Main Edition
US
FR
Don't tell Truss (Anthony Devlin/Getty Images)
As Conservative efforts to animate the ghost of Margaret Thatcher ramped up last September, when the real Thatcherite, Rishi Sunak, was beaten by a cosplaying Liz Truss, few noticed that a similar exorcism was taking place within the Labour Party. In the same month Truss entered Downing Street, shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves highlighted Labour’s fiscal prudence by claiming, as Thatcher did in 1979, that hers was the party of “sound money”. The following day, Keir Starmer went further and seized the mantle of “the party of homeownership” from the Tories.
These were not cheap attempts to exploit the weakness of the Conservatives during the 49 days of Trussonomics, but part of a sustained strategy to plunder Thatcher’s legacy. In a major speech on crime last month, Starmer quoted her directly: “The rule of law is the foundation for everything. Margaret Thatcher called it the ‘first duty of government’. She was right.” Predictably, these last three words deeply offended the Labour Left. The fury on social media was nearly as great as when he banned Jeremy Corbyn from standing as a Labour candidate at the next election. In both cases the outrage was the point. What better way to prove you are a different sort of leader from Corbyn than to follow Tony Blair and admit that Thatcher got some things right?
But 10 years after Thatcher’s death, Starmer could, and should, go further — and learn other lessons from her success. The first is the most straightforward: know your enemy, identify them, and fight them on your own terms at a time of your choosing. Politics, in Boris Pasternak’s words “is not a walk across an open field”. People — bad people, and vested interests — want to stop you. And while you can’t avoid conflict, you can be prepared for it.
Labour can’t afford to just sit back and watch the Government fall into disarray; it needs to put them in the wrong and keep them there. Margaret Thatcher used the “Winter of Discontent” as a stick to beat Labour for a decade, through a combination of rhetorical reminders and legislative action that weakened the unions. Today, Starmer and his team need to constantly remind voters that the pain they are currently feeling over the cost of living and the collapse of basic standards in policing, the NHS and public transport are Tory failures. This is the theory behind Labour’s new wave of attack ads. Put your enemy in the wrong and keep them there. Are Labour’s social media ads fair? Perhaps not. Are they effective in framing the conversation? Absolutely. Just as Thatcher used Saatchi and Saatchi and brought the modern techniques of marketing and advertising into politics, so Starmer’s team are using modern channels to tie the Tory failure on crime to Sunak.
Less straightforward, but more important, is the need for Starmer to echo Thatcher’s commitment to a fixed world view. For many on the Left and Right, Thatcher was a divisive figure — yet she also commanded a grudging respect. This could be summed up in the phrase: “Whatever you think about her, you always know what she’s going to do.” Decisiveness is a powerful asset for a leader. It is not simply that, in the words of Pierre Medes-France, “to govern is to choose” — nor is it that drift, dither and indecision is weak. Rather, the power of decisiveness stems from the power of decisions to create a framework and a filter that serve as a test for any policy proposals. When David Willetts ran the No. 10 Policy Unit for Thatcher, he made his team ask a simple question of any new policies: “Is there a more market-oriented solution?” And there invariably was. Similarly, New Labour had its own — less ideological, but appropriately pragmatic — test: “What matters is what works.”
To succeed, Starmer needs his own framing test. And this requires him to look at the horizon. Thatcher and Blair both addressed the fundamental questions of their time. For Thatcher, it was the sclerotic economy; for Blair, it was the need to rebuild public services. Right now, the cost of living is dominating lives, and tackling it is urgent, but it will pass through the economy in the coming years. For Starmer, his office-defining challenge will be climate change. Labour has already placed its big spending bet on decarbonising the economy — £28 billion a year of investment. But if Starmer wants this to actually happen, his No. 10 operation has to keep asking: “Does this get us to Net Zero faster?”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis is just bollix. There’s one huge and unbridgeable difference between Thatcher and Starmer and those shilling for him: she wasn’t lying.
The cynicism and lack of principle displayed here tells us one thing only: the Blairites are back.
This is just bollix. There’s one huge and unbridgeable difference between Thatcher and Starmer and those shilling for him: she wasn’t lying.
The cynicism and lack of principle displayed here tells us one thing only: the Blairites are back.
Mrs Thatcher – whether you agreed with her or not – was a conviction politician who had vision and principle.
No one who has followed Mr Starmer’s career would ever accuse him of having any of the same attributes.
Frankly I don’t understand why Mrs Thatcher isn’t held up as an example by people from across the political spectrum. Here was a lower middle class grammar school girl who, by dint of hard work, determination and vision, succeeded in a male dominated world of entrenched privilege. She believed in a genuine meritocracy (far more than any PM since), and the empowerment of the individual who could live up to their potential without a stifling state. Much of this she achieved, which is, in no small measure, why she won successive large majority election victories.
She won over large numbers of working class voters, by making the Conservatives a party of aspiration, and creating a culture that rewarded hard work and enterprise.
What Starmer and “Starmerism” – if that really is a thing – have yet again failed to answer is ‘What is the current Labour party for? Whose interests do they seek to serve and promote?’
It’s certainly not workers. Except maybe some of those in the public sector. Most of the working class, whose interests the party was founded to serve, have long been an embarrassment to the Labour leadership. Emily Thornberry’s Van & St George’s Flag tweet, and Gordon Brown’s encounter with Gillian Duffy, were just moments that publicly laid bare a view that has been prevalent within Labour HQ for years.
Blair started the rot – and you, Mr McTernan, played your part in that, when you dismissed working class supporters as the “lumpen mass with their half-formed thoughts and fully-formed prejudices”, and urged the party to ignore them and focus instead on ethnic minority voters, who could be attracted to Labour by stoking their sense of grievance.
The Labour front bench of recent years, whether NuLabour centrists or unreconstructed Trots, seems to have an agenda completely at odds with the hopes, fears and aspirations of their former heartlands – yet still imagined those red wall voters were “theirs” by right.
It was you who advised your party to ignore this previous core vote (in the mistaken belief that they’d stick with Labour no matter what). Can you imagine any other large section of the electorate being treated with such contempt?
