If people can’t understand words and how the context in which they’re used makes a difference, that’s not really David Lammy’s fault. Besides, the only people this would likely “infuriate” are the kind of cranks that don’t need an excuse to hate the Labour Party anyway.
I mean, what aspect of Lammy’s career suggests that he is in any way sympathetic to the Conservative Party or to conservative ideals?
Perhaps he should have chosen phrasing that was less likely to explode in his face.
For example, “Margaret Thatcher had horrible politics, but it appears she believed them. Let’s not talk about her anymore.” There, short, unambiguous, and he’d still get to mention Margaret Thatcher, which was apparently important to him.
He’s making the comparison because he wants the Labour Party to have the same kind of visionary spirit as someone like Thatcher. Not to copy the politics or ideology.
This is really not difficult. But because Thatcher is mentioned, everyone has a hissy fit.
Well yeah. There are other visionaries that haven’t damaged the UK as much as Thatcher, he could have mentioned them instead. But he didn’t - he made the decision to call Thatcher a visionary, same as Rachel Reeves did. It’s not just some arbitrary name he pulled out of a hat.
She managed to recreate our entire country in her image. After she retired she boasted that Tony Blair was her greatest legacy.
People have understandable reservations about this but the West has been living in her and Reagan’s world since they were in power.
I think it is clumsy for Lammy to phrase it this way but the case for her being a visionary is pretty compelling. Kier is making similar noises at the moment and the subtext of this is them making a soft pitch to Tory voters by implying that they will basically be New Labour if elected.
Add comment