Forum menu
I don’t think either of them have the economic understanding
Care to elaborate?
Wel Corbyn made no effort to explain th eeconomic implications of Brexit to his faithful, failed to campagne in Sunderland on a remain ticket that would have benefitted Sunderland workers.
And Starmer isn't interested in campaigning for freedom of movement despite all the economic benefits that would come with it.
Then we have theri domestic manifesto which I'm sure you have read, Dazh. I agree with much of it in that many social issues are at the centre of policy and that pleases me. What is missing is the cost benefit analysis of those very policies. Everything thing can be linked to the economy and every social advance can be demonstrated to contribute to the long term health of th eeconomy. But no, both Corbyn and Starmer just promise spending which people see as spendthrift and giving away their tax money. Neither has a pedogogical approach to their economic policy. They fail to convince the blue collar and white collar workers who would benefit economically from their policies to vote for them because they don't even try to explain.
I've been watchin g Starmer in parliament and it's woeful, there's nothing to inspire me a as leftie (because in UK teerms that's what I am) that he has even understood left wing economic policies let alone started to preach them. He needs to read Thomas Piketty and write some sound bites inspired by him.
Labour won't win by paying lip service to Tory economics, they need to denounce the greed, commit to redistributing wealth, and convince anyone on under £80 000 PA (total household income family of four) that that means them.
Another great post Ed. Lots that many of us can agree with. I do, anyway.
Surely his cheerleaders have to admit that in the face of the most corrupt, inept government in living memory, that is a catastrophic failure. We are doomed.
Still doing better than I expected at this point. And who are his “cheerleaders”?
Looking at that… where are the voters going? Others? Does that mean PC in Wales?
Looking at that… where are the voters going?
The Reflux Party?
He's going to be doing a weekly column in the Telegraph I gather.
That should boil plenty of piss!
Edukator for PM!
Nail Johnson to the wall at PMQs today
He's been doing that for ages, very few people care.
That should boil plenty of piss!
'Hur Hur, let's troll some libtard snowflakes' 🙄
kelvin
Full MemberAnd who are his “cheerleaders”?
I think that's a big part of the problem tbh. That and the fact that most people know nothing about economics and so are very easy to lie to when it comes to the economy (of course not helped by successive Labour leaderships that were happy to nod and say yes to those lies)
grum
Free MemberHe’s been doing that for ages, very few people care.
That's exactly what has been happening, how many people actually listen to PMQ?
Honestly I don't think I have ever spoken to anyone in my day to day life that would know who was even stood up talking.
Most go by a few sound bites from a paper or what they saw on the news and even then they probably were more interested what was for tea.
Starmer could be the next Messiah but unless Boris stood up and acceded to him on every media outlet no one would know!
PMQs is just he pinch point where Starmer first proposes, and then later points to, the Uturns the government must make. The public hear about the government at first ridiculing and then later following the advice of the opposition through the media and press elsewhere.
Anneliese Dodds wasting no time in her speech to the Business School at City University London - supporting the neolibral construct of fiscal responsibility. (Contracting the economy for the sake of balancing the books. We all know who that will come back to hurt.)
Drivel about the size of the debt (clue it's not 2.1 trillion when the BoE owns 40% of it. ) The debt is the current money supply and is not a debt as it's not borrowed it's a swap of bonds/money. All UKP comes from the BoE and its agents. Where did you think the money comes from to pay your taxes?
Drivel about the BoE's independence.(The MPC is appointed by the Chancellor and sets monetary policy according to the Government's target. A public body answerable to UK Parliament. Q/E has to be agreed with the Government.)
Ugh. Labour to do battle with the Tories using Tory framework. Labour will never out Tory the Tories no matter how dogmatic.
Labour are doing the exact opposite of what they're should be doing.
Richard Murphy does it better than I can.
