Opportunists Should Understand Concepts Like 'Forwards' and 'Backwards'

I've got a backlog of draft posts on various topics that have irritated or interested me over the past week or so. This is one of them; imagine I'm a heckler, these are my responses:

The prime minister said his public service reforms had allowed Labour to keep in touch with the public mood.

Or could it be the shitty voting system?

We know where that leads: to a right-wing Conservative government," he said. "Always has done, always will.

...Because of the shitty voting system

But the prime minister was defiant in his speech on Saturday, saying that the party's success was underlined by Tory leadership contenders "scrambling" to copy its policies.
Labour should continue to claim the "centre ground" in politics, he said.

Isn't moving to the centre making yourself closer to the right?

What we must not do is fall for some modern version of the old left delusion that the problem with the progressive government is that it is not left enough, and if only its leadership rediscovered its true principles all would be well.

You've basically said you haven't got any

Urging activists to remain focused on retaining power, he added that the party had to be organised as a "broad-based political movement" to keep in touch with voters' needs.

That's what happened in Japan in the 30s

Because to be in touch is to be in power and even if not in government, always to be a contender for it," he said.

What the fuck is this supposed to mean?

He keeps going on about being in touch, yet only ~30% of the population voted for him. Just because no-one has killed me, doesn't mean I can claim everyone loves me.

And for the millionth time, when it looks like someone might question them, tell them about the Tory bogeyman. It's like telling children they'll be taken away if they don't do what they're told, except this way nobody bothers to vote in the end. I'm still trying to figure-out whether I'll vote at the 2007 Scottish Parliament election.

[362]