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.
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?
Yep. And the word visionary specifically refers to planning a future with wisdom.
So no you are incorrect. When someone uses the term visionary. They are very much suggesting they think the ideals moved towards were wise.
While it is entirly possible that David Lamy made the same mistake you have.
Criticism of his use of the word is not incorrect.
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.
Because she’s the most recent example.
Everyone who came after has just been a bland Prime Minister who doesn’t really want to do anything.