The problem for labour once again is the right wing propaganda. Corbyns manifesto of course we could afford - but was easy for the right wing propaganda to label as unnaffordable
labour have to do what they have to do to be elected. Its as simple as that.
labour have to do what they have to do to be elected. Its as simple as that.
We all agree on that, but I can't help but feel that accepting the Tory narrative and following them ever rightwards is an electoral dead-end.
If the only way to get elected is to be Tory-lite then England and Wales are screwed.
Especially when you consider that Tory-lite is worse than the full-fat-Tory of only a few years ago.
Anneliese Dodds wasting no time in her speech to the Business School at City University London – supporting the neolibral construct of fiscal responsibility.
Even the FT have abandoned the nonsense about fiscal 'responsibility'. Centrist Labour as usual are miles behind everyone else, fighting the battles of the past. It's about time they came clean and stopped playing the game the tories want them to. I don't expect Dodds will ever figure this out though. She's an awful shadow chancellor and totally out of her depth.
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1349643921249472513?s=20
labour have to do what they have to do to be elected.
Being a Tory tribute act? How's that going?
Yes, they are wrong. So are the public. Democracy is a bummer. Labour should be pushing forward of lot of ideas that currently are a hard sell with "the people". But they aren't just a campaigning think tank... we need them to win the next election (however unlikely that looks from where I'm sitting)... we need a Labour government... they have to be seen as "moderate" yet more competent than the alternative to ever get in a position to start turning the UK around.
Labour should be pushing forward of lot of ideas that currently are a hard sell with “the people”.
It should be an easy sell. Tell the public how the system works, expose the corruption of the tories filling the pockets of their mates, demonstrate how labour would use the spending power of the state to improve the lives of everyone, and go hard on taxing the rich as the primary method of controlling inflation. To do that though they need the courage to break out of the neoliberal orthodoxy, and Starmer and Dodds are never gong to do that.
If they can't make the case for using the power of the state to improve the lives of working people while the tories are stuffing billions into the pockets of incompetent private contractors then they should step aside for someone who can.
Are you new to the UK?
If they can’t make the case for using the power of the state to improve the lives of working people while the tories are stuffing billions into the pockets of incompetent private contractors then they should step aside for someone who can.
To be fair, in Scotland they already have.
Unfortunately no one has gotten round to telling the branch office yet.
I agree with dazh, but to be honest, I'll vote for any donkey NOT wearing a blue rosette....
Yup. Me too. Are we the people that need winning over from voting Tory at the last few elections though? [ you know the answer ]
we need a Labour government
Why?
labour have to do what they have to do to be elected. Its as simple as that.
And after that election? Chasing the tories rightwards is how we ended up with a system where slightly left wing ideas are portrayed as far left and rabid right policies are now "centrist".
Are we the people that need winning over from voting Tory at the last few elections though? [ you know the answer ]
And if the only way this can be achieved is by ignoring the current voters? How do you think that will end with lots of people wondering where they should belong?
Why?
It's a good question and one I'm yet to see a good answer for other than, 'If you don't you'll get Boris again.'
Chasing the tories rightwards...
That's just a glib oversimplified notion that many on the left cling to.
Is that what was going on as the Tory party moved further right, strengthened their grip on the country and became so emboldened? Or did it do all that while the Labour party tried (and failed) to make the case for the alternatives that I personally would like the country to adopt? We need to face facts... and try and get a better government, not one that perfectly aligns with our own personal politics, or Johnson and his successor will keep laughing as the public go with them...
That’s just a glib oversimplified notion that many on the left cling to.
Given that Starmer has just u-turned on freedom of movement, I don't think the idea of Labour following the Tories is over-simplified at all.
Unless you can point me in the direction of some Labour policies where they are currently moving left?
We need to face facts… and try and get a better government,
I agree. You seem to think it's axiomatic that this will be delivered with a Labour victory, so I ask again: why?
It’s a good question and one I’m yet to see a good answer for other than, ‘If you don’t you’ll get Boris again.’
