Starmer's vision quest

[theclaud]

Your posts are becoming increasingly like some sort of recusive teenager.

It's a serious question with a LOL at the beginning. Do you think the pessimism we all engulfed in might have anything to do with politicians like those now in charge of the Labour party insisting that all we can look forward to is bleak austerity and perpetual crackdowns, and with them and their mates in the media launching all-out jihad for the last eight years against anyone who suggested that governments might consider implementing measures that would improve the lives of their citizens?

 

[AndyRM]

Has ANY party ever specified in detail what their intentions are, pre-election? I don’t recall one in my 76 years.

By intentions, I don’t mean vague sound bites, like “we will tax the rich”, or, we will impose a “mansion tax”, without specifying exactly what “mansion”, “rich” means.

Have you forgotten about the Ed Stone?

 

[Ian H]

What are they saying that's popular?

"We're not Tories... honest!"

 

[BoldonLad]

Have you forgotten about the Ed Stone?

No, there is no detail there, just vague pronouncements.

 

[AndyRM]

What are they saying that's popular?

"We're not the Conservatives" and "Look, I'm not Corbyn OK?"

Which is apparently enough.

 

[BoldonLad]

What is “popular” is any statement which makes the majority think they are going to be “better off”, without themselves having to pay for it.

For “better off”, read better public services which affect them, more disposable income,

 

[AndyRM]

No, there is no detail there, just vague pronouncements.

OK then.

Check out Labour's manifesto under their previous leader. It was laid out, costed, and made a lot of sense.

But it wasn't popular.

 

[multitool]

It's a serious question with a LOL at the beginning. Do you think the pessimism we all engulfed in might have anything to do with politicians like those now in charge of the Labour party insisting that all we can look forward to is bleak austerity and perpetual crackdowns, and with them and their mates in the media launching all-out jihad for the last eight years against anyone who suggested that governments might consider implementing measures that would improve the lives of their citizens?

I see you've forgotten all about boosterism. Want me to remind you how that worked out?

 

[Rusty Nails]

Oh, go on, Rusty. Let it out.

I was expecting you to bite, but I had to have a lie down after getting worked up into being that critical.

I don't like Starmer's style so far but I can't argue that it has been a disadvantage so far with the largely politically non-committed public who don't know exactly what they want, but don't want what they've got, and for whom self-indulgent phrases like Blue Labour mean nothing.

I can't say I don't like his political ideas because as yet he has mostly been giving anodyne soundbites, but it is a cast-iron certainty that he will be Labour's leader going into the election, so like it or not (a rather redundant option), judgement about his governmental performance will have to wait.

 

[theclaud]

I see you've forgotten all about boosterism. Want me to remind you how that worked out?

This makes no sense whatever as a response to my post. Did you mean to reply to someone else?

 

[theclaud]

Not a great analogy, I feel.

A better one would be you sitting on the bus asking why the driver can't drop you off on the Moon.

What if you get on the bus home (which stops at the bottom of your road), but several miles beforehand it veers off in the opposite direction because Lord Curzon has got on and asked the driver to drop him at home, and the driver knows that Curzon drinks at the same club as his boss? When you protest, the driver opens the doors and kicks you off the moving bus.

Fun, this analogy game. We can all play it.

 

[theclaud]

I was expecting you to bite, but I had to have a lie down after getting worked up into being that critical.

I don't like Starmer's style so far but I can't argue that it has been a disadvantage so far with the largely politically non-committed public who don't know exactly what they want, but don't want what they've got, and for whom self-indulgent phrases like Blue Labour mean nothing.

I can't say I don't like his political ideas because as yet he has mostly been giving anodyne soundbites, but it is a cast-iron certainty that he will be Labour's leader going into the election, so like it or not (a rather redundant option), judgement about his governmental performance will have to wait.

Grrrrrr.

 

[multitool]

What if you get on the bus home (which stops at the bottom of your road), but several miles beforehand it veers off in the opposite direction because Lord Curzon has got on and asked the driver to drop him at home, and the driver knows that Curzon drinks at the same club as his boss? When you protest, the driver opens the doors and kicks you off the moving bus.

Fun, this analogy game. We can all play it.

Sure. It's fun. But as per all your replies here, all it serves to do is divert.

You are slating the media for its tactics, you are criticising Labour for operating according to these tactics. You aren't demonstrating how Labour can force change within the media from its current position as minority Party.

You are treating the media as one cohesive body implying that Labour has made an accord with the media such that the interests of some non-definined body who hold ultimate sway are not threatened.

What you fail to do is explain that whilst the more moderate elements if the media are fluffing the Labour party, the element of the media that is owned by tycoons is still vehemently attacking Labour.

I'm sure you'll respond to this with further diversions, but there we are.

 

[theclaud]

Sure. It's fun. But as per all your replies here, all it serves to do is divert.

You are slating the media for its tactics, you are criticising Labour for operating according to these tactics. You aren't demonstrating how Labour can force change within the media from its current position as minority Party.

You are treating the media as one cohesive body implying that Labour has made an accord with the media such that the interests of some non-definined body who hold ultimate sway are not threatened.

What you fail to do is explain that whilst the more moderate elements if the media are fluffing the Labour party, the element of the media that is owned by tycoons is still vehemently attacking Labour.

I'm sure you'll respond to this with further diversions, but there we are.

The Mail is literally the only mainstream outlet not laying down the palm leaves for Sir Keir.

 

[theclaud]

You aren't demonstrating how Labour can force change within the media from its current position as minority Party.

I guess you've never watched them interview Mick Lynch.