Starmer praises Margaret Thatcher

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.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
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.
Click to expand...

True, but will no doubt lose some support, goodwill and stoke at least a temporary shitstorm.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
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.
Click to expand...
Does that make Thatcher haters...not quite adult..?😉
 
Threepeaksphil said:
Writing in the telegraph This is really going to piss off the left of his party🤨
Click to expand...
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.

He also mentioned Atlee and Blair as also having a clear plan to give to the electorate, but let's focus on Thatcher
 
Wizaard said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 that 👍
 
Newholland said:
Does that make Thatcher haters...not quite adult..?😉
Click to expand...
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.
I can just about remember the 70s and we did need to change. Some of the things she did were positive IMO. For instance, the sale of council houses would have been okay if there was a statutory requirement on the councils to replace every house sold.
Anyway as stated it's more about electoral strategy for Starmer, he is ruthless and winning is everything.
 
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.
 
Wizaard said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

With the Tories already in election mode and failing to make inroads, despite constant childidh references to Corbyn, your comment about being the adult in the room will pay dividends.

You can't change anything unless you're through the door, and that's what every statement is aimed at.
 
foggy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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. 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.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
foggy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
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. 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.
Click to expand...
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 fund  bribes tax 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.

The closure of the mines, for example, led to massively reduced income in the traditional areas of where our holidaymakers came from, meaning they didn't come to Blackpool for their holidays. With the drop in visitors, the B&Bs turned to DHSS rentals, a boom time as the council houses were sold off plus Thatcher also lifted restrictions on where you could move to and get council support.

Every policy has consequences, and no thought was given to watch happened next.

See also Iraq and Libya, where we created a massive vacuum filled by fundamentalist extremists wer'e still dealing with.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone believe anything he says there.

A career built on telling lies.
 
Thatcher propped the country up with North Sea oil and selling off the countries assets. As others have alluded to, the working class were a powerful force, that wasn't acceptable to the tories. Know your place rubbing rags!
 
Lost Seasider said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
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.
Click to expand...
Have you any evidence that British management was noticeably more incompetent than anywhere else?
 
Lost Seasider said:
Have you any evidence that British management was noticeably more incompetent than anywhere else?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Wizaard said:
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 fund  bribes tax 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.
Click to expand...
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.

its pie in the sky for me to want someone in power that has the ability to see past the days next headlines or next months economic results / predictions.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
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?
Click to expand...
Was that the management, or was that the unions?

I remember an interview with someone high up at BL in the 70s/80s, the typical German manager would spend ~5% of their time on industrial relations, in the UK it was more like 50%.

Also, the obstructive nature of the unions had a major effect on decision-making at the time. You can't innovate if it means workers losing their jobs because the workers will walk out until you reinstate them, you can't invest in new plant for the same reason. You can't invest in developing new designs because you're already losing money hand over fist employing workers you don't need, and even if you did then no-one would buy the end result because it's badly manufactured by unsackable workers who've no incentive to do the job properly.

The managers made rational choices in the circumstances, it's the circumstances that were the problem.
 
Wizaard said:
Why would anyone believe anything he says there.

A career built on telling lies.
Click to expand...
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 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.
 
Last edited:
ElBurroSinNombre said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not good news for the Tory Party, so ignored by the media.
 
Interesting you use the comparison with Germany. Their labour market was much more legally controlled, and stunts pulled by British Managers were simply not legal. And I speak with some authority on this. My first senior level job brought me into contact with a shop steward who had worked alongside Red Robbo, at BL Cowley. He did his job very strongly, but as we were straightforward, had few major issues. He was actually tougher on H&S hearings than I was.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'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.
 
Wizaard said:
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.
Click to expand...
Very good post.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
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.
Click to expand...
I bet you the under 25's have the lowest % turnout in the next general election.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
TSSeasider said:
I bet you the under 25's have the lowest % turnout in the next general election.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

I presume that's what you mean about wasted millions if not billions😉
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 agreements
 
Archibald Knox said:
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.
Click to expand...
What makes you think engineers make good CEOs?
 
Having been born and brought up in a mining village I confess I find it difficult to countenance a Labour leader heaping any praise on Thatcher. However as I have debated with my son on several occasions (he very much leans to the left) my stance is that the British public do not take to extremes and will always seek to vote for the middle ground so fully understand the reason for Starmer adopting a strategy of let’s get in power then we can tweak the policies to suit our desired result.
 
foggy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Since when have the Conservatives been "my party"

In the last 12 months, I've met Lisa Nandy, when she was on the shadow front bench, hosted a visit by Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper, met with Angela Rayner and last week had tea with Peter Mandleson - I also attended the Labour Party Conference.

I have also met with a load of Labour councillors.

In the same time, I've met with one Tory councillor.

I've never once started which way I've voted on anything; but I make observations from what I see in front of me.

The statement that the under 25's will have the lowest turnout at the next election is just that. It will have a minimal impact on the outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top