And then the Labour hierarchy and their useful idiots in the media, having sneered and turned your backs, are shocked when such voters defect to the Tories and the Brexit Party?
You reap what you sow.
Rother Valley, Don Valley, Leigh, Bishop Auckland, Bolsover, Sedgefield, Wakefield … I could go on. These places had been Labour for generations. If you’d suggested not that many years ago to voters in any of those places that they’d ever vote Tory you’d have been laughed at. Yet after years of being ignored and insulted by successive Labour leaders they produced double digit swings from Labour to Conservative.
The reasons so many of these “Red Wall” voters gave was precisely that Labour no longer represented them, their concerns or aspirations. They’d been ignored for years, and if they made such concerns known they’d be dismissed as bigots and racists – just as you dismissed them.
I appreciate that the metroplitan left loathe the Conservative party and are thus desperate to have a Labour leader they can love like Tony Blair – but Starmer really isn’t ever going to be that guy – however much they click their sparkly red pumps together and repeat “There’s no place like Sedgefield”.
The unfortunate love-child of Max Headroom and Gordon Brittas, Starmer is an uninspiring, charisma-free technocrat, with no instinct for leadership. He lacks the authenticity to actually emulate Mrs Thatcher, so appears to be trying to follow the Blair method of appearing to be all things to all men, and saying whatever he thinks the audience to whom he’s currently speaking want to hear most. He’s a North London fauxialist who seems to have wafer thin policy positions backed up by no principles whatsoever.
Starmer’s 4 years of agitating to overturn Brexit, kneeling to BLM, and then imagining that just cynically draping himself in the flag because a focus group told him (much to his surprise) that most people don’t actually despise Britain, or wish to see the monarchy abolished, is not going to win back red wall voters nor appeal outside the base.
Whilst it is very possible that he’ll be our next PM – heaven help us – it will be because the Conservatives lost, rather than Starmer winning.
A wonderful evisceration of NuLabour and all that it represents, thank you.
Sadly the Tories are only fractionally more appealing.
Brilliant post but too kind to Starmer.
He can not even tell us who woman is.
Let’s not forget his support for Corbyn.
He was not just “agitating to overturn Brexit”.
He was conspiring with foreign powers to do it.
This country used to dispose of traitors.
Now we have one aspiring to be PM.
McTernen, with his “lumpen mass” comment, obviously inspired Hillary Clinton to refer to more than half of the voters in the US as “deplorables”. Both are odious, hateful people, so naturally they oozed into government.
Absolutely correct Starmer will only tell what he thinks you want to hear ! so the grave danger is we will only find out what he really thinks and does when its too late!! Heaven help us
A wonderful evisceration of NuLabour and all that it represents, thank you.
Sadly the Tories are only fractionally more appealing.
Brilliant post but too kind to Starmer.
He can not even tell us who woman is.
Let’s not forget his support for Corbyn.
He was not just “agitating to overturn Brexit”.
He was conspiring with foreign powers to do it.
This country used to dispose of traitors.
Now we have one aspiring to be PM.
McTernen, with his “lumpen mass” comment, obviously inspired Hillary Clinton to refer to more than half of the voters in the US as “deplorables”. Both are odious, hateful people, so naturally they oozed into government.
Absolutely correct Starmer will only tell what he thinks you want to hear ! so the grave danger is we will only find out what he really thinks and does when its too late!! Heaven help us
Mrs Thatcher – whether you agreed with her or not – was a conviction politician who had vision and principle.
No one who has followed Mr Starmer’s career would ever accuse him of having any of the same attributes.
Frankly I don’t understand why Mrs Thatcher isn’t held up as an example by people from across the political spectrum. Here was a lower middle class grammar school girl who, by dint of hard work, determination and vision, succeeded in a male dominated world of entrenched privilege. She believed in a genuine meritocracy (far more than any PM since), and the empowerment of the individual who could live up to their potential without a stifling state. Much of this she achieved, which is, in no small measure, why she won successive large majority election victories.
She won over large numbers of working class voters, by making the Conservatives a party of aspiration, and creating a culture that rewarded hard work and enterprise.
What Starmer and “Starmerism” – if that really is a thing – have yet again failed to answer is ‘What is the current Labour party for? Whose interests do they seek to serve and promote?’
It’s certainly not workers. Except maybe some of those in the public sector. Most of the working class, whose interests the party was founded to serve, have long been an embarrassment to the Labour leadership. Emily Thornberry’s Van & St George’s Flag tweet, and Gordon Brown’s encounter with Gillian Duffy, were just moments that publicly laid bare a view that has been prevalent within Labour HQ for years.
Blair started the rot – and you, Mr McTernan, played your part in that, when you dismissed working class supporters as the “lumpen mass with their half-formed thoughts and fully-formed prejudices”, and urged the party to ignore them and focus instead on ethnic minority voters, who could be attracted to Labour by stoking their sense of grievance.
The Labour front bench of recent years, whether NuLabour centrists or unreconstructed Trots, seems to have an agenda completely at odds with the hopes, fears and aspirations of their former heartlands – yet still imagined those red wall voters were “theirs” by right.
It was you who advised your party to ignore this previous core vote (in the mistaken belief that they’d stick with Labour no matter what). Can you imagine any other large section of the electorate being treated with such contempt?
And then the Labour hierarchy and their useful idiots in the media, having sneered and turned your backs, are shocked when such voters defect to the Tories and the Brexit Party?
You reap what you sow.
Rother Valley, Don Valley, Leigh, Bishop Auckland, Bolsover, Sedgefield, Wakefield … I could go on. These places had been Labour for generations. If you’d suggested not that many years ago to voters in any of those places that they’d ever vote Tory you’d have been laughed at. Yet after years of being ignored and insulted by successive Labour leaders they produced double digit swings from Labour to Conservative.
The reasons so many of these “Red Wall” voters gave was precisely that Labour no longer represented them, their concerns or aspirations. They’d been ignored for years, and if they made such concerns known they’d be dismissed as bigots and racists – just as you dismissed them.
