exactly clear about what he stands for, as opposed to what he doesn't like.
That's OK as the Opposition Leader, but there's a time coming soon when he'll have to publish a manifesto ahead of an election. That is when to judge whether he is a conviction politician.
Agreed. Activists won't be happy but it's getting back those voters who fell for Boris' false promises about levelling up, whereas in reality, the gap has grown wider.The manifesto will be pretty tame I would expect, There will be no ammunition for conservatives to say that Labour would bankrupt the country. The stuff about the green energy initiative will be at the centre and maybe some stuff about more state intervention in utilities without calling for nationalisation. It's all about projecting quiet competence and getting business inside, which it would seem they are. One step at a time, winning is all that counts in this election.
Interesting that Starmer is making a rather blatant pitch for votes in the Conservative house magazine. And that they invited him to do it. There are many more one nation, centrist Conservatives that do not feel represented by the party anymore. Some of them no doubt read the Torygraph. Starmer has driven his tanks into enemy territory, good on him. In a way it is quite radical.If Starmer wants to court hardcore Telegraph readers he could have just jingled some keys in front of their faces while not declaring his substantial conflict of interest from funding from the fossil fuel industry. That's what their opinion writers usually do.
Didn’t realise she was a war hero.Hero in the Falklands.
Has a bronze statue.
From a Falkland perspective she is loved.
One of the funniest things happening in UK politics right now is that the client media are still operating as if the Tories aren't heading for oblivion. The Tories are incredibly complacent because they are still getting slaps on the back from their friends in the press.Interesting that Starmer is making a rather blatant pitch for votes in the Conservative house magazine. And that they invited him to do it. There are many more one nation, centrist Conservatives that do not feel represented by the party anymore. Some of them no doubt read the Torygraph. Starmer has driven his tanks into enemy territory, good on him. In a way it is quite radical.
As I put on here before, my son told me that in the under 25 age group Cons are polling at 1%. I'm surprised it's so high tbh.One of the funniest things happening in UK politics right now is that the client media are still operating as if the Tories aren't heading for oblivion. The Tories are incredibly complacent because they are still getting slaps on the back from their friends in the press.
The reality is a recent poll shows most Telegraph readers are planning to vote Labour. 41% actually. Tories at low 30s. Starmer isn't talking to the enemy here, he is talking to his future voters. I just don't think the hacks at the paper realise it yet.
The unions were doing a pretty good job of destroying the industries without her help, what she stopped was the rest of us paying for them to do it.He's wrong about Thatcher, she didn't have any vision to encourage entrepreneurship, she had a singular vision to reduce union influence, and the only way that could happen, was to destroy the industries where unions were powerful.
I think that's the point he's trying to make. At least she had a plan, albeit one that consisted of selling everything off to fundHe's wrong about Thatcher, she didn't have any vision to encourage entrepreneurship, she had a singular vision to reduce union influence, and the only way that could happen, was to destroy the industries where unions were powerful. If she had any inkling of a vision towards entrepreneurship she would have provided the means for those millions she put out of work to get into new industries, but new industries particularly tech were stifled by a lack of willingness to invest, and you can draw a direct line from that to the deregulation and liberalisation of the banking and financial sector.
I would go as far as saying that if you look at thatchers policies they were a range of short term fixes for long term issues, with very long term negative consequences. I don't think Blair had much if any vision either. And starmer certainly doesn't, he can't even support or fulfill anything in regards to his supposed guiding principle of human rights.
Why would anyone believe anything he says there.As I put on here before, my son told me that in the under 25 age group Cons are polling at 1%. I'm surprised it's so high tbh.
More bad news on the way for Con central office as Johnson is appearing at the COVID enquiry on Wednesday. Expect some jaw dropping moments. Anyone watching this closely should be amazed at the absolute shitshow inside government during that period.
You could point an equal finger at incompetent British management as well, there's probably a bit of a chicken and egg situation there as well. Incompetent corporate management and combative and intractable union leadership, but there was never any thought to counter clear incompetence in the boardrooms of British industry in fact privatisation and banking deregulation rewarded them.The unions were doing a pretty good job of destroying the industries without her help, what she stopped was the rest of us paying for them to do it.
Have you any evidence that British management was noticeably more incompetent than anywhere else?You could point an equal finger at incompetent British management as well, there's probably a bit of a chicken and egg situation there as well. Incompetent corporate management and combative and intractable union leadership, but there was never any thought to counter clear incompetence in the boardrooms of British industry in fact privatisation and banking deregulation rewarded them.
its fairly well documented, british leyland, british steel, british telecoms / post office, and many of the big private corps. The literature points to a lack of strategic capability, little if any motivation to innovate, poor negotiating skills particularly with Unions. John harvey jones the ex chairman of ICI called the ICI management something like professorial and addicted to the status quo which he also felt applied across british management.Have you any evidence that British management was noticeably more incompetent than anywhere else?
im not convinced that is what starmer means. i would suggest that an effective plan would include some understanding of, and methods of management and mitigation of problems of the outcomes of actions. But then i dont think starmer has much in the way of forward thinking so conviction (dogma) seems like a good thing to him. This is what we are doing we will deal with consequences as they arise, over the next fifty years.I think that's the point he's trying to make. At least she had a plan, albeit one that consisted of selling everything off to fundbribestax cuts to keep her in power.
