I think you're, perhaps deliberately, missing my point here. So for the avoidance of that again, my point is that the press have largely given Starmer a free ride because they don't believe he'll do anything particularly radical and - as you yourself intimated - he has 'considered' what he says at every turn precisely to avoid antagonising them/giving them any ammunition. My assertion is that won't matter a jot come election time and he'll still be on the receiving end of insane amounts of horseshit from the media, as proven by Beergate. And so he might as well fucking grow a pair and stand for something. Like the status quo positives you list, for example, but also on things as fundamentally batshit and deeply unethical about shipping refugees to camps in Rwanda.
But seriousness of purpose, ethics, and policy are equally important.
So far, he's definitely got the face for the first one, failed dismally with the second and continues to prevaricate on the third. D+
I think you're, perhaps deliberately, missing my point here. So for the avoidance of that again, my point is that the press have largely given Starmer a free ride because they don't believe he'll do anything particularly radical and - as you yourself intimated - he has 'considered' what he says at every turn precisely to avoid antagonising them/giving them any ammunition. My assertion is that won't matter a jot come election time and he'll still be on the receiving end of insane amounts of horseshit from the media, as proven by Beergate. And so he might as well fucking grow a pair and stand for something. Like the status quo positives you list, for example, but also on things as fundamentally batshit and deeply unethical about shipping refugees to camps in Rwanda.
So far, he's definitely got the face for the first one, failed dismally with the second and continues to prevaricate on the third. D+