That Starmer fella...

I think this is just warmed over 'they're all the same' cant but spoken eloquently and with a hint of 'the system always wins' 70s paranoia.

Bit of a stretch.

I don't value the opinion of James O'Brien, and I don't see a purpose for counterfactuals.

[Edited for tone :) ].

Pffft sounds like you want him to box himself in to a corner two years before a GE.

It's not his job, right now, to do that.

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.

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.

Missed the tone, but I was being flippant anyway, so would doubtless not have taken any offence.

According to ReekBlefs, he already has.

I'm not so sure. Labour and Starmer have both criticised the policy broadly - and he has refused to be sucked further into the specifics of the morality of it.

He has said its not ethical, but that's not the centre of his objection.

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.

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.

No spokesperson worth their salt would answer that question without having had it explicitly given to them in the prebriefing before facing the press. It kind of shows up the limitations of spokespeople and how the system can be abused by asking questions the person is not allowed to answer. You are basically shouting at a press release for not answering a question it wasn't written to answer.

What spokes person isn't well briefed on party position on the biggest story of the day? Leaves you open to looking inept or like you don't have any position

I know, not retracting the comment as such but I decided a while ago that I wouldn't engage on this thread as there are probably more productive uses of my time than getting wound up over starmer's latest disaster, hence the deletion.

All I will say is that anyone who thinks Labour's failure to take a position on this is some kind of political masterstroke/the right thing to do needs to get their priorities sorted

You are basically shouting at a press release for not answering a question it wasn't written to answer

Exactly right. I've been a press officer before. If you step outside the briefing in front of the press then you get the Al Pachino speech from Glengarry Glen Ross
promptly afterward.

Surely if Labour have made their position about the morality of the Rwanda deportations abundantly clear several times on television, this is not a difficult or controversial question to answer, briefed or not. This is the leader of the opposition's spokesman, not some lowly PR flunkie. He was giving a post-PMQ press conference in which he would undoubtedly have expected Rwanda to arise despite Starmer electing to avoid the issue at said questions. And would be fully aware of Labour's position on it and Starmer's view of it.

So either he intended to obfuscate in the press conference for the purposes of 'not giving the press ammunition' or Labour's position and Starmer's view of the deportations now differs from that aired frequently on television in the past. Whatever it is, the upshot is people are talking about Labour as a party with a leader unwilling to commit to reversing the policy or condemning it on moral grounds. Now that may or may not be true, but that's the impression.

The more oxygen Labour give this pseudo-policy the more it serves its purpose as a wedge issue for the government. If Labour ignore it and lawyers contest it, it will quite quickly evaporate.

Hopefully this gets it closer to getting in the manifesto and becoming policy
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/the-uks-biggest-union-just-passed-a-motion-in-support-of-proportional-representation/

I see that the Labour right have once looked into their Big Bag of Big Ideas and found only their trusty post it note with “Aggressively brief against your own leader to the right wing press” scrawled on it. Political geniuses.

1 Attachment

Bizarre. Where was that published?

Mail on Sunday. Dan Hodges. Which says it all really.

See also the momentum member who was the main informant to Durham police over Beergate.

would take a plank of wood over boris.

The Labour right have been systematically briefing against their party leaders to the press for the last twelve years. Miliband, Corbyn and now Starmer have all copped it for the crime of not representing this narrow faction. I’m not sure how this alleged moment of opportunism from a random activist is in any way comparable.

Not wanting to get into this at all, but the idea that the Labour left are loyal to the leadership and beyond reproach, which is what you are implicating, is hysterical.

You have no idea who spoke to Hodges, or in fact, if anyone actually did, so it's your assumption alone that it is the 'Labour right'.

I saw a recent thing where Aaron Bastani was recommending Barry G and Richard B.
I wept