I appreciate that the metroplitan left loathe the Conservative party and are thus desperate to have a Labour leader they can love like Tony Blair – but Starmer really isn’t ever going to be that guy – however much they click their sparkly red pumps together and repeat “There’s no place like Sedgefield”.
The unfortunate love-child of Max Headroom and Gordon Brittas, Starmer is an uninspiring, charisma-free technocrat, with no instinct for leadership. He lacks the authenticity to actually emulate Mrs Thatcher, so appears to be trying to follow the Blair method of appearing to be all things to all men, and saying whatever he thinks the audience to whom he’s currently speaking want to hear most. He’s a North London fauxialist who seems to have wafer thin policy positions backed up by no principles whatsoever.
Starmer’s 4 years of agitating to overturn Brexit, kneeling to BLM, and then imagining that just cynically draping himself in the flag because a focus group told him (much to his surprise) that most people don’t actually despise Britain, or wish to see the monarchy abolished, is not going to win back red wall voters nor appeal outside the base.
Whilst it is very possible that he’ll be our next PM – heaven help us – it will be because the Conservatives lost, rather than Starmer winning.
“John McTernan is a British political strategist and former advisor to Tony Blair.”
In other word’s, a self-confessed Blairite spinmonkey. I wouldn’t trust this man if he swore on his granny’s grave.
It shows in the article.
Presumably, he will now advise Starmer to invade a middle-eastern country, hopefully one without any weapons.
Qatar perhaps?
Morning Charles, you’re up early 🙂 What about Burma/Myanmar the locals would welcome us and we could improve our trade with China?
Ah yes, “The road to Mandalay” certainly has nostalgic appeal, but is well beyond our means, given our puny military profile.
Doesn’t the regime in Myanmar depend on China for protection? I don’t think China would appreciate any British war ships interfering in their sphere of influence – that would be the end of your trade with China!
Ah yes, “The road to Mandalay” certainly has nostalgic appeal, but is well beyond our means, given our puny military profile.
Doesn’t the regime in Myanmar depend on China for protection? I don’t think China would appreciate any British war ships interfering in their sphere of influence – that would be the end of your trade with China!
Morning Charles, you’re up early 🙂 What about Burma/Myanmar the locals would welcome us and we could improve our trade with China?
Qatar perhaps?
Even his granny wouldn’t, probably.
It shows in the article.
Presumably, he will now advise Starmer to invade a middle-eastern country, hopefully one without any weapons.
Even his granny wouldn’t, probably.
“John McTernan is a British political strategist and former advisor to Tony Blair.”
In other word’s, a self-confessed Blairite spinmonkey. I wouldn’t trust this man if he swore on his granny’s grave.
What a load of blather and nonsense. One of the striking things about Margaret Thatcher, frequently attested to, was her personal kindness to people from across the political divide. She would have been disgusted at this attempt to smear Sunak.
What a load of blather and nonsense. One of the striking things about Margaret Thatcher, frequently attested to, was her personal kindness to people from across the political divide. She would have been disgusted at this attempt to smear Sunak.
If Sir Keir has some clear principles and a plan for Britain, he ought to tell us clearly what it is. The lack of any such plan is his biggest weakness. And trying to smear Sunak as a paedophile-hugger only undelines the fact that Labour does not have any plans or principles to show, since they prefer to fall back on mudslinging.
Spelling out clear plans for the future is not a wise tactic for politicians seeking election victory. Not only do such plans bind them to delivery but they can easily be stolen or gazumped by the opposition. Best to keep the campaign indistinct but optimistic – and of course, focus attention on the dreadful record of the party in power. “Time for a change” is ever the message from the opposition (whatever the party). Don’t you just love democracy.
And that anti-Sunak smear? Just an attempt to divert attention away from Labour’s lofty moral failure to deal with the grooming gangs. By the way, wasn’t Harriet Harman a supporter of PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange) back in the day?
This is one of the most maddening of all the fallacies in politics and – Surprise – it is only ever applied to Labour.
No-one has ever cautioned the Tories against setting out their plans to privatise the NHS just in case Labour pinch them. No-one has ever wrung their hands and told them not to anounce their plans to slash corporation tax or increase tuition fees in case the lefties steal their thunder.
And there aren’t many properly labour policies that the Tories would nick either – re-establish the right to protest! Re-nationalise the railways/water/power! Build council housing! Introduce rent controls! Free Julian Assange!
There are, of course, policies that can be nicked – the recent windfall tax on energy companies for example – but, where a strong case has been made, it is the party that first proposed it (Labour) who gets credit with the Government looking weak for caving in to oppposition demands.
The only way to screw this up is to allow your demands to be so small that the Government can go further than you suggested so that you get outflanked. You must judge for yourself whether Starmer’s Labour allowed that to happen.
And besides, all of this is to confuse politics for Government. In the former, you are triangulating, using eye-catching policies in order to get elected. In the latter, you advcate for the things you think are in the national interest even when you are in opposition. If the Government of the day then does the thing you advocate, then you haven’t suffered by having to think of new policies in the national interest, you have actually benefitted the nation by getting a beneficial poicy enacted – even whilst in opposition.
And the effect of dispensing this misguided nugget of “wisdom” at Labour (and only Labour)? Well, the party never has a mandate for anything remotely ambitious does it? Because if you didn’t set it out in your manifesto before the election you can’t do it whilst you’re in power, can you?
So, please, less of the “indistinct optimism”.
This is one of the most maddening of all the fallacies in politics and – Surprise – it is only ever applied to Labour.
No-one has ever cautioned the Tories against setting out their plans to privatise the NHS just in case Labour pinch them. No-one has ever wrung their hands and told them not to anounce their plans to slash corporation tax or increase tuition fees in case the lefties steal their thunder.
And there aren’t many properly labour policies that the Tories would nick either – re-establish the right to protest! Re-nationalise the railways/water/power! Build council housing! Introduce rent controls! Free Julian Assange!
