Forum menu
The irony is that it is pretty damn obvious that showing compassion and humanity towards Ukraine war refugees under current situation is likely to have huge voter appeal.
It seems really obvious, so why are both the Tories and Labour not doing it? Is it because they're both corrupt and out of touch or is it that they have information to hand that tells them that it isn't as popular as perhaps you and I think it is?
or is it that they have information to hand that tells them that it isn’t as popular as perhaps you and I think it is?
If they do they should ignore it. Labour is meant to be a party of principles, populists abuse hatred let it grow and use it for their own political gains. Labour should be confronting it head on, fighting it and showing leadership, not kowtowing to ignorance in case the media say mean things about them. There is a time to read the room, and there are times to lead the room.
is it that they have information to hand that tells them that it isn’t as popular as perhaps you and I think it is?
If they have they ought share it with YouGov, according to them providing sanctuary to Ukraine war refugees is massively popular :
"Support for taking in Ukraine refugees rises to 76%"
If YouGov are that much outside their margin of error it could have devastating consequences for their business.
Labour should be shaming the government, not providing tacit approval.
Why is the government not showing greater generosity toward Ukraine war refugees? I don't know. Probably a combination of factors including incompetence and the need to placate the oligarch-loving far right of the Tory Party, Johnson isn't out of the woods yet.
Why is the government not showing greater generosity toward Ukraine war refugees?
To placate people who got behind this campaign...
Starmer, and the whole of the Labour front bench, are also running scared of them, and the power of their votes. Including Lammy (who I am a "fan" of), which is disappointing, to put it mildly. Carefully calling for "greater generosity" and assistance but stopping short (shamefully in my opinion) of calling for temporarily waiving visa requirements and letting in refugees without immediate family or a sponsor, and without bureaucratic delays.
In my opinion, Starmer should ignore this political reality, and stand up for refugees, and call for the UK to do what the rest of Europe are doing.
mine too fwiw
I think short term - like all big news sentiment - welcoming refugees does seem to be in synch with the public - long term? not a chance. Otherwise the general consensus towards refugees wouldn't be so wilfully ignorant.
Starmer is playing the long game remember.
So the folk on here that think you've got to win Tory voters over - are you happy with this path? When do you get off? At which point is your line crossed?
This is exactly what lack of social ideology gets you.
I can guarantee Corbyn would have not had been part of this cyncial charade and he's on the record as historically being deeply critical of Putin when others were enjoying his company.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/russia-ukraine-war-jeremy-corbyn-right-putin-oligarchs
And that is coming from a Tory until 2019. Peter Oborne
To placate people who got behind this campaign…
I know blaming everything on brexit is the default setting on stw but presumably you didn't read this:
Three quarters of Conservative voters (73%) now support resettling Ukrainian refugees in the UK, up from 56% last week, as do 87% of Labour voters (up from 79%).
There is no political gain for the Tories among the wider public.
Otherwise the general consensus towards refugees wouldn’t be so wilfully ignorant.
People's attitudes concerning those fleeing persecution or war are not necessarily the same as their attitude towards free movement, although the two are often deliberately and misleadingly lumped together.
That depressing poster I put on the precision page was part of a campaign about excluding refugees and asylum seekers. Look at the poster… is that about EU workers, or is it showing people fleeing war torn countries further afield? Since then the government has made it harder and harder for refugees from any war zone to get here, to please the voters who don’t want them here. They are putting a bill through parliament right now to make it even harder for them, and those trying to help them. Ignore it all you want, but the answer as to why the government is not more open to refugees coming here, and why the opposition are too tentative in pushing for the UK to be more open to refugees, is blindingly obvious to everyone. The Brexit referendum and the “get Brexit Done” election. Stopping people coming to the UK is the one “Brexit benefit” that the government will be able to point to at the next election, and the opposition are scared of being labelled as the party who would let more people come here, and deny “us” the “benefits” of Brexit.
Yes, much of the population does, and always has, favoured a far better approach to asylum seekers and refugees. But there is a large minority who are heavily motivated to vote based on keeping people out, including refugees.
think short term – like all big news sentiment – welcoming refugees does seem to be in synch with the public – long term? not a chance
I agree, and I think this is where Lab and the Tories are.
I've noticed every time the government comes up against something large - Starmer goes into hiding and performs some insignificant campaign that no one really notices.
The thread here then dies too.
What a way to tackle the government.
Covid - no time for party politics.
Russia - no time for party politics. Double flags.
Cost of living crisis - in hiding, vat rumbles.
Refugees - similar to Tories but less bad.
Green bonds?
The long game really is a cowards way out.
Cost of living crisis – in hiding, vat rumbles.
