Labours gamble is that more progressive voters will come back to them at the next election to stop Reform.
It's not impossible that progressive voters will decide to tell pollsters that they plan to vote LD in order to create a space for fresh possibilities on the centre, as reform creates fresh possibilities in their political space.
As a general election Tory for nearly 50 years but Labour in 2024, currently I would vote Labour in my seat - where historically the LDs can't win - but would happily vote LD in any seat where they could.
Reform have gone from being unable to win in more than a few seats, to being competitive in hundreds. That phenomenon can be replicated.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
If he’s going to focus policy and attention on immigration then he also needs to attack Farage and Reform relentlessly.
When Miliband was leading Cameron midway through the 2010-2015 parliament, by significantly more than Farage now leads Starmer, the Tories never let up in a campaign of attacking him, and they generally didn’t attempt to out-Miliband Miliband in their policy positions.
What this comes down to is that you don't want the wrong values to win.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
If he’s going to focus policy and attention on immigration then he also needs to attack Farage and Reform relentlessly.
When Miliband was leading Cameron midway through the 2010-2015 parliament, by significantly more than Farage now leads Starmer, the Tories never let up in a campaign of attacking him, and they generally didn’t attempt to out-Miliband Miliband in their policy positions.
What this comes down to is that you don't want the wrong values to win.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
If he’s going to focus policy and attention on immigration then he also needs to attack Farage and Reform relentlessly.
When Miliband was leading Cameron midway through the 2010-2015 parliament, by significantly more than Farage now leads Starmer, the Tories never let up in a campaign of attacking him, and they generally didn’t attempt to out-Miliband Miliband in their policy positions.
What this comes down to is that you don't want the wrong values to win.
That's a reasonable position, is it not?
Your mileage of "wrong" may vary.
Sure, but if you don't compromise with the electorate then they won't with you.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
If he’s going to focus policy and attention on immigration then he also needs to attack Farage and Reform relentlessly.
When Miliband was leading Cameron midway through the 2010-2015 parliament, by significantly more than Farage now leads Starmer, the Tories never let up in a campaign of attacking him, and they generally didn’t attempt to out-Miliband Miliband in their policy positions.
What this comes down to is that you don't want the wrong values to win.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
If he’s going to focus policy and attention on immigration then he also needs to attack Farage and Reform relentlessly.
When Miliband was leading Cameron midway through the 2010-2015 parliament, by significantly more than Farage now leads Starmer, the Tories never let up in a campaign of attacking him, and they generally didn’t attempt to out-Miliband Miliband in their policy positions.
What this comes down to is that you don't want the wrong values to win.
That's a reasonable position, is it not?
Your mileage of "wrong" may vary.
Sure, but if you don't compromise with the electorate then they won't with you.
I’m not seeing huge evidence of Farage compromising with the electorate to be honest.
Why is it only ever the liberal half of politics that must compromise with the other half, and not vice versa?
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
If he’s going to focus policy and attention on immigration then he also needs to attack Farage and Reform relentlessly.
When Miliband was leading Cameron midway through the 2010-2015 parliament, by significantly more than Farage now leads Starmer, the Tories never let up in a campaign of attacking him, and they generally didn’t attempt to out-Miliband Miliband in their policy positions.
What this comes down to is that you don't want the wrong values to win.
Why not engage with the actual content?
That's code for you not agreeing with the electorate opinions on the subject, and the conclusions they've reached.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
Reform has 5 MPs. They are in no way the main opposition. It's like saying that the SDP were the main opposition in the early 80s or the Liberal Party were the main opposition following the Orpington by election of 1962. Opinion poll leads fly, forgotten, as a dream dies at the op’ning day.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
If he’s going to focus policy and attention on immigration then he also needs to attack Farage and Reform relentlessly.
When Miliband was leading Cameron midway through the 2010-2015 parliament, by significantly more than Farage now leads Starmer, the Tories never let up in a campaign of attacking him, and they generally didn’t attempt to out-Miliband Miliband in their policy positions.
What this comes down to is that you don't want the wrong values to win.
That's a reasonable position, is it not?
Your mileage of "wrong" may vary.
Sure, but if you don't compromise with the electorate then they won't with you.
I’m not seeing huge evidence of Farage compromising with the electorate to be honest.
Why is it only ever the liberal half of politics that must compromise with the other half, and not vice versa?
If you'd controlled immigration numbers properly over the last 20 years (applies to my party as well) this wouldn't even be a question.
I had a very tough and sad weekend but I’m back now with a level head.
I’m slightly baffled at some of the criticism here. People have said that Reform are doing well because they’re winning arguments on things like immigration. So isn’t it a good thing that Labour are agreeing and taking this on?
We can judge Labour’s record in four years but I am slightly bemused that Labour can simultaneously be attacked for not doing anything and then attacked for doing something.
For my side, I was very happy with immigration around 300K a year but it’s too high now and I think we need to bring it back down. As we’ve voted to leave the EU and I’ve lost that argument long ago we may as well use the powers we’ve got for what the majority seemingly want to do. I don’t hold any shame in conceding that argument.
They do have to stop the boats though. To me it seems obvious, write a blank cheque to France to take them back.
So SKS wants to beat Reform on immigration, and he'll likely fail to do that, by causing the Care sector even more recruiting problems. That's the plan?
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
Reform has 5 MPs. They are in no way the main opposition. It's like saying that the SDP were the main opposition in the early 80s or the Liberal Party were the main opposition following the Orpington by election of 1962. Opinion poll leads fly, forgotten, as a dream dies at the op’ning day.
I had a very tough and sad weekend but I’m back now with a level head.
I’m slightly baffled at some of the criticism here. People have said that Reform are doing well because they’re winning arguments on things like immigration. So isn’t it a good thing that Labour are agreeing and taking this on?
We can judge Labour’s record in four years but I am slightly bemused that Labour can simultaneously be attacked for not doing anything and then attacked for doing something.
For my side, I was very happy with immigration around 300K a year but it’s too high now and I think we need to bring it back down. As we’ve voted to leave the EU and I’ve lost that argument long ago we may as well use the powers we’ve got for what the majority seemingly want to do. I don’t hold any shame in conceding that argument.
They do have to stop the boats though. To me it seems obvious, write a blank cheque to France to take them back.