There are, of course, policies that can be nicked – the recent windfall tax on energy companies for example – but, where a strong case has been made, it is the party that first proposed it (Labour) who gets credit with the Government looking weak for caving in to oppposition demands.
The only way to screw this up is to allow your demands to be so small that the Government can go further than you suggested so that you get outflanked. You must judge for yourself whether Starmer’s Labour allowed that to happen.
And besides, all of this is to confuse politics for Government. In the former, you are triangulating, using eye-catching policies in order to get elected. In the latter, you advcate for the things you think are in the national interest even when you are in opposition. If the Government of the day then does the thing you advocate, then you haven’t suffered by having to think of new policies in the national interest, you have actually benefitted the nation by getting a beneficial poicy enacted – even whilst in opposition.
And the effect of dispensing this misguided nugget of “wisdom” at Labour (and only Labour)? Well, the party never has a mandate for anything remotely ambitious does it? Because if you didn’t set it out in your manifesto before the election you can’t do it whilst you’re in power, can you?
So, please, less of the “indistinct optimism”.
I thought his stand to protect Pakistani rape gangs was principled
Spelling out clear plans for the future is not a wise tactic for politicians seeking election victory. Not only do such plans bind them to delivery but they can easily be stolen or gazumped by the opposition. Best to keep the campaign indistinct but optimistic – and of course, focus attention on the dreadful record of the party in power. “Time for a change” is ever the message from the opposition (whatever the party). Don’t you just love democracy.
And that anti-Sunak smear? Just an attempt to divert attention away from Labour’s lofty moral failure to deal with the grooming gangs. By the way, wasn’t Harriet Harman a supporter of PIE (Paedophile Information Exchange) back in the day?
I thought his stand to protect Pakistani rape gangs was principled
If Sir Keir has some clear principles and a plan for Britain, he ought to tell us clearly what it is. The lack of any such plan is his biggest weakness. And trying to smear Sunak as a paedophile-hugger only undelines the fact that Labour does not have any plans or principles to show, since they prefer to fall back on mudslinging.
Net zero will be the rock on which Labour crashes and burns.
Unfortunately for the people, only after attaining government.
Indeed. But as all three main parties support Net Zero then crash and burn is baked in. Of course at some point the party in power. will have to cancel Net Zero – bit like a game of pass the parcel
Indeed. But as all three main parties support Net Zero then crash and burn is baked in. Of course at some point the party in power. will have to cancel Net Zero – bit like a game of pass the parcel
Net zero will be the rock on which Labour crashes and burns.
Unfortunately for the people, only after attaining government.
“Does this get us to Net Zero faster?”
How many gravestones will this have to be etched into I wonder.
“Does this get us to Net Zero faster?”
How many gravestones will this have to be etched into I wonder.
I read the “big spending bet” – “Green and digital future” document linked to. Ignoring the policy content, it’s really, really badly written. Turgid, committee output. Weasleness words like ‘co-ordinating’, ‘assessing’, ‘safeguarding’, ‘harnessing’, ‘driving forward’. But that’s what a lot of politics feels like now. Too many bland and empty statements and overlong sentences. It matches my impression of Mr Starmer, and too many politicians I’m afraid.
And this is before even thinking about whether “Net Zero” chimes with voters’ needs. Put it this way, what we want is cheap, clean, abundant electricity. Fix that and switching away from fossil fuels becomes a no-brainer. If you don’t fix it, then every step of net zero is a battle of increased regulation, legal compulsion, and cost to voters – not a great sales pitch.
Thanks for doing that for us and sparing us the pain. Sounds like the Ed Stone expanded out into a longer format.
Thanks for doing that for us and sparing us the pain. Sounds like the Ed Stone expanded out into a longer format.
I read the “big spending bet” – “Green and digital future” document linked to. Ignoring the policy content, it’s really, really badly written. Turgid, committee output. Weasleness words like ‘co-ordinating’, ‘assessing’, ‘safeguarding’, ‘harnessing’, ‘driving forward’. But that’s what a lot of politics feels like now. Too many bland and empty statements and overlong sentences. It matches my impression of Mr Starmer, and too many politicians I’m afraid.
And this is before even thinking about whether “Net Zero” chimes with voters’ needs. Put it this way, what we want is cheap, clean, abundant electricity. Fix that and switching away from fossil fuels becomes a no-brainer. If you don’t fix it, then every step of net zero is a battle of increased regulation, legal compulsion, and cost to voters – not a great sales pitch.
“And while parachuting in allies may make for crude politics, it also makes for success.”
Perhaps temporary success for a political party, but not long term success for the country. A politicised public service (you might start at the top but it will percolate throughout) is based on ideology, not competence at public administration. What happens when governments change? Constant churn and change of direction doesn’t create a public service that learns from its mistakes/experience; it does create a demoralised, unprincipled public service that never learns how to run anything properly.
“And while parachuting in allies may make for crude politics, it also makes for success.”
Perhaps temporary success for a political party, but not long term success for the country. A politicised public service (you might start at the top but it will percolate throughout) is based on ideology, not competence at public administration. What happens when governments change? Constant churn and change of direction doesn’t create a public service that learns from its mistakes/experience; it does create a demoralised, unprincipled public service that never learns how to run anything properly.
‘For Starmer, his office-defining challenge will be climate change. ‘
Starmer is coming for your gas boilers.
‘But if Starmer wants this to actually happen, his No. 10 operation has to keep asking: “Does this get us to Net Zero faster?”’
If Britain goes Net Zero tomorrow, the temperature in 2100 will be reduced by 0.01 degrees Centigrade compared to if Britain does not reduce emissions.
We need this to happen.
Even that is probably an exaggeration.
Even that is probably an exaggeration.
‘For Starmer, his office-defining challenge will be climate change. ‘
Starmer is coming for your gas boilers.
‘But if Starmer wants this to actually happen, his No. 10 operation has to keep asking: “Does this get us to Net Zero faster?”’
If Britain goes Net Zero tomorrow, the temperature in 2100 will be reduced by 0.01 degrees Centigrade compared to if Britain does not reduce emissions.