Well quite, and it's not an argument that would persuade me to vote Labour again. Given that they are still trailing this incompetent and corrupt government, it appears that a lot of other people who aren't persuaded, either.
If Starmer wants to make an argument that Labour stands for something other than slightly diluted Tory policy, then he needs to start on the narrative now.
I don’t think the idea of Labour following the Tories is over-simplified at all.
The ultimate irony of course is that the tories are going the other way on fiscal policy. They won't admit it of course because it would destroy their reputation for 'responsible' economic management, but they're spending money quite literally as if it grows on trees, and not just on covid. Boris is a secret MMTer I reckon, but the scandal is that he's using it to enrich his private backers, rather than improving the lives of the general population. This is a massive open goal for labour, but they can't take advantage while they're still hooked on outdated and redundant pre-2008 neoliberal economics. It's tragic quite frankly, and will result in another election defeat.
Tories always use tax and spend (and borrowing)... they just spend the money in ways that benefit them and theirs. A crisis just allows them to do more of this, in more a transparent way. Hence the manufactured Brexit crisis we walked into with open arms. Tories love a magic money tree, when they have ways of ensuring few leaves get down to ground level.
Aaaaaanywaaaay... we're back to "I don't want any Labour government, just my flavour of one"... which is the split the Tories love and use to their advantage. I was guilty of this up 'till Corbyn became leader (when I started voting Labour), but I won't be making the same mistake again. I'll be voting Labour at the next election, and I hope (but doubt) that Starmer can widen the support for Labour enough to become PM. If you think that Starmer would be "as bad" as Johnson, or Sunak... don't let me get a sniff of what you're smoking, please.
If you think that Starmer would be “as bad” as Johnson, or Sunak… don’t let me get a sniff of what you’re smoking, please.
I had hoped that in response to my question you would have something more substantial than "I'm not Boris", but it appears not.
I’ll be voting Labour at the next election, and I hope (but doubt) that Starmer can widen the support for Labour enough to become PM.
At the next election Johnson will be offering all sorts of spending pledges (which will benefit his friends) and promises not to raise taxes, while labour will be preaching restraint and the need to raise taxes to 'pay off the debt'. Who do you think people are going to vote for?
If you think that Starmer would be “as bad” as Johnson, or Sunak… don’t let me get a sniff of what you’re smoking, please.
I think we have to look beyond the next election.
Do you remember when May said that 80% of people cast their votes for parties that supported triggering Article 50?
The UK has a truly broken electoral system. If it worked as it should then each person would be voting for an MP to represent the interests of their community in Parliament. That MP would put the interests of their constituency above their party's interests every time. In reality, people are being forced to directly elect a PM using a system that means the vast majority of votes are wasted.
If you say, 'I'm voting for Starmer because Johnson is worse' then you are actively supporting this broken system and contributing to the mess that is getting progressively worse as time goes by.
If you say, ‘I’m voting for Starmer because Johnson is worse’ then you are actively supporting this broken system and contributing to the mess that is getting progressively worse as time goes by.
What's getting worse? Any particular metric?
Thinking back to the 70s and 80s everything seems to be better in any practical metric I can think of. Or how about the 50s if you want an even more stark contrast.
If you say, ‘I’m voting for Starmer because Johnson is worse’ then you are actively supporting this broken system and contributing to the mess that is getting progressively worse as time goes by.
I used to think this way. It's the thinking that, given the voting system we have, returns Conservative government after Conservative government. If you're in a seat where Labour can beat the Tories, and don't vote Labour, because you don't think Starmer would be that much of a better PM for you, and most of us, than Johnson or his successor... then you're killing better with a dream of perfection... and Conservative rule rolls ever onwards...
I never voted for New Labour. I would now. Despite being well to the left of them. And, yes, despite the war. Look at the current government. If you don't want rid of that... well...
If you’re in a seat where Labour can beat the Tories, and don’t vote Labour, because you don’t think Starmer would be a better PM for you, and most of us, than Johnson or his successor… then you’re killing better with a dream of perfection.