I am sorry to hear that and sometimes politics just isn't important
Starmer's comments today just reinforce the conclusion that he's *really* shit at politics.
Yes, 400 seats in parliament, blah-de-blah. I'm not knocking his ability to hit the Tories while they were down or to rebuild a Labour Party the country trusted. But that was then. It damn well doesn't trust it now.
Why? Because it's implementing policies that won't work, driven by someone else's agenda that Labour is too lacking in confidence to confront.
That will piss off Labour's own vote, fail to attract Reform's (which are driven by a lot more than immigration anyway), and alienate those who just want a competent government. Furthermore, the policies are detached from any ideological vision or even a coherent set of technical and administrative strategies for government, all of which have gone unexplained anyway.
What is Labour for? What is it in government to do? How will the country be better off in four years? What is wrong, why, and how will it be fixed?
Maybe answers to all that were in the Labour manifesto (though I'd bet that blaming immigrants for society's breakdown wasn't), but frankly I can't be bothered to check - and I'm certain that Mr Smith who only pays loose attention to politics won't. Nor will those who never go near a newspaper or the news on TV and radio, and get their information from TikTok, YouTube, active social media, and their friends and family.
There is no plan. There is no vision. There is no delivery. There is, now, no compassion. And consequently, for Labour, it's entirely possible that there is no future: it has no purpose.
He seems to have been spooked by the local election results, and effective PMs don't usually do that. You can't imagine Thatcher or Blair changing course based on them.
Thatcher and Blair had plans for government, that they explained in advance. You could add Cameron to that too, from 2008-15 anyway.
They laid out what was wrong, why it was wrong, how they would fix it, and why those fixes would work. That involved strategic political thinking integrated with a consistently-reinforced political narrative - which then, as you say, didn't get (much) blown off course by daily events. They did make some tactical retreats but they also ensured that they were consistent to the big picture. And, by the next election, they then had a story of success to tell, partly on their own terms but also, crucially, partly on the public's terms.
Labour is right to be spooked by the local election results. However, they're very much taking the wrong lessons from them.
Yes. Here is an outlier possibility. Recent events have shown that the Tories becoming marginal to UK politics is at least a realistic possibility. An impossible thing has become possible. In today's statement SKS has shown both followership in place of leadership and evasion. The followership is obvious. The evasion is tacking away from 'tackling the gangs' to Reformlite in legal migration. The moral crusade aspect of this is totally hollow. Moral crusades don't wait 10 months and then spring into action following electoral disaster.
So, is there a possible trajectory in which the LDs continue to flourish and over the next couple of years become the principal opposition to Reform? Not impossible.
As I said earlier Sam Coates at Sky said this morning that labours problem was that in appearing to be 'Reform lite' their supporters will not be impressed and are likely to turn to the Lib Dems and Greens whilst not one gain from Reform supporters
It's not just about gaining/losing voters to other parties - it's also about stimulating and suppressing turnout. The primary reason that Reform are doing well us due to very high voter retention and lots of previously non-voters expressing support.
Labour could try to do both. Cut immigration, neuter Reform whole delivering other policies that attract their own voters back from DK and Greens/LD. Not much evidence of that yet, but they have 4 years...
"Keir Starmer admitted mass immigration risks making Britain an 'island of strangers' today as he scrambles to blunt the threat from Reform.
The PM deployed the 'take back control' Brexit slogan at a press conference in Downing Street as he pledged to end the 'betrayal' of reliance on cheap foreign labour.
Sir Keir accused the Tories of overseeing an explosion in numbers while in power, saying the system seemed 'designed to permit abuse' and was 'contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart'."
I think Starmer's strategy is what's known as giving your enemy possession of the battlefield.
That’s the madness of it to me. The more the focus is on immigration the more Farage can sit back and let Starmer do his marketing for him. But then I appreciate ignoring the issue is also tricky.
Labour needs to find its political strong point and get media focus on it as much as possible. Historically it’s always been the NHS. Waiting lists do seem to be creeping down. Why not blitz everyone with that. And Streeting hasn’t yet done himself major brand damage like Reeves has. (Admittedly nor has Cooper, but she risks losing Labour some more votes to the Greens and Lib Dems if she keeps upping the rhetoric)
You have to admire the sheer energetic shameless mendacity of it though. As someone recently said of Sir, he takes a lot of convincing about something, but once he's committed, that's it, he goes all in. It was like that with the purge of the Cornynites and it seems like that with his new 'fight them on the beaches' approach to migrants, despite being a human rights lawyer who has dedicated his life to more of them being allowed to stay.
People don't vote based on official government statistics. They vote based on their lived experience.
Their lived experience right now is of watching a continuous & increasing stream of boats crossing the Channel, with the boat arrivals then being put up in hotels.
The vast majority of people in the country don't have any lived experience of people crossing the Channel in small boats. They don't see them crossing or landing. They don't encounter them in their day-to-day life.
Rather, their experience of boat crossings is vicarious: it's from the media and social media. Those coming over in boats are convenient scapegoats for whatever they are unhappy about.
Official government statistics will be reported in the media and have some penetration on social media, so they can have some impact.
Thankfully, Starmer has learned to ignore people like you.
20 years too late, but hey ho.
I actually have some sympathy for the people in the boats. They are taking a significant risk to enhance their life chances which is a human instinct. What I don't agree with is making it easy and therefore encouraging it.
The first simple solution should be changing international agreements to state that any asylum seeker has an obligation to seek asylum in the first safe country he/she lands in. If he/she seeks to move to another country they are automatically classed as an economic migrant. Obviously this will cause challenges for "frontline" states such as Italy, but international agreements could be made to share the burden across European countries. If "asylum seekers" knew they could not choose which country they go to it might focus the minds of those that are using it as cover for economic motivations.
We had an international agreement to share the burden across European countries, but then we left the EU.
By and large, any equitable system of sharing the load is not going to cut UK numbers as we already get lower numbers than the likes of France, Germany, Italy etc.
So, “sharing the burden” with our European friends simply means that we take even more immigrants? Got it.
The numbers we managed to return through the much vaunted Dublin agreement would barely fill a couple of dinghies.
Of course, UK politicians never engage with the question of why the French should want to take these migrants back when they have far more than we do.
Starmer's comments today just reinforce the conclusion that he's *really* shit at politics.