We need this to happen.
So NetZero 2050 is the big selling point for Labour. And they are setting aside £28 billion per year to do this.
The latest Treasury estimate for achieving NetZero in 2050 is a total of £3 trillion. We all know about Treasury estimates so let’s double this to £6 trillion. According to my mental arithmetic, this amounts to £250 billion per year for the next 27 years. We, the taxpayer, will pay about 10% of this but who will pay the other 90%?
According to the theory, a lot of Green jobs will be created and that would be good – as long as those jobs are not governmental jobs, funded by the tax payer – which would be taking money from one pot to transfer it into another. Even if the jobs are from private industry, there will have to be a lot of tax concessions or they could just go to Ireland. So, £25 billion per year doesn’t seem to work. Quelle surprise!
PS. If my memory serves me well, pensions in the UK will cost about £200 billion per year.
PPS. They are cutting down trees in Brazil now so that companies involved in the Carbon Offset business can site new solar panels, Brazil having the right type of climate.
Don’t worry. Diane Abbott has run a slide rule over the numbers and it all adds up.
That’s a cheap shot, Starmer is to blame not DA
But God is!
But God is!
That’s a cheap shot, Starmer is to blame not DA
Yes, green blob idiots don’t understand basic maths and completely ignore lack of commitments from other big polluters like China and India to do anything about.
Then we have overpopulation in 3rd World.
We all hear about them wanting to have xyz like the West.
But West population did not quadruple or worse in the last 60 years….
Don’t worry. Diane Abbott has run a slide rule over the numbers and it all adds up.
Yes, green blob idiots don’t understand basic maths and completely ignore lack of commitments from other big polluters like China and India to do anything about.
Then we have overpopulation in 3rd World.
We all hear about them wanting to have xyz like the West.
But West population did not quadruple or worse in the last 60 years….
So NetZero 2050 is the big selling point for Labour. And they are setting aside £28 billion per year to do this.
The latest Treasury estimate for achieving NetZero in 2050 is a total of £3 trillion. We all know about Treasury estimates so let’s double this to £6 trillion. According to my mental arithmetic, this amounts to £250 billion per year for the next 27 years. We, the taxpayer, will pay about 10% of this but who will pay the other 90%?
According to the theory, a lot of Green jobs will be created and that would be good – as long as those jobs are not governmental jobs, funded by the tax payer – which would be taking money from one pot to transfer it into another. Even if the jobs are from private industry, there will have to be a lot of tax concessions or they could just go to Ireland. So, £25 billion per year doesn’t seem to work. Quelle surprise!
PS. If my memory serves me well, pensions in the UK will cost about £200 billion per year.
PPS. They are cutting down trees in Brazil now so that companies involved in the Carbon Offset business can site new solar panels, Brazil having the right type of climate.
Article from an ex new Lab spin doctor, supportive of Starmer and encouraging resurrection of a blizzard of Blairites. If anything gonna generate a spike in Unherd clientele aggregated hypertension this was it. Brilliant.
And breathe.
“…resurrection of a blizzard of Blairites” – strange turn of phrase. Hard to picture a few grey-suited political has-beens amounting to much of a blizzard. Sadly, that hoped-for hypertension high did not materialise – maybe next time. Brilliant?! You are too easily impressed.
Anyway, who will be most rattled by the prospect of such a resurrection blizzard – the Tories or the Blair-allergic Labour Left? Yes, it’s an interesting one isn’t it.
And wheeze.
“…resurrection of a blizzard of Blairites” – strange turn of phrase. Hard to picture a few grey-suited political has-beens amounting to much of a blizzard. Sadly, that hoped-for hypertension high did not materialise – maybe next time. Brilliant?! You are too easily impressed.
Anyway, who will be most rattled by the prospect of such a resurrection blizzard – the Tories or the Blair-allergic Labour Left? Yes, it’s an interesting one isn’t it.
And wheeze.
Article from an ex new Lab spin doctor, supportive of Starmer and encouraging resurrection of a blizzard of Blairites. If anything gonna generate a spike in Unherd clientele aggregated hypertension this was it. Brilliant.
And breathe.
I can think of absolutely nothing about Starmer that Thatcher would have admired!
I suspect she’d have instinctively respected someone who’d have risen to be Director of Public Prosecution, a proper job, even if she had reservations about their politics.
I suspect she’d have instinctively respected someone who’d have risen to be Director of Public Prosecution, a proper job, even if she had reservations about their politics.
I can think of absolutely nothing about Starmer that Thatcher would have admired!
Even in its own terms this article doesn’t make logical sense. “What matters is what works” is a statement of pragmatism above ideology. But the article itself claims Thatcher was about a definite vision and approach. That she was ideological.
Blair may have been the heir to Thatcher, but Starmer is the opposite of Thatcher. Thatcher knew what she thought. Even to the extent of criticizing the new design on the tail plane for British Airways as it was being unveiled to her. She was definite even about that.
Starmer doesn’t have a single opinion he will defend even at minor cost. To borrow from the great Tony Benn the difference is that Thatcher was a “signpost” clearly pointing at one destination and indicating one route to it. Starmer is a “weathervane” constantly indicating the direction of the wind even for a few seconds.
Even in its own terms this article doesn’t make logical sense. “What matters is what works” is a statement of pragmatism above ideology. But the article itself claims Thatcher was about a definite vision and approach. That she was ideological.
Blair may have been the heir to Thatcher, but Starmer is the opposite of Thatcher. Thatcher knew what she thought. Even to the extent of criticizing the new design on the tail plane for British Airways as it was being unveiled to her. She was definite even about that.
Starmer doesn’t have a single opinion he will defend even at minor cost. To borrow from the great Tony Benn the difference is that Thatcher was a “signpost” clearly pointing at one destination and indicating one route to it. Starmer is a “weathervane” constantly indicating the direction of the wind even for a few seconds.
I can’t read this BS. It’s all about positioning and political gamesmanship. Absolutely nothing about what you actually believe and want to do. New Labour to the core. Just PR. Media before policy. Always.