This is not so. Big set piece speeches on it, hammer johnson at PMQs on it, series of media interviews on it
I’ve noticed every time the government comes up against something large – Starmer goes into hiding
Alternative - Every time the govt cocks something up, the media focus is on that rather than what the leader of the Opposition is doing. Starmer could frankly make as much noise as he likes about anything and everything, without the media (both print and telly) paying attention to that, he's literally shouting at the sky.
Refugees – similar to Tories but less bad.
In what way would is it less bad, what is Starmer proposing?
Genuine question as I can't find anything to suggest that Starmer has provided a less bad alternative to what is undoubtedly an extremely important current issue.
Will Armrest be replaced by Sewer Testing? Asking for a friend.
The thread here then dies too.
Everyone sane avoids this thread, or posts one comment then goes away to avoid being drawn in.
kelvin - post above yours from bill says much about where this thread has gone; puerile (failed) and pointless attempt at humour.
Having read some of bill's posts on a few threads, he/she should ease off whatever it is they're on.
Having read some of bill’s posts on a few threads, he/she should ease off whatever it is they’re on.
Well even you can't think of something constructive or interesting to say with regards to the subject matter of this thread.
In the meantime Tory MPs, according to the Guardian, appear to be challenging the government on some particularly pointless and obnoxious legislation :
Interesting that nowhere in the entire article is there any reference to comments made by Labour, and not least their leader. All the more interesting as the Guardian could be expected to prioritize the views and comments of Labour MPs over those of Tories.
Sorry, are you claiming that Labour haven’t been opposing this, or just that the Guardian think that it isn’t newsworthy that they are opposing it because they have been for a while now? How do you think the “Tory Rebels” think they might get their way, unless it is by adding their votes to the Labour votes (and that of other opposition party MPs)?
Actually, I honestly don’t care what you meant, I don’t know why I’m asking.
Of course you don't care.
My comment was with regards to the apparent lack of input.from Labour. At least it appears that the Guardian felt that Labour had nothing interesting enough to say on the subject that it warranted reporting.
Perhaps the Guardian were unfair on Labour and the Labour leader had in fact made a valuable contribution to the debate which they refused to report. I consider that possible but unlikely.
You obviously believe that Labour and Starmer don't have to say anything on the subject because everyone already knows what they probably think.
Based on that logic I don't know why Labour MPs need bother making the journey to Parliament, they could just stay at home as everyone can probably guess what they are likely to say. Just leave any important opposition to Tory rebels.
Ernie- I could say lots about this thread and so many others but it's pointless and irrelevant; silos, entrenched views, unwillingness/inability to listen.
Much more interesting to observe from the sidelines as that provides great perspective; you should try it
Based on that logic I don’t know why Labour MPs need bother making the journey to Parliament, they could just stay at home as everyone can probably guess what they are likely to say. Just leave any important opposition to Tory rebels.
The most recent vote in the Lords as regards this policy:
https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Lords/Division/2699
Check the division… and how Labour voted on mass.
Yes, Labour have long been against this, it is old news. The Tory rebels thinking of voting with them is much more newsworthy. The Guardian article is about the possible Tory rebellion. That is the story. I hope enough do step forward. But the policy is unworkable anyway, even if it isn’t removed from the bill.
it’s pointless and irrelevant; silos, entrenched views, unwillingness/inability to listen.
Much more interesting to observe from the sidelines as that provides great perspective; you should try it
Yeah I get that you think this thread is pointless that no one should bother with it. I just don't understand why you keep commenting on it.
Although to be fair very few, if any, of your recent comments have anything to do with the topic, ie Starmer. You appear preoccupied with other forum users.
The most recent vote in the Lords as regards this policy:
You really feel that the only opposition Labour needs to provide is when the division bell is rung?
You really feel that the only opposition Labour needs to provide is when the division bell is rung?
No, which is why I never said that.
The Guardian story is about the possible Tory rebellion in the commons when the bill comes back to the house. That is the story. Which is why it focusses on some of those Tory MPs.
In what way would is it less bad, what is Starmer proposing?
Genuine question as I can’t find anything to suggest that Starmer has provided a less bad alternative to what is undoubtedly an extremely important current issue
That half the problem refugees are more than just a current issue.
(I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek about less bad.)
Alternative – Every time the govt cocks something up, the media focus is on that rather than what the leader of the Opposition is doing. Starmer could frankly make as much noise as he likes about anything and everything, without the media (both print and telly) paying attention to that, he’s literally shouting at the sky.
A bit of passion to define a strong position is no bad thing in the eyes of the voter.
Whereas fading into the curtains...
And actually I'm less bothered about the idea of chasing cock-ups; time and time again this has proven to be diminished as news story comes along.
