That Starmer fella...

Speech today was a stinger.

Interesting thread. I didnt appreciate this:

Especially when we know, for instance, that those 2019 Lab->Con defectors are very socially
conservative.

In fact, they're more socially conservative than an average 2019 Tory voter. Which highlights
Labour's difficulty in reaching them.

Starmer's at his best when he reduces the benches opposite to silence. Chaos and braying favours Johnson.

Open goal missed today? He could've asked the PM "What is a Woman"?

Open goal missed today? He could've asked the PM "What is a Woman"?

I don't see that working. The reason Labour gets tied in knots on the issue is that they want to define the word 'woman' inclusively, so that it includes trans women. Boris couldn't give a fuck about excluding trans people, and in fact is deliberately seeking to start a culture war against them, so imo this would just play into his hands.

^ this. All Johnson has to say is ‘how preposterous that Labour needs to define what is perfectly obvious to everyone’ and he’ll have successfully made Labour look too ‘woke’ for socially conservative swing voters - it’s not a great gambit for Labour IMHO.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/rachel-reeves-rishi-sunak-non-dom-labour-economic-credibility-1634745

Starmer's spokesman has declined to say whether Labour would cancel the Rwanda policy if in government, though deeply critical of the policy's cost and efficiency. But declines to clarify if Starmer believes it is morally wrong.

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1537049789577183235

.

Not sure why you deleted your comment, he does himself no favours and when he has a chance to differentiate himself from the Tories just seems to avoid it

Starmer's spokesman has declined to say whether Labour would cancel the Rwanda policy if in government, though deeply critical of the policy's cost and efficiency. But declines to clarify if Starmer believes it is morally wrong.

That seems like a problem with the spokesman rather than with Starmer, who has already called the policy morally wrong.

On TV.

Multiple times.

https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1518176186186276864

Any idea what the context of this is? I can only see that tweet relating to it and other reporting that seems to be based on that.

Comes to something when a member of the Royal Family has more to say about the Rwanda policy than the leader of the Opposition FFS

Is this BBC news clip meant to be a defense of his position because what he is saying is shockingly weak.

Any idea what the context of this is? I can only see that tweet relating to it and other reporting that seems to be based on that.

Utter confection. Makes the Corbyn ushanka story look like Watergate.

in that clip, he agrees with Yvette Cooper who said it was unethical, but didnt say (as he was asked) if he thought it was morally wrong. Perhaps the two phrases are equivalent.

Is this BBC news clip meant to be a defense of his position because what he is saying is shockingly weak.

It's not a defence, it's a direct refutation of the idea that Starmer has failed to call an unethical policy unethical.

Perhaps the two phrases are equivalent.

I'm sure there's some philosophical distinction between morals and ethics but what's clear is that Starmer has said multiple times that this policy is wrong.

Separated at birth?

2 Attachments

Well the initial accusation was that he (his spokesperson) refused to say that the policy would be cancelled, not that it was unethical. I don't think the two are equivalent.

I don't mind Starmer but I do think he came across as weak on that BBC interview. There seemed to be some unnecessary vagueness and equivocation, almost being lead by the interviewer. He could have condemned it in stronger terms right at the start.

I don't really understand why he struggled, it seems a pretty easy policy to be very strongly against.

I don't really understand why he struggled, it seems a pretty easy policy to be very strongly against.

If he came out strongly against it, the Tories would immediately be all over it saying he was weak on immigration. Which is what they want to be able to do.

I think Labour should have a mature policy on immigration, but the debate is so toxic these days that staying out of it is seen as the best policy. Which is an indictment of the political environment we leave in, cf. Brexit.

Well the initial accusation was that he (his spokesperson) refused to say that the policy would be cancelled, not that it was unethical. I don't think the two are equivalent.

The accusation I'm refuting is the second part of the sentence: "But declines to clarify if Starmer believes it is morally wrong."

Not sure why you deleted your comment, he does himself no favours and when he has a chance to differentiate himself from the Tories just seems to avoid it

60% of Tory voters think the Rwanda plan is a good idea. Only 20% think it is inhumane (the rest are do not knows)

Telling people they are wrong didn't work with leave/remain and it won't work for populist immigration policy either.

Telling people they are wrong didn't work with leave/remain and it won't work now either.

Repeat ad infinitum, unfortunately.

Ah yes, it appears I can't remember what I read five minutes ago.