Another evidence-free assertion. Again, why is it better?
I am not going to try and argue with anyone who claims they are left wing but would rather keep the current Conservatives in power than let Starmer be PM. Argue with yourself.
What’s getting worse? Any particular metric?
Gini coefficient, wages vs cost of living, job security, freedom of movement, trade barriers, pensions, house prices...
That's off the top of my head. There are more, I'm sure.
If you’re in a seat where Labour can beat the Tories, and don’t vote Labour, because you don’t think Starmer would be that much of a better PM for you, and most of us, than Johnson or his successor… then you’re killing better with a dream of perfection… and Conservative rule rolls ever onwards…
Yes but you're still looking at a single election. The problem is that by voting for Labour you are endorsing their policies, even if you don't actually support their policies.
You are enabling PMs to say things like '80% of the population backed parties that would trigger Article 50'.
Do you see my point? By supporting a party whose policies you don't agree with you are giving cover to the next Tory PM to say, 'but the majority of the population voted for parties that support....'
Obviously I would rather have Starmer than Johnson but if the price of that is to endorse polices I do not agree with then it's too high a price to pay.
Perfect is the enemy of good but what we're talking about now is a choice between bad and worse. If you vote for bad things you are endorsing them.
That was exactly my position. I didn't vote for New Labour because I disagreed with many of their policies. In hindsight, I should have voted for them... because on nearly every issue their policies were preferable to those of the Conservatives... and the reality of our voting system is that only two parties can be the major party (or only party) in any government. I was lucky enough to vote for Labour while they held policies very close to my own preferences at the last two general elections. Not enough other people did. Those polices are not going to be put in place unchanged. Labour need wider support to be in government... the policy base absolutely will have to shift... trying to move the British public towards them resulted in failure. Obviously, in seats were other parties can beat the Conservatives, that all changes... but that is the nature of our voting system (for Westminster)... you vote against the Conservatives, or with them.
You are enabling PMs to say things like ‘80% of the population backed parties that would trigger Article 50’.
I'm not enabling it personally... The voting system is.
We need a better one. The current one mires the country with regressive tribalism.
Anyone I can vote for who offers election reform?
Indeed. For England at least, I see no path to much needed election reform, short, medium or long term... and nor do I think that enough of the public would back it... Conservative voters know it will undo that party... so most will oppose reform... and a big enough minority of Labour voters think the same... sadly.
Anyone I can vote for who offers election reform?
I think most of the smaller parties do. The Greens certainly do. While they won't get into power any time soon votes for the alternatives do help swing the decisions of the bigger parties who don't want to lose votes. Look at UKIP for an example (albeit terrible)
The problem I have is that, after Starmer's u-turn, both major parties are now opposed to freedom of movement.
I cannot vote for a party that is going to enable whoever becomes PM to say '80% of the population voted for parties that oppose freedom of movement.'
If that results in a Tory PM so be it. My vote is not going to give them cover to pursue more racist policies.
I find it slightly disappointing that Labour don't.
After all despite their being one of 'the big two' their electoral success has not been 50% of the elections, of late.
If that results in a Tory PM so be it.
It's the most likely result... hence, despite feeling exactly the same about that issue as you... I'll still vote Labour in this seat.
I think most of the smaller parties do. The Greens certainly do.
The conundrum is... that, depending on your seat, a vote for a smaller party, to either support electoral reform, or to show support for their other policies, can return yet another Tory MP... allowing them to do their own "reforms" to further cement their advantage in the FPTP system, via changes to boundaries etc.
I am not going to try and argue with anyone who claims they are left wing but would rather keep the current Conservatives in power than let Starmer be PM. Argue with yourself.
It's a pity that you're unable to answer such a simple and fundamental question. I'm asking in good faith, a courtesy you're not extending to me.
You answer it. I'm sure you can.
You answer it. I’m sure you can.