They still don’t understand Thatcher. Policy before media.
If they think these ads are smart, they’re even more stupid than I thought they were.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a group of people who are so persistently out of touch with what ordinary people think and want and decline all opportunities to listen or learn.
In fact, I’m starting to get the sense that Labour will lose the next election. Purely because they won’t be able to establish that they’re any better than the Tories. The Labour front bench is shockingly poor – not a single person I’d consider employing. The Tories are useless, but they do occasionally find someone who isn’t a complete fool or incompetent.
I can’t read this BS. It’s all about positioning and political gamesmanship. Absolutely nothing about what you actually believe and want to do. New Labour to the core. Just PR. Media before policy. Always.
They still don’t understand Thatcher. Policy before media.
If they think these ads are smart, they’re even more stupid than I thought they were.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a group of people who are so persistently out of touch with what ordinary people think and want and decline all opportunities to listen or learn.
In fact, I’m starting to get the sense that Labour will lose the next election. Purely because they won’t be able to establish that they’re any better than the Tories. The Labour front bench is shockingly poor – not a single person I’d consider employing. The Tories are useless, but they do occasionally find someone who isn’t a complete fool or incompetent.
I have tried to find out exactly what sort of world the Tories and Labour are trying achieve without success. It seems that both parties just want to be in power, but without any stated long term plan over what they are trying to achieve. This article gives me little hope that things will change. Maybe Jordan Peterson’s ARC will produce a vision all can subscrbe to?
I have tried to find out exactly what sort of world the Tories and Labour are trying achieve without success. It seems that both parties just want to be in power, but without any stated long term plan over what they are trying to achieve. This article gives me little hope that things will change. Maybe Jordan Peterson’s ARC will produce a vision all can subscrbe to?
As Officers need to be moved out of counterterrorism in order to try and clean up the Police, remember that Keir Starmer’s reaction to Baroness Casey and to Dame Rachel de Souza was instead to quote favourably from a 1975 speech by Margaret Thatcher, in which she vilified the Shrewsbury 24 and the Clay Cross Councillors, setting the scene for the policing of the Miners’ Strike, for the clubbing of pregnant women at the Battle of the Beanfield, for Hillsborough, and so on. It is scandalously downplaying the role of spycops against trade unions, and the role of the Government in blacklisting trade unionists, but the Undercover Policing Inquiry is making it clear that the likes of Starmer are unfit for public life.
Illustrating that further, and using an old trick of the light, Starmer’s attack adds have made Rishi Sunak’s skin darker. I am the first to say that politics is a rough old trade, but really? Why is anyone still in the Labour Party? Mind you, it has always been like this. 20 years ago this month, a Statement of Persons Nominated was published without my name on it because the then Government Chief Whip, and purely hereditary Member of Parliament for North West Durham, had forbidden my Branch Labour Party from holding a selection meeting at all rather than allow it to nominate a mixed-race candidate in her constituency. Despite chairing the Branch at that time and for several years previously, the first that I heard of any of this was when I was shown the nomination papers in the pub, bearing instead the name of a lilywhite member of her staff who not only failed to be elected, but took a senior Councillor down with him. After decades of calling me a “Mulatto”, he was recently named in the Forde Report as having used the Angry Black Woman trope against Diane Abbott.
As Officers need to be moved out of counterterrorism in order to try and clean up the Police, remember that Keir Starmer’s reaction to Baroness Casey and to Dame Rachel de Souza was instead to quote favourably from a 1975 speech by Margaret Thatcher, in which she vilified the Shrewsbury 24 and the Clay Cross Councillors, setting the scene for the policing of the Miners’ Strike, for the clubbing of pregnant women at the Battle of the Beanfield, for Hillsborough, and so on. It is scandalously downplaying the role of spycops against trade unions, and the role of the Government in blacklisting trade unionists, but the Undercover Policing Inquiry is making it clear that the likes of Starmer are unfit for public life.
Illustrating that further, and using an old trick of the light, Starmer’s attack adds have made Rishi Sunak’s skin darker. I am the first to say that politics is a rough old trade, but really? Why is anyone still in the Labour Party? Mind you, it has always been like this. 20 years ago this month, a Statement of Persons Nominated was published without my name on it because the then Government Chief Whip, and purely hereditary Member of Parliament for North West Durham, had forbidden my Branch Labour Party from holding a selection meeting at all rather than allow it to nominate a mixed-race candidate in her constituency. Despite chairing the Branch at that time and for several years previously, the first that I heard of any of this was when I was shown the nomination papers in the pub, bearing instead the name of a lilywhite member of her staff who not only failed to be elected, but took a senior Councillor down with him. After decades of calling me a “Mulatto”, he was recently named in the Forde Report as having used the Angry Black Woman trope against Diane Abbott.
“Does this get us to Net Zero faster?”
Unless the answer they’re looking for is “no”, we must all hope this isn’t their guiding question.
Global, gradual Net Zero is a reasonable aim, though elevated CO2 has arguably done more good than harm so far.
Rapid, national Net Zero is insanity. Economic suicide.
“Does this get us to Net Zero faster?”
Unless the answer they’re looking for is “no”, we must all hope this isn’t their guiding question.
Global, gradual Net Zero is a reasonable aim, though elevated CO2 has arguably done more good than harm so far.
Rapid, national Net Zero is insanity. Economic suicide.
Cause Unherd is obviously the place where Starmer comes looking for “advice”.
Cause Unherd is obviously the place where Starmer comes looking for “advice”.
I doubt Thatcher saw any horizon beyond fog. Starmer can’t see next week, maybe a shimmering mirage of bogueyman climate change. He has no visionaries on the Front bench and ideologues in the back office. Were he to have people with magic solutions, and that goes for Sunak, why aren’t they forming a political Party? How poor politics has become.
Oh dear.i hope Sir Kneeler does use NetZero as his main idea. I can’t think of anything less appealing to voters than spending even more of their income on it to keep Davos billionaires happy.
