Starmer's vision quest

[CXRAndy]

Just look at Starmers popularity, tanking

Silent majority dear chaps

 

[Stevo 666]

Or did Labour allow the "wind to blow" that way to distract from other bigger challenges they were failing to resolve? Through the recent weeks with people shouting at hotels and Reform/Farangë plastered over Page 1 and BBC Labour had all but disappeared, no push back. It's like Labour were allowing it all to happen.

Hard to read Labour politicians minds, but it is not a new thing - public sentiment has been building up on this for some time.

 

[Stevo 666]

If so it highlights the problem in politics. There's no point in political parties if they all just make policy based on whichever way the wind is blowing rather than standing for particular values they believe are important and trying to convince the electorate they are right.

There's a balance to be struck - it's certainly good to have values, a clear vision and plan etc and stick to those, but when you start feeling like King Canute trying to hold back the tide then maybe a bit of flexibility is needed (an over-simplification granted, but I think you get my drift).

 

[Stevo 666]

Hard to see how he could see that. The "opinion" on immigration is being provided by newspapers owned by Billionaires, Farage and his shoot stirrers and small pockets of racist xenophobes on twitter / X.

I doubt anyone has properly polled people for their opinion.

Maybe, instead of trying to react to every tweet on social media and every criticism from a Tory or Reform Politician, it might be better to actually have a party policy and stick to it.

How do you know?

It seems to be standard practice to dismiss all of this as some mixture of thickos, racists and the evil right wing press/Reform stirring things up. As that's the easy way out.

 

[icowden]

It seems to be standard practice to dismiss all of this as some mixture of thickos, racists and the evil right wing press/Reform stirring things up. As that's the easy way out.

Because normal sane people tend to want to help those in need.

 

[spen666]

Because normal sane people tend to want to help those in need.

The big question though is are they in need or simply economic migrants

 

[icowden]

The big question though is are they in need or simply economic migrants

Why - because economic migrants are evil? Will they generate less money for the economy? Will they pay fewer taxes?

 

[C R]

Why - because economic migrants are evil?

No, because they tend to be brown. Normally non brown migrants are called expats. HTH.

 

[spen666]

Why - because economic migrants are evil? Will they generate less money for the economy? Will they pay fewer taxes?

Why? Because you said most sane people would help those in need.

The question is who is in need. A desire to improve your life is a choice not a need. Fleeing persecution to a place of safety is a need. They are very different things
What has paying taxes got to do with it?

Seems like you are trying to shift the goal posts when you get an answer to your question that doesn't fit your agenda

 

[BoldonLad]

Because affluent, normal, sane people tend to want to help those in need.

Think you missed a word out

 

[spen666]

This from the Guardian is rather troubling.

18m ago15.12 BST
Keir Starmer wanted to replace Angela Rayner as housing secretary with Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, ITV’s political editor Robert Peston has claimed. But Miliband refused to move, Peston says. Steve Reed, the former environment secretary, was appointed instead.

The prime minister’s first choice to take over Angela Rayner’s housing and local government responsibilities was Ed Miliband, but he refused to leave energy and climate change. This appears to have been the one part of the reshuffle that didn’t quite go Starmer’s way.

It begs the question who is in charge of the Parliamentary Labour Party. As leader, surely it is up to Starmer to appoint / dismiss who he chooses.

it sounds like Miliband is more powerful than Starmer.

Starmer hasn't got the bottle to sack Miliband and so Miliband stays in post despite the wishes of the leader

 

[Rusty Nails]

it sounds like Miliband is more powerful than Starmer.

Starmer hasn't got the bottle to sack Miliband and so Miliband stays in post despite the wishes of the leader

Or it sounds like Starmer listened to Milliband's reasons for wanting to stay in an area of politics he has Invested a lot of effort into and decided the best option was to retain him in that role.

YMMV

 

[spen666]

Or it sounds like Starmer listened to Milliband's reasons for wanting to stay in an area of politics he has Invested a lot of effort into and decided the best option was to retain him in that role.

YMMV

That is not what is being reported.

"Miliband refused to move" is what is being reported. That is very different from the spin you put on it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

That is not what is being reported.

"Miliband refused to move" is what is being reported. That is very different from the spin you put on it.

I have put no spin on it, I'll leave that up to you and whether you believe everything the political headline writers write. I just gave a different possible interpretation.

"Refused" could mean anything from 'I really would like to stay in this role because of my interest in it' to 'I am not moving, and that's it'. The spin comes from people who have a particular political leaning, or taste for controversy in their reporting.

 

[spen666]

I have put no spin on it, I'll leave that up to you and whether you believe everything the political headline writers write. I just gave a different possible interpretation.

"Refused" could mean anything from 'I really would like to stay in this role because of my interest in it' to 'I am not moving, and that's it'. The spin comes from people who have a particular political leaning, or taste for controversy in their reporting.

I didn't spin it, I merely spinned it?