You are the one asserting that we should vote Labour on the basis that they are preferable to the Tories. The onus is on you to support your claim.
Look at what Labour intentions are and what they value. Do the same with Tory party.
That is all the support of a claim you need.
The conundrum is… that, depending on your seat, a vote for a smaller party, to either support electoral reform, or to show support for their other policies, can return yet another Tory MP
Yes it is definitely an issue but we desperately need reform and change. Maintaining the status quo won't do that. The more votes the big parties lose to alternatives the more there is mandate for change. It needs a critical mass people don't vote for the small parties because they are unlikely to win, the closer they get to that tipping point the more people are willing to vote for them. It'll take a few election cycles which makes it a bit unappealing, though.
Look at what Labour intentions are and what they value.
I don't know what Labour's intentions are for the next GE. Do you?
It's okay, electoral reform is on the way... Reform UK is the party for you😱
The problem I have is that, after Starmer’s u-turn, both major parties are now opposed to freedom of movement.
that is totally to misrepresent him. He is not against FOM. He can see no way to get it back.
Again I think its the wrong tactic given how the polls show a majority think Brexit a mistake but I understand his need to not get bogged down in that debate
Wait until he launches his positive vision - and it is coming.
that is totally to misrepresent him. He is not against FOM. He can see no way to get it back.
I've given up listening to what politicians say and look at what they do instead.
What he has said is that he is for FOM. What he has done is withdrawn Labour's commitment to returning FOM AND 3 line whipped his MPs to vote for a deal that would remove FOM insisting that the only alternative was No Deal (which was a lie, by the way).
I wanted to like him but he is a bitter bitter disappointment and I suspect no amount of positive unicorns are going to change my opinion of him.
How you can describe his position as anything other than a blatant u-turn I don't know.
Hey, I want FoM to return as much as possible... and more importantly for so many of the (eligible to vote in general elections) people of the UK to stop blaming foreigners for all their ills. I don't like what Starmer is doing in that regard one bit. Can he get elected without all the standing in front of flags and promising to keep "controls on immigration"... I fear not. English voters aren't who I'd like them to be. When Miliband understood this... I was one of those refusing to vote for his party because of his acceptance of the insular nature of the English voter... the result of all that refusing to hold our noses and vote Labour was a string of Conservative Home Secretaries trying to send people home, and make them unemployable and homeless. Worse for the country than Labour would have been? Damn right. I won't be making that mistake again. Vote Labour... or for whoever can stop your seat returning a Tory MP... remember... millions can't vote in UK wide elections, and are an easy target under Conservative governments.
EDIT: if you're in Scotland, I can see why the path out of all this gets more appealing after every vote you see us English take
And if I was in Scotland, I wouldn't vote Labour either.
that is totally to misrepresent him. He is not against FOM. He can see no way to get it back.
The stone cold fact of the matter is that a majority of the UK population wanted to see an end to freedom of movement and were prepared to vote for it with Brexit, then twice more to deliver Tory governments, the last one with a whacking great majority.
I don't like that fact any more than you do and being a Guardian reading wishy-wshy liberal I absolutely hate what it says about 'us' as a country, but it is what it is.... a reality.
Again: lets deal with the world as it is, not with how we'd like it to be. We have to accept the uncomfortable truth, or permenent Tory rule. Its as simple as that.
And saying that you'd rather see a Tory governemnt than a labour one that doesn't tick all your boxes represents a level of foot-shooting idiocy that I find utterly incomprehensible.
That sentiment is normally voiced by the same kind of delusional sixth-form level clown who berates Blair and Brown (IRAQ!!!!!) for being 'Tory-light' without stopping to think what the country would look like now if we'd have actually had a Tory government for those 13 years.
My contempt for the utterly useless, voter-repellent Jeremy Corbyn and the absolute tools he surrounded himself with is virtually limitless but I still voted for the stupid, beardy, allotment-dwelling, Marxist twice. He was still the least worst option by a country mile, as the last few years have proved
Its all just a bit too..