Where she went wrong, as did Blair, was that no thought was given to what happens next, hence vast swathes of the North, including Blackpool stripped of opportunity.
Was that the management, or was that the unions?its fairly well documented, british leyland, british steel, british telecoms / post office, and many of the big private corps. The literature points to a lack of strategic capability, little if any motivation to innovate, poor negotiating skills particularly with Unions. John harvey jones the ex chairman of ICI called the ICI management something like professorial and addicted to the status quo which he also felt applied across british management.
The germans and many other northern European nations had forms of worker reps on the boards or advisory boards of major corporations, and fundamentally better management teams who actually had expertise in their industries, and they generally still do - but there is current risk that they are starting to follow the anglo american model of having a preponderance of financial types at the head of corporations. The UK was still hanging on to its post colonial class systems in the boardroom, full of public schoolboys who thought they had a right to govern - does that sound familiar?
He will put his foot in it no doubt. Overwhelming evidence about his flip flopping and not understanding science etc.Why would anyone believe anything he says there.
A career built on telling lies.
Not good news for the Tory Party, so ignored by the media.He will put his foot in it no doubt. Overwhelming evidence about his flip flopping and not understanding science etc.
For instance, I was amazed last week to find out that Nick Hancock knew nothing about 'eat out to help out' until the day it was announced! That is a crazy, crazy way to conduct government during a national health crisis. It's not getting much coverage ATM. Johnson, obviously is central to all of it.
I'm not sure why the former presenter of They Think It's All Over should have been consulted at all?He will put his foot in it no doubt. Overwhelming evidence about his flip flopping and not understanding science etc.
For instance, I was amazed last week to find out that Nick Hancock knew nothing about 'eat out to help out' until the day it was announced! That is a crazy, crazy way to conduct government during a national health crisis. It's not getting much coverage ATM. Johnson, obviously is central to all of it.
He'd probably do a better jobI'm not sure why the former presenter of They Think It's All Over should have been consulted at all?
They did ask David Gower about masks mind you.
Very good post.Cards on the table, I started work in 1980 after leaving Uni. I hated Thatcher and everything she stood for. We are still living with her legacy up North as she radically widened the North South divide, indeed made it policy.
I still get what Starmer is articulating though. She was a conviction politician, something sadly lacking now. It's a dangerous thing on a number of levels for Starmer, as along with highlighting the lack of anything on the Tory side, he isn't exactly clear about what he stands for, as opposed to what he doesn't like.
That's OK as the Opposition Leader, but there's a time coming soon when he'll have to publish a manifesto ahead of an election. That is when to judge whether he is a conviction politician.
I bet you the under 25's have the lowest % turnout in the next general election.As I put on here before, my son told me that in the under 25 age group Cons are polling at 1%. I'm surprised it's so high tbh.
More bad news on the way for Con central office as Johnson is appearing at the COVID enquiry on Wednesday. Expect some jaw dropping moments. Anyone watching this closely should be amazed at the absolute shitshow inside government during that period.
I bet you the under 25's have the lowest % turnout in the next general election.
The 1% figure is an outlier. But the latest YouGov poll has the Tories on 10% 18-24 and more shockingly at just 14% for 25-49 year olds. That's 42 points below Labour. If you are polling under 14% for everyone under 50, your party is facing oblivion without substantial changes. This is not just 'young people who are reading Marx at college for the first time' any more. It's millennials and middle aged people.I bet you the under 25's have the lowest % turnout in the next general election.
She wouldn't have let us get to the point of a referendum over the EU, but that's not what you want to hear about the blessed Margaret.Love her or loath her she would have sorted all this illegal immigration crap out.
Infact it wouldn’t have even got to this shit show we have today costing millions for absolutely ziltch returns.
I agree, she would not have been so daft as to allow Brexit. Much of what is happening now is a direct consequence of ripping up tried and tested agreementsLove her or loath her she would have sorted all this illegal immigration crap out.
Infact it wouldn’t have even got to this shit show we have today costing millions for absolutely ziltch returns.
SnapShe wouldn't have let us get to the point of a referendum over the EU, but that's not what you want to hear about the blessed Margaret.
I presume that's what you mean about wasted millions if not billions
What makes you think engineers make good CEOs?The majority of CEOs of German industrial companies are qualified engineers. Most of British CEOs are qualified accountants. Broadly speaking. Says it all really.
The Germans know the value of quality and ours know the cost but not the value.
What makes you think ours are any good?What makes you think engineers make good CEOs?
No idea what that means.Clutching at Straws
Since when have the Conservatives been "my party"The 1% figure is an outlier. But the latest YouGov poll has the Tories on 10% 18-24 and more shockingly at just 14% for 25-49 year olds. That's 42 points below Labour. If you are polling under 14% for everyone under 50, your party is facing oblivion without substantial changes. This is not just 'young people who are reading Marx at college for the first time' any more. It's millennials and middle aged people.