Yes, 400 seats in parliament, blah-de-blah. I'm not knocking his ability to hit the Tories while they were down or to rebuild a Labour Party the country trusted. But that was then. It damn well doesn't trust it now.
Why? Because it's implementing policies that won't work, driven by someone else's agenda that Labour is too lacking in confidence to confront.
That will piss off Labour's own vote, fail to attract Reform's (which are driven by a lot more than immigration anyway), and alienate those who just want a competent government. Furthermore, the policies are detached from any ideological vision or even a coherent set of technical and administrative strategies for government, all of which have gone unexplained anyway.
What is Labour for? What is it in government to do? How will the country be better off in four years? What is wrong, why, and how will it be fixed?
Maybe answers to all that were in the Labour manifesto (though I'd bet that blaming immigrants for society's breakdown wasn't), but frankly I can't be bothered to check - and I'm certain that Mr Smith who only pays loose attention to politics won't. Nor will those who never go near a newspaper or the news on TV and radio, and get their information from TikTok, YouTube, active social media, and their friends and family.
There is no plan. There is no vision. There is no delivery. There is, now, no compassion. And consequently, for Labour, it's entirely possible that there is no future: it has no purpose.
He seems to have been spooked by the local election results, and effective PMs don't usually do that. You can't imagine Thatcher or Blair changing course based on them.
Thatcher and Blair had plans for government, that they explained in advance. You could add Cameron to that too, from 2008-15 anyway.
They laid out what was wrong, why it was wrong, how they would fix it, and why those fixes would work. That involved strategic political thinking integrated with a consistently-reinforced political narrative - which then, as you say, didn't get (much) blown off course by daily events. They did make some tactical retreats but they also ensured that they were consistent to the big picture. And, by the next election, they then had a story of success to tell, partly on their own terms but also, crucially, partly on the public's terms.
Labour is right to be spooked by the local election results. However, they're very much taking the wrong lessons from them.
Yes. Here is an outlier possibility. Recent events have shown that the Tories becoming marginal to UK politics is at least a realistic possibility. An impossible thing has become possible. In today's statement SKS has shown both followership in place of leadership and evasion. The followership is obvious. The evasion is tacking away from 'tackling the gangs' to Reformlite in legal migration. The moral crusade aspect of this is totally hollow. Moral crusades don't wait 10 months and then spring into action following electoral disaster.
So, is there a possible trajectory in which the LDs continue to flourish and over the next couple of years become the principal opposition to Reform? Not impossible.
Yes. That prospect was one of the principle reasons I joined them last autumn. It's been eminently foreseeable for months, if not longer.
People don't vote based on official government statistics. They vote based on their lived experience.
Their lived experience right now is of watching a continuous & increasing stream of boats crossing the Channel, with the boat arrivals then being put up in hotels.
The vast majority of people in the country don't have any lived experience of people crossing the Channel in small boats. They don't see them crossing or landing. They don't encounter them in their day-to-day life.
Rather, their experience of boat crossings is vicarious: it's from the media and social media. Those coming over in boats are convenient scapegoats for whatever they are unhappy about.
Official government statistics will be reported in the media and have some penetration on social media, so they can have some impact.
Especially not in Durham lol
The small boats are an economic positive for East Kent. Lots of well-paid jobs in Border Force that wouldn't otherwise exist.
I had a very tough and sad weekend but I’m back now with a level head.
I’m slightly baffled at some of the criticism here. People have said that Reform are doing well because they’re winning arguments on things like immigration. So isn’t it a good thing that Labour are agreeing and taking this on?
We can judge Labour’s record in four years but I am slightly bemused that Labour can simultaneously be attacked for not doing anything and then attacked for doing something.
For my side, I was very happy with immigration around 300K a year but it’s too high now and I think we need to bring it back down. As we’ve voted to leave the EU and I’ve lost that argument long ago we may as well use the powers we’ve got for what the majority seemingly want to do. I don’t hold any shame in conceding that argument.
They do have to stop the boats though. To me it seems obvious, write a blank cheque to France to take them back.
All good points, but what you are leaving out is that the PM looks very like he is indulging in followership not leadership following the elections; this leaves the door open for progressive centrists to rally round the LDs, and won't move Rofrom or Tory voters to Labour. Secondly, the PM is being evasive in overlooking the 'smash the gangs' promise and changing the subject.
Real leadership is the task of leaders persuading the voters, having first established a clear and rational set of principles and policies, not voters persuading leaders.
Provided he suffers no widespread revolt in his own ranks, this seems like a no-brainer for Starmer. Nobody much cares if politicians are unprincipled. or what Starmer might have said about immigration in the past.
We do seem to be getting some economic growth at last. If he can get a big drop in immigration numbers (which Sunak's changes will likely deliver), and a reduction in NHS waiting lists, he'll be favourite to win, if only narrowly, like Carney.
Starmer's comments today just reinforce the conclusion that he's *really* shit at politics.
Yes, 400 seats in parliament, blah-de-blah. I'm not knocking his ability to hit the Tories while they were down or to rebuild a Labour Party the country trusted. But that was then. It damn well doesn't trust it now.
Why? Because it's implementing policies that won't work, driven by someone else's agenda that Labour is too lacking in confidence to confront.
That will piss off Labour's own vote, fail to attract Reform's (which are driven by a lot more than immigration anyway), and alienate those who just want a competent government. Furthermore, the policies are detached from any ideological vision or even a coherent set of technical and administrative strategies for government, all of which have gone unexplained anyway.
What is Labour for? What is it in government to do? How will the country be better off in four years? What is wrong, why, and how will it be fixed?
Maybe answers to all that were in the Labour manifesto (though I'd bet that blaming immigrants for society's breakdown wasn't), but frankly I can't be bothered to check - and I'm certain that Mr Smith who only pays loose attention to politics won't. Nor will those who never go near a newspaper or the news on TV and radio, and get their information from TikTok, YouTube, active social media, and their friends and family.
There is no plan. There is no vision. There is no delivery. There is, now, no compassion. And consequently, for Labour, it's entirely possible that there is no future: it has no purpose.
He seems to have been spooked by the local election results, and effective PMs don't usually do that. You can't imagine Thatcher or Blair changing course based on them.
