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