And there, in that final pair of sentences, is the reason that nobody trusts people like McTernan and large chunks of the Labour leadership
“By then, Sunak’s Conservative Party will have evacuated the ground bestowed on it by Thatcher. Will Labour be bold enough to step in and seize it?”
He thinks that being heir to Thatcher’s legacy is an electoral asset. (And he might be right about that). The problem is that Starmer’s party is composed of people who don’t want to inherit Thatcher’s legacy but to overturn it. To seek to govern from that place, whilst using Labour’s electoral coalition as an electoral vehicle is structurally, fundamentally duplicitous.
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
Margaret Thatcher
And basically this is the game Labour are playing.
Every tweet that is not attack is absolutely bonkers. They will recruit more, build more, treat more and have higher growth. All the while taxing somebody-but not you
The reaction from the Echo Chamber is as amusing as ever. Thatcher wasn’t really a conviction politician in the early days, she was a pragmatist, who believed in what works. Only later, as she became progressively unhinged, did she become set in her ‘beliefs’.
Her tax policies were about redistribution in favour of her people, cutting the top rate of income tax and corporation tax but increasing VAT and National Insurance. The selling off of council housing was accompanied by an effective ban on building new affordable homes, leading to the current broken housing system. Our manufacturing base was destroyed by Nigel Lawson, using high interest rates and an overvalued currency, in favour of services, particularly the financial sector, leading to the current unbalanced economy.
Her government helped create and shape the Single Market, which her successors have left with nothing to replace it, with the expected hit to our economy.
Thatcher said her greatest legacy was Tony Blair, though, and she was right there, although he did a far better job to improve our public services, that people relied on, and have in turn been ravaged by austerity and 13 years of the Tory Party.
And of course any mention of Net Zero sets the Echo Chamber off, soiling themselves in their rage, but, as always, with no constructive alternative.
Enjoyed the article but, frankly, the last thing we need is the return of Thatcherism, or at least what it became.
I have an alternative. It is obvious. The problem with NetZero is the ‘Net’ part. This is a fudge factor which allows people and companies to play games. The ‘Net’ means that rich people can cheat if they pay up.
Zero by 2050 would be impossible. Why not just have an aim – so much CO2 per year by 2050? Admittedly, this doesn’t sound as neat but the NetZero is just a cheat.
I think you believe people on this site don’t care about the environment. I do. But I know that NetZero is totally meaningless. What about our 2042 target for removal of plastic from packaging. Isn’t that also the environment?
There are lots of problems with Net Zero, as currently articulated and ‘planned’, but for me the key is an acceptance that we need to do something radical. At the moment Net Zero is the best we’ve got, although less than perfect and needing a lot more work.
Attitudes like this show why it will fail. If this is so big, and I believe that it is, the old-fashioned way – not telling the electorate – is bound to fail. Next week parliament is discussing pylons in Norfolk. Everybody wants green energy but nobody wants pylons. The cost of underground is 50 times that of overhead. So, people have to buy into this at the beginning.
Really, the government is waiting for people to die. If the young are brainwashed, the old have to die. This is unreal.
Do I think the current government, a monument to incompetence, can deliver this, then ‘No’. So yes, people have to buy into this, but the only way this will happen is by first defeating the Climate Deniers and getting acceptance that it is maybe the major challenge of our age, and only radical change will work.
Do I think the current government, a monument to incompetence, can deliver this, then ‘No’. So yes, people have to buy into this, but the only way this will happen is by first defeating the Climate Deniers and getting acceptance that it is maybe the major challenge of our age, and only radical change will work.
O yes, absolutely. It’s so important to do something “radical,” even though it has zero chance of working. It will not affect “climate change” one whit, while also destroying the economy of Britain. In the same way many of the same people said something “radical” had to be done about Covid, even though it was radically wrong–180 degrees opposite of what should have been done–Sweden being the only country proven to be right.
The rich will be fine, of course, they always are. (Just for fun, billionaires gained over 3 trillion dollars in wealth during Covid and after, while ordinary people lost over 3 trillion. Funny how that happened, huh? Radical to be sure.) But the economic lives of regular people will be gutted by Net Zero nonsense.
But, by all means, let’s keep being radical, and make Net Zero the central aim of Labour! That way they can beat even the feckless Tories in the race to destroy Britain.
Attitudes like this show why it will fail. If this is so big, and I believe that it is, the old-fashioned way – not telling the electorate – is bound to fail. Next week parliament is discussing pylons in Norfolk. Everybody wants green energy but nobody wants pylons. The cost of underground is 50 times that of overhead. So, people have to buy into this at the beginning.
Really, the government is waiting for people to die. If the young are brainwashed, the old have to die. This is unreal.
O yes, absolutely. It’s so important to do something “radical,” even though it has zero chance of working. It will not affect “climate change” one whit, while also destroying the economy of Britain. In the same way many of the same people said something “radical” had to be done about Covid, even though it was radically wrong–180 degrees opposite of what should have been done–Sweden being the only country proven to be right.
The rich will be fine, of course, they always are. (Just for fun, billionaires gained over 3 trillion dollars in wealth during Covid and after, while ordinary people lost over 3 trillion. Funny how that happened, huh? Radical to be sure.) But the economic lives of regular people will be gutted by Net Zero nonsense.
But, by all means, let’s keep being radical, and make Net Zero the central aim of Labour! That way they can beat even the feckless Tories in the race to destroy Britain.
There are lots of problems with Net Zero, as currently articulated and ‘planned’, but for me the key is an acceptance that we need to do something radical. At the moment Net Zero is the best we’ve got, although less than perfect and needing a lot more work.
What drivel!
You sound like a superannuated ventriloquist’s dummy spewing out the same old Marxist piffle, again and again and again.
Return to Twitter where they ‘appreciate’ such nonsense.
A footballer in the 1930s, Len Shackleton, wrote his autobiography which included a chapter entitled ‘What the Average Director Knows About Football’ which was just a blank page. If Unherd are considering a book any chapter headed ‘The Wit and Wisdom of Charles Stanhope’ will need a similar approach.
Well that is certainly better than your rather inauspicious and semi literate advent on this forum about eight weeks ago, but there is still room for massive improvement.