Thatcher and Blair had plans for government, that they explained in advance. You could add Cameron to that too, from 2008-15 anyway.
They laid out what was wrong, why it was wrong, how they would fix it, and why those fixes would work. That involved strategic political thinking integrated with a consistently-reinforced political narrative - which then, as you say, didn't get (much) blown off course by daily events. They did make some tactical retreats but they also ensured that they were consistent to the big picture. And, by the next election, they then had a story of success to tell, partly on their own terms but also, crucially, partly on the public's terms.
Labour is right to be spooked by the local election results. However, they're very much taking the wrong lessons from them.
Yes. Here is an outlier possibility. Recent events have shown that the Tories becoming marginal to UK politics is at least a realistic possibility. An impossible thing has become possible. In today's statement SKS has shown both followership in place of leadership and evasion. The followership is obvious. The evasion is tacking away from 'tackling the gangs' to Reformlite in legal migration. The moral crusade aspect of this is totally hollow. Moral crusades don't wait 10 months and then spring into action following electoral disaster.
So, is there a possible trajectory in which the LDs continue to flourish and over the next couple of years become the principal opposition to Reform? Not impossible.
As I said earlier Sam Coates at Sky said this morning that labours problem was that in appearing to be 'Reform lite' their supporters will not be impressed and are likely to turn to the Lib Dems and Greens whilst not one gain from Reform supporters
It's not just about gaining/losing voters to other parties - it's also about stimulating and suppressing turnout. The primary reason that Reform are doing well us due to very high voter retention and lots of previously non-voters expressing support.
Labour could try to do both. Cut immigration, neuter Reform whole delivering other policies that attract their own voters back from DK and Greens/LD. Not much evidence of that yet, but they have 4 years...
Labour shouldn't confuse stubbornness for strength - effective politicians can and do swat political threats as they arise, and that's exactly what Tony Blair did.
If he hadn't, he'd have refused a referendum on the EU Constitution, and the euro, and waved away concerns on asylum numbers.
He didn't. Which is why he stayed in office 10 years.
In fact, the one area in which he was supremely stubborn (Iraq, and liberal interventionism) was eventually his undoing.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
Reform has 5 MPs. They are in no way the main opposition. It's like saying that the SDP were the main opposition in the early 80s or the Liberal Party were the main opposition following the Orpington by election of 1962. Opinion poll leads fly, forgotten, as a dream dies at the op’ning day.
Chortle.
Its true. The Opposition are the Tories, not Reform. I thought you were still a Tory anyway?
Ask EICIPM about the value of midterm poll leads. Or Farage who led the polls in 2019. Or Corbyn who also led the polls in 2019.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
If he’s going to focus policy and attention on immigration then he also needs to attack Farage and Reform relentlessly.
When Miliband was leading Cameron midway through the 2010-2015 parliament, by significantly more than Farage now leads Starmer, the Tories never let up in a campaign of attacking him, and they generally didn’t attempt to out-Miliband Miliband in their policy positions.
What this comes down to is that you don't want the wrong values to win.
Why not engage with the actual content?
That's code for you not agreeing with the electorate opinions on the subject, and the conclusions they've reached.
A bit people in glass houses here. You are not approaching this discussion with anything resembling pluralist objectivity, are you?
There is a tendency, especially on here, to ignore the large component of public opinion that isn’t totally on board with the hard right worldview. I understand the temptation, because Reform is on the up and Labour is floundering. But Reform is at best on 30%ish in the polls and the combination of them and the Tories is roughly the same as the combination of the 3 left of centre parties.
Liberal voices matter. They still vote, and in large numbers. They are still real people, a point that I think gets lost when populists - as they have done through the centuries - claim that they, and only they, represent “the people”.
I see Farage is now moving onto leaving the ECHR as his main slogan .
Will the media do its job properly here or allow him to run on this without asking what that means in a host of areas especially the GFA?
When it comes to the GFA far too many people want to let the tail wag the dog.
If the GFA has to adapt to us changing our policies democratically, or be renegotiated as a result of that, then so be it. Just as if Ireland does, that's their free, democratic right.
Nothing supersedes democracy. Certainly not international agreements.
Maggie was also a consummate politician from c.1978 to c.1986/7. She led from the front, and with bravery and strength, but remained in tune with the electorate.
It was only when it all went to her head "We have become a Grandmother." etc. that she lost her edge, and the premiership.
Good morning everyone. I'm not sure, quoting Mr Pulpstar, that it is such a good morning, in spite of the warm and very pleasant sunshine.
Why, one asks do so many people want to come here? Several reasons, I suggest. First of all, we speak English and those trying to come here regard it as a lingua franca, even if they don't speak it too well themselves. Some knowledge of English is much more widespread than German or Spanish, or even French. Secondly, this country has for many, many years had the reputation of being a safe haven for the oppressed. Not as much as the US, of course, your huddled masses yearning to be free, but the Atlantic is wide and not easily crossed. Thirdly, many of those have relatives here. Fourth, because we are a once upon a time Imperial Power we have for a long time given the impression that we always do the right thing. I know that's not true, but that's the impression we have given.
Now we're saying sorry and all that but none of the above are a good enough reason to come here, no matter how much you're suffering in your home, and whether or not our imperial power once upon a time extended control over your home country.
I was perhaps being a smidgen tongue in cheek about SKS' announcement, and Ukr/Russia is far from over but the US/China and India/Pakistan coming to acquiescence certainly IS good news. How long does the whole "imperial" argument last ? It's 78 years since India achieved independence as an example !
Point noted about the US/China 'deal' although I note that, as I understand it, it's only for 90 days. Being a trader who buys and sells into and out of the US at the moment must be very difficult. Equally, as you say Ukr/Russia is far from over and I have no confidence whatsoever in Putin's desire for peace on any other terms than a return to the Stalinist, or perhaps the Imperial situation. IMHO, as far, anyway as Kashmir is concerned the situation is quieter but by no means peaceful. I understand your point about the Imperial argument but these things take a couple of generations to die down completely. How long will (some at least) English football fans sing abusive songs about the Germans?
"Keir Starmer admitted mass immigration risks making Britain an 'island of strangers' today as he scrambles to blunt the threat from Reform.
The PM deployed the 'take back control' Brexit slogan at a press conference in Downing Street as he pledged to end the 'betrayal' of reliance on cheap foreign labour.
