-
I think I understand your point, I just don't see how the two facts you rely on for it to work can both be true: a) that the press has given Starmer a free ride because they don't think he's a threat, and b) that the press will eviscerate Starmer because they think he's a threat.
Starmer has very clearly said that he's against the policy both on practical, economic, and moral grounds. So has Cooper
. So has Lammy
. Labour's position is extremely clear. The only people pretending otherwise are those who think we should try what we tried in 2019 to see if it works any better second time around. I just don't think it's serious criticism.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+
Labour have been very clear about their moral position on this policy, and in terms of their own policies, have announced over 200 non covid related policies since 2019. I simply don't think your position is supported by the evidence.
ReekBlefs-
I think I understand your point, I just don't see how the two facts you rely on for it to work can both be true: a) that the press has given Starmer a free ride because they don't think he's a threat, and b) that the press will eviscerate Starmer because they think he's a threat.
These are not mutually exclusive.
The only people pretending otherwise are those who think we should try what we tried in 2019 to see if it works any better second time around.
LOL
Labour have been very clear about their moral position on this policy, and in terms of their own policies, have announced over 200 non covid related policies since 2019. I simply don't think your position is supported by the evidence.
If they've been that clear about it, why did his spokesman repeatedly refuse to say whether Starmer thought the policy was morally bankrupt yesterday? You appear to think he's been both very clear about Labour's moral position on the policy and also extremely smart in not being clear about Labour's moral position on it. Which is it? I just don't see how the two facts you rely on for it to work can both be true.
ketsbaia
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+