-
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-
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.
I'd argue if there's more than one possible reason, it's not obvious. It may well be the second thing you say and, if it is, I'd love to see the evidence they're basing that strategy on. Personally I think it's pissing in the wind. People who agree with the policy couldn't give two hoots how much it costs or whether it actually works. c.f. Brexit. People who don't agree with it more than likely don't object on cost or efficacy grounds. And if cost/efficacy are your only objections, that's tantamount to saying you more or less agree with the premise, just not the practicalities.
It's a problem for him, though. If journos are repeatedly asking the spokesman to confirm Starmer's position on it, it either means they're being deliberately obtuse in order to 'trap' him into condemning it so they can use that against him (which is a worry for him and a sign the gloves are beginning to be peeled off) or it means they genuinely have no idea what his position is, which is a worry because his 'clear articulation' of it is not cutting through. To an extent, it doesn't matter how much evidence there is that he's condemned it if the perception is he hasn't really.
And I've no idea where you think I'm advocating for strategic ambiguity on the policy, I'm saying the opposite.
You've got me there; my mistake. It was someone else.
ketsbaia
These are not mutually exclusive.
LOL
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.