Sir Keir accused the Tories of overseeing an explosion in numbers while in power, saying the system seemed 'designed to permit abuse' and was 'contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart'."
I think Starmer's strategy is what's known as giving your enemy possession of the battlefield.
That’s the madness of it to me. The more the focus is on immigration the more Farage can sit back and let Starmer do his marketing for him. But then I appreciate ignoring the issue is also tricky.
Labour needs to find its political strong point and get media focus on it as much as possible. Historically it’s always been the NHS. Waiting lists do seem to be creeping down. Why not blitz everyone with that. And Streeting hasn’t yet done himself major brand damage like Reeves has. (Admittedly nor has Cooper, but she risks losing Labour some more votes to the Greens and Lib Dems if she keeps upping the rhetoric)
You have to admire the sheer energetic shameless mendacity of it though. As someone recently said of Sir, he takes a lot of convincing about something, but once he's committed, that's it, he goes all in. It was like that with the purge of the Cornynites and it seems like that with his new 'fight them on the beaches' approach to migrants, despite being a human rights lawyer who has dedicated his life to more of them being allowed to stay.
I don’t often agree with you on anything, in fact you are as close to an ideological nemesis as I have in here, but I am inclined to concur with “sheer energetic shameless mendacity”.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
Reform has 5 MPs. They are in no way the main opposition. It's like saying that the SDP were the main opposition in the early 80s or the Liberal Party were the main opposition following the Orpington by election of 1962. Opinion poll leads fly, forgotten, as a dream dies at the op’ning day.
Chortle.
Its true. The Opposition are the Tories, not Reform. I thought you were still a Tory anyway?
Ask EICIPM about the value of midterm poll leads. Or Farage who led the polls in 2019. Or Corbyn who also led the polls in 2019.
The problem is, it's not just opinion poll leads.
Suppose the local elections of 2026/27 are as brutal for Labour and the Conservatives as the ones we've just have. You could easily see Labour and Reform on 50-60 councils apiece, and the Conservatives down to about 10, in which case, voters will conclude the Conservatives are irrelevant. That's fatal under FPTP.
Provided he suffers no widespread revolt in his own ranks, this seems like a no-brainer for Starmer. Nobody much cares if politicians are unprincipled. or what Starmer might have said about immigration in the past.
We do seem to be getting some economic growth at last. If he can get a big drop in immigration numbers (which Sunak's changes will likely deliver), and a reduction in NHS waiting lists, he'll be favourite to win, if only narrowly, like Carney.
1979, 1997, 2010, 2024. 4 times in 45 years. For all the febrile polling changes in government don’t come around often. I will be astonished if Labour don’t win again, probably with a reduced majority.
I see Farage is now moving onto leaving the ECHR as his main slogan .
Will the media do its job properly here or allow him to run on this without asking what that means in a host of areas especially the GFA?
When it comes to the GFA far too many people want to let the tail wag the dog.
If the GFA has to adapt to us changing our policies democratically, or be renegotiated as a result of that, then so be it. Just as if Ireland does, that's their free, democratic right.
Nothing supersedes democracy. Certainly not international agreements.
I read that as GTA (Grand Theft Auto). Watched far too many gaming ads last night.
I don't know if Farage has a policy on this, but I wouldn't mind knowing what it is.
I see Farage is now moving onto leaving the ECHR as his main slogan .
Will the media do its job properly here or allow him to run on this without asking what that means in a host of areas especially the GFA?
When it comes to the GFA far too many people want to let the tail wag the dog.
If the GFA has to adapt to us changing our policies democratically, or be renegotiated as a result of that, then so be it. Just as if Ireland does, that's their free, democratic right.
Nothing supersedes democracy. Certainly not international agreements.
The GFA has been very successful. Trying to re-negotiate it would be costly. Sure, we could do it, but would it be wise?
I see Farage is now moving onto leaving the ECHR as his main slogan .
Will the media do its job properly here or allow him to run on this without asking what that means in a host of areas especially the GFA?
When it comes to the GFA far too many people want to let the tail wag the dog.
If the GFA has to adapt to us changing our policies democratically, or be renegotiated as a result of that, then so be it. Just as if Ireland does, that's their free, democratic right.
Nothing supersedes democracy. Certainly not international agreements.
I read that as GTA (Grand Theft Auto). Watched far too many gaming ads last night.
I don't know if Farage has a policy on this, but I wouldn't mind knowing what it is.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
If he’s going to focus policy and attention on immigration then he also needs to attack Farage and Reform relentlessly.
When Miliband was leading Cameron midway through the 2010-2015 parliament, by significantly more than Farage now leads Starmer, the Tories never let up in a campaign of attacking him, and they generally didn’t attempt to out-Miliband Miliband in their policy positions.
What this comes down to is that you don't want the wrong values to win.
Why not engage with the actual content?
That's code for you not agreeing with the electorate opinions on the subject, and the conclusions they've reached.
A bit people in glass houses here. You are not approaching this discussion with anything resembling pluralist objectivity, are you?
There is a tendency, especially on here, to ignore the large component of public opinion that isn’t totally on board with the hard right worldview. I understand the temptation, because Reform is on the up and Labour is floundering. But Reform is at best on 30%ish in the polls and the combination of them and the Tories is roughly the same as the combination of the 3 left of centre parties.
Liberal voices matter. They still vote, and in large numbers. They are still real people, a point that I think gets lost when populists - as they have done through the centuries - claim that they, and only they, represent “the people”.
And what remains of the Tories can hardly be described as hard-right, otherwise they'd be supporting Reform by now. Even their membership is massively pro-Ukraine, with a majority wanting British boots on the ground.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
Reform has 5 MPs. They are in no way the main opposition. It's like saying that the SDP were the main opposition in the early 80s or the Liberal Party were the main opposition following the Orpington by election of 1962. Opinion poll leads fly, forgotten, as a dream dies at the op’ning day.
Chortle.
Its true. The Opposition are the Tories, not Reform. I thought you were still a Tory anyway?
Ask EICIPM about the value of midterm poll leads. Or Farage who led the polls in 2019. Or Corbyn who also led the polls in 2019.
The problem is, it's not just opinion poll leads.