Yeah, I have the luxury of it all being fairly academic for me given that I vote in Scotland and it's always easier to stick to your principles when it's theoretical.
I just feel that FoM is a red line for me. I cannot give my vote to a party that opposes it. I can't risk the '80% of the population voted for parties that oppose FoM' trap.
Anyway, Starmer opposing FoM feels like the final nail in the coffin for me ever supporting the Union again. I was always open to the idea that if democracy in the UK could be reformed I could get behind remaining in the UK.
I never really 100% bought into the England and Scotland being culturally different. My preference for independence has always been based on the democratic deficit in the UK. Now I'm wondering if we are just too different to ever be governed by the same government again.
I hope you guys get your shit together over the next few years but I'd be lying if I saw any sign of it so far. Best of luck to you.
That sentiment is normally voiced by the same kind of delusional sixth-form level clown who berates Blair and Brown (IRAQ!!!!!) for being ‘Tory-light’
That was me.
without stopping to think what the country would look like now if we’d have actually had a Tory government for those 13 years.
Well, the past decade has shown us.
I just feel that FoM is a red line for me. I cannot give my vote to a party that opposes it. I can’t risk the ‘80% of the population voted for parties that oppose FoM’ trap.
And has been for me. But it’s pretty clear where the New Conservatives are taking us, and it has to be stopped. FoM is a next decade issue down here, sadly. The ship needs turning… it’ll be a long time before it’s going in the direction I’d like.
At the next election Johnson will be offering all sorts of spending pledges (which will benefit his friends) and promises not to raise taxes, while labour will be preaching restraint and the need to raise taxes to ‘pay off the debt’. Who do you think people are going to vote for?
Yup. Boris is and always was a Keynesian and the Pandemic has allowed/forced him to go into Keynesian hyperdrive. As you say, Keir's gap will be fiscal responsibility, he'll advocate that and floating voters are going to think that's the right thing to do.
Kier's a class act and in any other situation he'd be on a roll.
I see three problems. 1) Policy isn't everything - Corbyn's Labour told the Red Wall voters they were elderly idiots. I suspect that will make them very reluctant to vote Labour next time. 2) Both main parties are playing a B team front bench. The difference is with Brexit gone the Tory's can bring their big hitter remainers back onto the front bench. They can even switch Boris out for Sunak who's a much more palatable character. I'm really not sure the depleted Labour party have many big hitters to move onto the front bench. 3) I think the Corbyn era will haunt Labour. The Tory's can make the case that Labour could win and then get taken over again.
These are nice problems to have though. To go from being utterly unelectable to a credible party with a first class leader in one year is good going and if anyone can get Labour into power Keir can. I thought he'd be brilliant and he's turned out to be way better than I expected.
What’s getting worse? Any particular metric?
Thinking back to the 70s and 80s everything seems to be better in any practical metric I can think of. Or how about the 50s if you want an even more stark contrast.
Its esy to say that when you are rich as i assume you are
Lets see now. These are all things that are measurably worse
Homelessness
Poverty both relative and absolute
Housing - rentals are an ever increasing share of income, buying houses is harder and harder, rentals are much less secure
ever increasing inequality
workers rights especially job security
Drug usage especially heroin addiction
Health inequalities
Access to healthcare
Old age care
Fuel poverty
Benefit levels
Just a few off the top of my head. Successive tory governments have hugely damaged the life prospects of the poorest
The stone cold fact of the matter is that a majority of the UK population wanted to see an end to freedom of movement and were prepared to vote for it with Brexit, then twice more to deliver Tory governments, the last one with a whacking great majority.
Going to pull you up on that one, A small majority in the referendum, and no actual majorities in the last two elections, 2019 they got an 80 seat majority on 43% of the vote. As what's being discussed here is the key to the problem, FPTP. The tories are not going to give up their advantage, and will create more seats to give them a majority on less % of the vote.
