-
People say all sorts of things as a shorthand, and I'd ask that people be a little less literal in their reading. The longhand version of the statement is that the Westminster consensus is bizarrely parochial and there's a great deal of political and economic thought outside of it that warrants attention. That the parties' overlap in rhetoric is often hard to listen to.
As I said in my first post, there are a lot of snap value judgements from both sides of this argument that aren't informative and only cause division, despite policy preferences being relatively aligned. The opposing statement is often held up as a gotcha too—"let's just get the Tories out"—as if it's a categorical statement and the subject in question warrants no further investigation.
And to be totally honest, this whole thing was because I was annoyed at someone being called a tankie for the crime of having ever-so-slightly more progressive views than the current Labour party, which is basically all of us. Ted's post was the stronger form of that argument so I thought it best to respond to that version.
You are reading a single comment by @slippers and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
slippers
I do accept that On Here the left criticism of Starmer tends to be a little more measured than in other parts of the internet, but all you need to do is head over to the This Fella Starmer thread to see people - who I've no reason to suspect are being dishonest - saying exactly that.