Suppose the local elections of 2026/27 are as brutal for Labour and the Conservatives as the ones we've just have. You could easily see Labour and Reform on 50-60 councils apiece, and the Conservatives down to about 10, in which case, voters will conclude the Conservatives are irrelevant. That's fatal under FPTP.
Midterm elections don't necessarily mean much either.
Hague gained hundreds of Councillors in 1998 and 2000 . . . then net just 1 seat in 2001 at the General Election.
I see Farage is now moving onto leaving the ECHR as his main slogan .
Will the media do its job properly here or allow him to run on this without asking what that means in a host of areas especially the GFA?
When it comes to the GFA far too many people want to let the tail wag the dog.
If the GFA has to adapt to us changing our policies democratically, or be renegotiated as a result of that, then so be it. Just as if Ireland does, that's their free, democratic right.
Nothing supersedes democracy. Certainly not international agreements.
The GFA has been very successful. Trying to re-negotiate it would be costly. Sure, we could do it, but would it be wise?
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
Reform has 5 MPs. They are in no way the main opposition. It's like saying that the SDP were the main opposition in the early 80s or the Liberal Party were the main opposition following the Orpington by election of 1962. Opinion poll leads fly, forgotten, as a dream dies at the op’ning day.
Chortle.
Its true. The Opposition are the Tories, not Reform. I thought you were still a Tory anyway?
Ask EICIPM about the value of midterm poll leads. Or Farage who led the polls in 2019. Or Corbyn who also led the polls in 2019.
The problem is, it's not just opinion poll leads.
Suppose the local elections of 2026/27 are as brutal for Labour and the Conservatives as the ones we've just have. You could easily see Labour and Reform on 50-60 councils apiece, and the Conservatives down to about 10, in which case, voters will conclude the Conservatives are irrelevant. That's fatal under FPTP.
That's the dog that should be barking, but isn't at the moment.
For all the misery the Starmer government is experiencing (some poor judgement, lots of being passed the baby just before the poonami), they are still in second place, and the Conservatives are doing worse than at the General Election. That is not normal.
Provided he suffers no widespread revolt in his own ranks, this seems like a no-brainer for Starmer. Nobody much cares if politicians are unprincipled. or what Starmer might have said about immigration in the past.
We do seem to be getting some economic growth at last. If he can get a big drop in immigration numbers (which Sunak's changes will likely deliver), and a reduction in NHS waiting lists, he'll be favourite to win, if only narrowly, like Carney.
1979, 1997, 2010, 2024. 4 times in 45 years. For all the febrile polling changes in government don’t come around often. I will be astonished if Labour don’t win again, probably with a reduced majority.
Based on the past you’d probably give Labour higher odds of winning again with a minority party leading the polls than if they were behind the Conservatives. As a Lib Dem I am all too aware of the heartache that ensues from every false polling dawn.
I think what’s so different this time though is the low absolute vote share the governing party is getting. At times in the low 20s.
Provided he suffers no widespread revolt in his own ranks, this seems like a no-brainer for Starmer. Nobody much cares if politicians are unprincipled. or what Starmer might have said about immigration in the past.
We do seem to be getting some economic growth at last. If he can get a big drop in immigration numbers (which Sunak's changes will likely deliver), and a reduction in NHS waiting lists, he'll be favourite to win, if only narrowly, like Carney.
Maggie was also a consummate politician from c.1978 to c.1986/7. She led from the front, and with bravery and strength, but remained in tune with the electorate.
It was only when it all went to her head "We have become a Grandmother." etc. that she lost her edge, and the premiership.
It was so obvious that she should have stood down on her 10th anniversary as PM in May 1989. The same time as the "We are a grandmother" comment IIRC.
Maggie was also a consummate politician from c.1978 to c.1986/7. She led from the front, and with bravery and strength, but remained in tune with the electorate.
It was only when it all went to her head "We have become a Grandmother." etc. that she lost her edge, and the premiership.
It was so obvious that she should have stood down on her 10th anniversary as PM in May 1989. The same time as the "We are a grandmother" comment IIRC.
She hadn't a clue what to do with herself or her life if she did stand down, as events afterwards proved.
She had a rather sad and lonely last 10 years of her life, if well looked after, that I wouldn't wish on anyone.
Provided he suffers no widespread revolt in his own ranks, this seems like a no-brainer for Starmer. Nobody much cares if politicians are unprincipled. or what Starmer might have said about immigration in the past.
We do seem to be getting some economic growth at last. If he can get a big drop in immigration numbers (which Sunak's changes will likely deliver), and a reduction in NHS waiting lists, he'll be favourite to win, if only narrowly, like Carney.
1979, 1997, 2010, 2024. 4 times in 45 years. For all the febrile polling changes in government don’t come around often. I will be astonished if Labour don’t win again, probably with a reduced majority.
Based on the past you’d probably give Labour higher odds of winning again with a minority party leading the polls than if they were behind the Conservatives. As a Lib Dem I am all too aware of the heartache that ensues from every false polling dawn.
I think what’s so different this time though is the low absolute vote share the governing party is getting. At times in the low 20s.
Remember, “this time it’s different” are the most expensive words in the English language.
I don’t understand why people consider it a bad thing that Labour are tackling Reform on immigration. At the end of the day you can be as woke as you like but immigration is still a concern. You can try to convince the population that we have a “moral duty” to accept all these people but you’re not going to win. It’s a much better left wing position to make sure that those we do accept and treated well and chosen wisely and appropriately.
It’s also a much better left wing position to improve the economy so we can better look after and support those already here.
Frankly I trust Labour much more than Reform to do this without ripping up our rights and the economy in the process.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
Reform has 5 MPs. They are in no way the main opposition. It's like saying that the SDP were the main opposition in the early 80s or the Liberal Party were the main opposition following the Orpington by election of 1962. Opinion poll leads fly, forgotten, as a dream dies at the op’ning day.
Chortle.
Its true. The Opposition are the Tories, not Reform. I thought you were still a Tory anyway?
Ask EICIPM about the value of midterm poll leads. Or Farage who led the polls in 2019. Or Corbyn who also led the polls in 2019.
Farage only stopped leading the polls in 2019 as Boris replaced May as Tory leader and as More in Common's poll found last week Boris is the only Conservative who could give the party the lead again over Reform and Labour.
