-
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-
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?
Isn't it obvious? Either the spokesman wasn't aware that Starmer had already said he thought it was unethical months ago, and/or Labour believes counterarguments on cost and efficacy are more likely to work with the voters we need than those based around its obvious moral deficiencies. It doesn't strike me as being a huge mystery.
And I've no idea where you think I'm advocating for strategic ambiguity on the policy, I'm saying the opposite - that Labour's position is clear, and if you think otherwise, you've either got an axe to grind or you're not paying attention.
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.
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.
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.