They need to be stronger on what Labour who do as an alternative to the Tories. I mean, it's clear the market economy has utterly failed - addressing this should be on the table for anyone with half of a brain.
But you whatch Sunak offer a nice carrot shortly, or usurp Labour because they've failed to position themselves as the party of with a social alternative.
The current time is ripe for rewiring the economy. Or at least offering some future solutions.
The country needs an economic solution more than it needs stories about covid parties.
A bit of passion to define a strong position is no bad thing in the eyes of the voter.
If you're lucky your voter might watch the nightly news, if you're extremely lucky, they might take a daily paper. Mostly though, they're not doing any of those things. They aren't hearing what Starmer is saying, Most of them don't know who he is.
The country needs an economic solution more than it needs stories about covid parties.
It needs both. It needs Labour to actually provide an alternative whilst also drilling in that when Johnson claims he will do some of those alternatives he is almost certainly lying.
without the media (both print and telly) paying attention to that, he’s literally shouting at the sky.
I would say you have a point but did you also point this out to Binners and co when they were ranting about Corbyn "being down the allotment" and other hilarious secondary school japes?
Ignore that…
It needs both. It needs Labour to actually provide an alternative whilst also drilling in that when Johnson claims he will do some of those alternatives he is almost certainly lying
Sort of agree but I know which one will change lives. I'm one for positive electioneering.
And I know which lame basket Starmer has put his eggs in.
What's with Kinnock in tow? FFS. Clearly desperation.
Most of them don’t know who he is.
This.
Sort of agree but I know which one will change lives.
I suspect that most voters care about partygate about as much as I do - annoying but it's hardly earth shattering news that Tory politicians, and indeed not necessarily just Tory politicians, can have a hypocritical sense of self-entitlement. Didn't the expenses scandal finally nail that one long ago?
In contrast for many voters transport costs, access to medical treatment, fuel and energy prices, jobs that don't disappear without warning, council services, etc etc are source of great worry rather than simple annoyance.
Yeah. How many times have we been told over the last few years that Starmer's 'forensic' attacks on Johnson will stick eventually?
A few hours of anger from Ian Dunt and then it's on to the next news story. Liberals are all about the political hot potato for an hour or two. But then after they've been failed again they move on because err ideology just doesn't matter.
It ****ing-well matters now your heating has shot up doesn't it? Even super politically quiet Martin Lewis is demanding political intervention.
In other news why am I hearing mutterings of an early GE again?
In other news why am I hearing mutterings of an early GE again?
Let’s hope so. The sooner labour can get rid of the establishment stooge leading them the better.
I suspect that most voters care about partygate about as much as I do – annoying but it’s hardly earth shattering news that Tory politicians, and indeed not necessarily just Tory politicians, can have a hypocritical sense of self-entitlement.
Not sure that's true. Its a line from those that want to move on from it, or brush it under the carpet.
Not sure that’s true. Its a line from those that want to move on from it, or brush it under the carpet
Ask people about partygate or heating today which one is really affecting them?
The Guardian story is about the possible Tory rebellion in the commons when the bill comes back to the house.
So much for the Tory rebellion…
https://twitter.com/yvettecoopermp/status/1506345451985027083?s=21
I had no idea that Alf Dubs was still alive!
Google says he's 89, good to see that he's still campaigning!
Although for obvious reasons the plight of refugees is always going to be an issue close to his heart.
But not, bizarrely, for Priti Patel.
Those parliamentary votes are truly sickening; indefensible in every way.
Ah, I came here to say that after today’s performances, Reeves really needs replacing… and was going to suggest Miliband. Perhaps I need to remember that I’m not who she needs to win over.
Interesting for strategists who might want to know what policies to focus on, but the wrong question for those who are interested in the likely outcome of a general election should it occur under present conditions.
The correct question for that is "which party would you vote for if there was a general election tomorrow?".
When that question is asked all recent opinion polls suggest that Labour would be the largest party but would fail to receive a majority and win the general election.
The latest seat prediction poll (Survation) places Labour 64 seats short of a majority.
I am sure that many people would be very happy with a Labour minority government, it would at least guarantee nothing too radical - things would plod along more or else as they are now and nothing would be done to upset the Tories too much. I guess it depends how much you are dissatisfied with the current situation. On the other hand the Tories could perhaps form a minority government with the DUP.
Still, there is no reason to assume an early general election.
I still don’t think we’ll ever see another majority Labour government in my lifetime. Scotland isn’t going to turn back to Labour to begin with. Well, they won’t be returning 40-50 seats for Labour like they have in the past, that’s for sure. Being the largest party still looks unlikely to me, but if it happens, yes, I would absolutely be happy with that. I can see every day what happens with a Conservative majority government… and I want them out.