Same applied to Corbyn, only Boris won a landslide against him in late 2019, May nearly lost her majority to Corbyn in 2017 and was trailing him by Spring 2019.
As long as Kemi remains Tory leader the Tories look like also rans, basically a centre right version of the LDs, Farage might need them for power if he falls short of a majority as Starmer might need the LDs if the same applies to him but the next GE for now is a choice between Starmer or Farage as PM not Starmer or Kemi as PM
Provided he suffers no widespread revolt in his own ranks, this seems like a no-brainer for Starmer. Nobody much cares if politicians are unprincipled. or what Starmer might have said about immigration in the past.
We do seem to be getting some economic growth at last. If he can get a big drop in immigration numbers (which Sunak's changes will likely deliver), and a reduction in NHS waiting lists, he'll be favourite to win, if only narrowly, like Carney.
1979, 1997, 2010, 2024. 4 times in 45 years. For all the febrile polling changes in government don’t come around often. I will be astonished if Labour don’t win again, probably with a reduced majority.
Based on the past you’d probably give Labour higher odds of winning again with a minority party leading the polls than if they were behind the Conservatives. As a Lib Dem I am all too aware of the heartache that ensues from every false polling dawn.
I think what’s so different this time though is the low absolute vote share the governing party is getting. At times in the low 20s.
Remember, “this time it’s different” are the most expensive words in the English language.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
Reform has 5 MPs. They are in no way the main opposition. It's like saying that the SDP were the main opposition in the early 80s or the Liberal Party were the main opposition following the Orpington by election of 1962. Opinion poll leads fly, forgotten, as a dream dies at the op’ning day.
Chortle.
Its true. The Opposition are the Tories, not Reform. I thought you were still a Tory anyway?
Ask EICIPM about the value of midterm poll leads. Or Farage who led the polls in 2019. Or Corbyn who also led the polls in 2019.
The problem is, it's not just opinion poll leads.
Suppose the local elections of 2026/27 are as brutal for Labour and the Conservatives as the ones we've just have. You could easily see Labour and Reform on 50-60 councils apiece, and the Conservatives down to about 10, in which case, voters will conclude the Conservatives are irrelevant. That's fatal under FPTP.
Midterm elections don't necessarily mean much either.
Hague gained hundreds of Councillors in 1998 and 2000 . . . then net just 1 seat in 2001 at the General Election.
Kemi would give her right arm for the 31% and 166 MPs Hague won in 2001 now
I had a very tough and sad weekend but I’m back now with a level head.
I’m slightly baffled at some of the criticism here. People have said that Reform are doing well because they’re winning arguments on things like immigration. So isn’t it a good thing that Labour are agreeing and taking this on?
We can judge Labour’s record in four years but I am slightly bemused that Labour can simultaneously be attacked for not doing anything and then attacked for doing something.
For my side, I was very happy with immigration around 300K a year but it’s too high now and I think we need to bring it back down. As we’ve voted to leave the EU and I’ve lost that argument long ago we may as well use the powers we’ve got for what the majority seemingly want to do. I don’t hold any shame in conceding that argument.
They do have to stop the boats though. To me it seems obvious, write a blank cheque to France to take them back.
I don’t understand why people consider it a bad thing that Labour are tackling Reform on immigration. At the end of the day you can be as woke as you like but immigration is still a concern. You can try to convince the population that we have a “moral duty” to accept all these people but you’re not going to win. It’s a much better left wing position to make sure that those we do accept and treated well and chosen wisely and appropriately.
It’s also a much better left wing position to improve the economy so we can better look after and support those already here.
Frankly I trust Labour much more than Reform to do this without ripping up our rights and the economy in the process.
It could be done at policy level without the totally unnecessary dogwhistle language and nastiness, which is classic home office and just encourages others to ramp up the rhetoric further.
I don’t understand why people consider it a bad thing that Labour are tackling Reform on immigration. At the end of the day you can be as woke as you like but immigration is still a concern. You can try to convince the population that we have a “moral duty” to accept all these people but you’re not going to win. It’s a much better left wing position to make sure that those we do accept and treated well and chosen wisely and appropriately.
It’s also a much better left wing position to improve the economy so we can better look after and support those already here.
Frankly I trust Labour much more than Reform to do this without ripping up our rights and the economy in the process.
It could be done at policy level without the totally unnecessary dogwhistle language and nastiness, which is classic home office and just encourages others to ramp up the rhetoric further.
Provided he suffers no widespread revolt in his own ranks, this seems like a no-brainer for Starmer. Nobody much cares if politicians are unprincipled. or what Starmer might have said about immigration in the past.
We do seem to be getting some economic growth at last. If he can get a big drop in immigration numbers (which Sunak's changes will likely deliver), and a reduction in NHS waiting lists, he'll be favourite to win, if only narrowly, like Carney.
1979, 1997, 2010, 2024. 4 times in 45 years. For all the febrile polling changes in government don’t come around often. I will be astonished if Labour don’t win again, probably with a reduced majority.
Based on the past you’d probably give Labour higher odds of winning again with a minority party leading the polls than if they were behind the Conservatives. As a Lib Dem I am all too aware of the heartache that ensues from every false polling dawn.
I think what’s so different this time though is the low absolute vote share the governing party is getting. At times in the low 20s.
Remember, “this time it’s different” are the most expensive words in the English language.
Quite - but then a lot of us got burned by suggesting that it was historically exceptionally unlikely that an incumbent government with a majority of 80 would be replaced by a different majority government in one election (let alone one winning a huge landslide).
I don’t understand why people consider it a bad thing that Labour are tackling Reform on immigration. At the end of the day you can be as woke as you like but immigration is still a concern. You can try to convince the population that we have a “moral duty” to accept all these people but you’re not going to win. It’s a much better left wing position to make sure that those we do accept and treated well and chosen wisely and appropriately.
It’s also a much better left wing position to improve the economy so we can better look after and support those already here.
Frankly I trust Labour much more than Reform to do this without ripping up our rights and the economy in the process.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
Reform has 5 MPs. They are in no way the main opposition. It's like saying that the SDP were the main opposition in the early 80s or the Liberal Party were the main opposition following the Orpington by election of 1962. Opinion poll leads fly, forgotten, as a dream dies at the op’ning day.
Chortle.
Its true. The Opposition are the Tories, not Reform. I thought you were still a Tory anyway?