You must do better if you wish to be taken seriously or you must return to your natural home,‘Twitter’.
Well that is certainly better than your rather inauspicious and semi literate advent on this forum about eight weeks ago, but there is still room for massive improvement.
You must do better if you wish to be taken seriously or you must return to your natural home,‘Twitter’.
A footballer in the 1930s, Len Shackleton, wrote his autobiography which included a chapter entitled ‘What the Average Director Knows About Football’ which was just a blank page. If Unherd are considering a book any chapter headed ‘The Wit and Wisdom of Charles Stanhope’ will need a similar approach.
I think you either weren’t around during Thatcher’s time as PM or you did a “Brian Wilson” and just zoned out for the entire period. I can’t see any other way to explain your delusion here.
If Margaret Thatcher wasn’t a conviction politician no one is.
And she did plenty of stuff that didn’t work (along with all the stuff that did).
The legacy quote about Blair is *not* an endorsement of Blair as you affect to believe. It’s simply her stating the fact that she had completely neutralised Labour and socialism. The ideological argument of the 1970s had been won.
Funny also how you zoom in on a Thatcher quote you like from her later “unhinged” period !
This isn’t an echo chamber. But most people here don’t suffer fools gladly. In common with Margaret Thatcher.
And yet the site is stuffed with fools who you suffer all too gladly. There are some people who give an impression of independent thought but largely it’s a Poundland Daily Telegraph, right wing for dummies vibe.
So why do you come here then ? How does it help you to voluntarily hang out with fools and idiots ? And what do you learn ?
You can choose to challenge your preconceptions and prejudices or live in a narrow echo chamber. It’s useful to try and understand what drives other people.
As I said, there are a few original thinkers on the site, but most are like you, just parroting the standard right wing line without thinking or really understanding what they’re saying.
And I signed up to Unherd for the articles basically.
In fact ‘Twitter’ Murray you seem to be a perfect example of a ‘lumpen mass with your half-formed thoughts and fully-formed prejudices’, as your ‘Commissars’ are wont to say.
Thanks for keeping it so cordial. Not in the least offended to be considered not original.
You’re right. I’m too cheap to actually pay for a Telegraph (or anything else aside from UnHerd) subscription.
But why read the comments then ? Why not just stick to the articles if they’re good and the comments are rubbish ?
Like you, I’m trying to understand what drives people. Though still struggling in your case !
In fact ‘Twitter’ Murray you seem to be a perfect example of a ‘lumpen mass with your half-formed thoughts and fully-formed prejudices’, as your ‘Commissars’ are wont to say.
Thanks for keeping it so cordial. Not in the least offended to be considered not original.
You’re right. I’m too cheap to actually pay for a Telegraph (or anything else aside from UnHerd) subscription.
But why read the comments then ? Why not just stick to the articles if they’re good and the comments are rubbish ?
Like you, I’m trying to understand what drives people. Though still struggling in your case !
You can choose to challenge your preconceptions and prejudices or live in a narrow echo chamber. It’s useful to try and understand what drives other people.
As I said, there are a few original thinkers on the site, but most are like you, just parroting the standard right wing line without thinking or really understanding what they’re saying.
And I signed up to Unherd for the articles basically.
So why do you come here then ? How does it help you to voluntarily hang out with fools and idiots ? And what do you learn ?
And yet the site is stuffed with fools who you suffer all too gladly. There are some people who give an impression of independent thought but largely it’s a Poundland Daily Telegraph, right wing for dummies vibe.
I have an alternative. It is obvious. The problem with NetZero is the ‘Net’ part. This is a fudge factor which allows people and companies to play games. The ‘Net’ means that rich people can cheat if they pay up.
Zero by 2050 would be impossible. Why not just have an aim – so much CO2 per year by 2050? Admittedly, this doesn’t sound as neat but the NetZero is just a cheat.
I think you believe people on this site don’t care about the environment. I do. But I know that NetZero is totally meaningless. What about our 2042 target for removal of plastic from packaging. Isn’t that also the environment?
What drivel!
You sound like a superannuated ventriloquist’s dummy spewing out the same old Marxist piffle, again and again and again.
Return to Twitter where they ‘appreciate’ such nonsense.
I think you either weren’t around during Thatcher’s time as PM or you did a “Brian Wilson” and just zoned out for the entire period. I can’t see any other way to explain your delusion here.
If Margaret Thatcher wasn’t a conviction politician no one is.
And she did plenty of stuff that didn’t work (along with all the stuff that did).
The legacy quote about Blair is *not* an endorsement of Blair as you affect to believe. It’s simply her stating the fact that she had completely neutralised Labour and socialism. The ideological argument of the 1970s had been won.
Funny also how you zoom in on a Thatcher quote you like from her later “unhinged” period !
This isn’t an echo chamber. But most people here don’t suffer fools gladly. In common with Margaret Thatcher.
The reaction from the Echo Chamber is as amusing as ever. Thatcher wasn’t really a conviction politician in the early days, she was a pragmatist, who believed in what works. Only later, as she became progressively unhinged, did she become set in her ‘beliefs’.
Her tax policies were about redistribution in favour of her people, cutting the top rate of income tax and corporation tax but increasing VAT and National Insurance. The selling off of council housing was accompanied by an effective ban on building new affordable homes, leading to the current broken housing system. Our manufacturing base was destroyed by Nigel Lawson, using high interest rates and an overvalued currency, in favour of services, particularly the financial sector, leading to the current unbalanced economy.
Her government helped create and shape the Single Market, which her successors have left with nothing to replace it, with the expected hit to our economy.
Thatcher said her greatest legacy was Tony Blair, though, and she was right there, although he did a far better job to improve our public services, that people relied on, and have in turn been ravaged by austerity and 13 years of the Tory Party.
And of course any mention of Net Zero sets the Echo Chamber off, soiling themselves in their rage, but, as always, with no constructive alternative.
Enjoyed the article but, frankly, the last thing we need is the return of Thatcherism, or at least what it became.