I'm just disappointed at the tolerance people in this country show for accepting a Government voted for by the minority.
My contempt for the utterly useless, voter-repellent Jeremy Corbyn and the absolute tools he surrounded himself with is virtually limitless but I still voted for the stupid, beardy, allotment-dwelling, Marxist twice
Please, change the record will you.
to say Starmer is against FOM is simply wrong. there is a huge differnce between what he thinks is possible and what he may want personally
The Labour leader said his party had to be honest with the public, and that if it won the next general election a major renegotiation of the Brexit treaty would not be possible.
“Whether we like it or not, that is going to be the treaty that an incoming Labour government inherits and has to make work. And it is not being straight with the British public to say we can come into office in 2024 and operate some other treaty,” he said.
I still voted for the stupid, beardy, allotment-dwelling, Marxist twice
I didn't know you lived in Islington Binners - that explains a lot
And it is not being straight with the British public to say we can come into office in 2024 and operate some other treaty
Such careful use of words. I know why he’s doing it… but it’s not very “honest” even if it is “true”… there will not be another treaty… because the existing one allows… no… requires reappraisal and renegotiation at that point. Labour could propose including FoM, and it’s highly likely the EU would welcome that… but you can see why Labour don’t want to be drawn into an election with FoM being part of the discussion. It’s politically astute yet highly disingenuous to pretend it simply isn’t up for discussion with the EU.
without stopping to think what the country would look like now if we’d have actually had a Tory government for those 13 years.
Well, the past decade has shown us.
Didn’t need to wait. The 80s will clearly show what the Tories will happily to do a country.
It’s politically astute yet highly disingenuous to pretend it simply isn’t up for discussion with the EU.
Exactly. It's entirely possible to reintroduce FoM. He's not stupid. He didn't go around for a year thinking that it was possible to re-introduce FoM only to suddenly realise it was impossible after all.
Binners has nailed it, unfortunately. England is simply not going to vote for a government that is introducing FoM.
He might support FoM personally but politically he opposes it. You cannot argue otherwise because he has come out and said it is Labour policy.
I understand why he is doing it but there has to come a point where your compromises in the name of being electable go too far and for me he has crossed that line.
Its all just a bit too..
Self-parody now, why do you bother?
Evening comrade.
The revolution progressing well during Covid restrictions?
Thankfully it looks like signing internet petitions and tweeting #jeremywasright have been mercifully unaffected
Anyway... What have the Romans ever done for us?
unfortunately. England is simply not going to vote for a government that is introducing FoM.
I don't think that is unsolvable. England has historically been demonstrably more welcoming of immigration, far greater than any other home nation and well above the European average. We've had a press demonising foreigners fueled by a government looking for someone else to blame. It's a hard thing to turn around but certainly not worth giving up on.
It’s a hard thing to turn around but certainly not worth giving up on.
Someone just needs to persuade Starmer of that.
If anyone thinks FoM is or should be the priority for a prospective labour govt then you're living in cloud cuckoo land. Any party which fails to accept that it's off the table for the long forseeable future will guarantee being in opposition. I'm all for it, but right now it's so far down the list of priorities it's not worth thinking about.
And as for floating voters supporting labour on the basis of being fiscally 'responsible' (in quotes because there's nothing responsible about pretending that progressive policies are unaffordable) as OOB suggests then that's also fantasy. Labour don't win votes by not spending, only the tories have that luxury. That's why they need to free themselves from the neoliberal strait-jacket and start telling the truth. The money is there to do pretty much anything they want, they need to make the case that it's better to use that power to help the whole of society rather than a small number of people at the top.
fueled by a government looking for someone else to blame
It’s a hard thing to turn around but certainly not worth giving up on.
Step one: no New Conservative government… anyone in England that wants the direction to change, needs to work towards that end… the thing is… it can get much worse in terms of immigrant blaming and turning inwards after the next election if we fail.