Ask EICIPM about the value of midterm poll leads. Or Farage who led the polls in 2019. Or Corbyn who also led the polls in 2019.
Farage only stopped leading the polls in 2019 as Boris replaced May as Tory leader and as More in Common's poll found last week Boris is the only Conservative who could give the party the lead again over Reform and Labour.
Same applied to Corbyn, only Boris won a landslide against him in late 2019, May nearly lost her majority to Corbyn in 2017 and was trailing him by Spring 2019.
As long as Kemi remains Tory leader the Tories look like also rans, basically a centre right version of the LDs, Farage might need them for power if he falls short of a majority as Starmer might need the LDs if the same applies to him but the next GE for now is a choice between Starmer or Farage as PM not Starmer or Kemi as PM
Cameron also consistently led Ed Miliband as best PM in polls, Kemi is a long way behind Starmer or Farage as best PM
Provided he suffers no widespread revolt in his own ranks, this seems like a no-brainer for Starmer. Nobody much cares if politicians are unprincipled. or what Starmer might have said about immigration in the past.
We do seem to be getting some economic growth at last. If he can get a big drop in immigration numbers (which Sunak's changes will likely deliver), and a reduction in NHS waiting lists, he'll be favourite to win, if only narrowly, like Carney.
1979, 1997, 2010, 2024. 4 times in 45 years. For all the febrile polling changes in government don’t come around often. I will be astonished if Labour don’t win again, probably with a reduced majority.
Based on the past you’d probably give Labour higher odds of winning again with a minority party leading the polls than if they were behind the Conservatives. As a Lib Dem I am all too aware of the heartache that ensues from every false polling dawn.
I think what’s so different this time though is the low absolute vote share the governing party is getting. At times in the low 20s.
Remember, “this time it’s different” are the most expensive words in the English language.
Provided he suffers no widespread revolt in his own ranks, this seems like a no-brainer for Starmer. Nobody much cares if politicians are unprincipled. or what Starmer might have said about immigration in the past.
We do seem to be getting some economic growth at last. If he can get a big drop in immigration numbers (which Sunak's changes will likely deliver), and a reduction in NHS waiting lists, he'll be favourite to win, if only narrowly, like Carney.
1979, 1997, 2010, 2024. 4 times in 45 years. For all the febrile polling changes in government don’t come around often. I will be astonished if Labour don’t win again, probably with a reduced majority.
Based on the past you’d probably give Labour higher odds of winning again with a minority party leading the polls than if they were behind the Conservatives. As a Lib Dem I am all too aware of the heartache that ensues from every false polling dawn.
I think what’s so different this time though is the low absolute vote share the governing party is getting. At times in the low 20s.
Remember, “this time it’s different” are the most expensive words in the English language.
"Lessons vill be learnt!"
Those are the cheapest words. They cost nothing to utter and they mean just as much.
I can understand the argument that you can’t out-Reform Reform but surely it’s about persuading the voters who are Labour minded but are currently voting Reform to come back? You don’t need to out Reform to do that, just respond to their concerns. Focus groups from Luke Tryl have said voters will be willing to come back if Labour deliver.
I’m struggling to see how this move - if successful, I accept a big if - won’t do that. You can call it as cynical or as pathetic as you like but if migration comes down Labour have a record to speak to. Perhaps it won’t come down by enough but what exactly is enough to these voters? I confess I don’t know.
I think what it does show is that Labour is not going to sit around for four years and give up. They have time on their side.
On the economy, how is it looking? My own sense is it’s not as bad as people say but I am in a London bubble.
Farage saying Starmer is making promises he can’t keep . But unfortunately for Farage in terms of legal migration it will work .
Its all in the eyes of the beholder
This is a white paper so has some way to go to be legislated upon and Starmer needs results
Also Starmer has not addressed the boat crisis in this white paper
And finally why vote Starmer when you can get the real deal in one Nigel Farage
(Note - I will not vote for Farage or Reform but polls indicate many will)
Because Reform is a one trick pony.
Reform is not a one trick pony. It is far deeper than that. It is now the main opposition. It's polling over 30% and, currently, in poll position to form the next majority government.
Starmer is very well advised to turn his guns directly on it and cut the legs from under it so, in four years time, he can present himself as the moderate credible government that gets things done.
Reform has 5 MPs. They are in no way the main opposition. It's like saying that the SDP were the main opposition in the early 80s or the Liberal Party were the main opposition following the Orpington by election of 1962. Opinion poll leads fly, forgotten, as a dream dies at the op’ning day.
Chortle.
Its true. The Opposition are the Tories, not Reform. I thought you were still a Tory anyway?
Ask EICIPM about the value of midterm poll leads. Or Farage who led the polls in 2019. Or Corbyn who also led the polls in 2019.
The problem is, it's not just opinion poll leads.
Suppose the local elections of 2026/27 are as brutal for Labour and the Conservatives as the ones we've just have. You could easily see Labour and Reform on 50-60 councils apiece, and the Conservatives down to about 10, in which case, voters will conclude the Conservatives are irrelevant. That's fatal under FPTP.
Midterm elections don't necessarily mean much either.
Hague gained hundreds of Councillors in 1998 and 2000 . . . then net just 1 seat in 2001 at the General Election.
Kemi would give her right arm for the 31% and 166 MPs Hague won in 2001 now
It’s quite an interesting question how many additional seats Kemi has to win to get another go. I would have thought that 166 seats total would be around the bottom band of a “success”.
It would obviously help if Reform didn’t leap up into contention.
Obviously Labour needs to tackle the threat from Reform. But it's simply untrue that what was announced this morning is a knee-jerk response to that threat. It was trailed in Labour's 2024 election manifesto, which said this (and there is more):
People who have come to the UK to work make a substantial contribution to our economy, our public services, and our communities. But under the Conservatives, our economy has become overly dependent on workers from abroad to fill skills shortages. As a result, we have seen net migration reach record highs; more than triple the level than at the last election in 2019. The overall level must be properly controlled and managed. Failure to do so reduces the incentives for businesses to train locally. So, Labour will reduce net migration. We will reform the points-based immigration system so that it is fair and properly managed, with appropriate restrictions on visas, and by linking immigration and skills policy. Labour will not tolerate employers or recruitment agencies abusing the visa system. And we will not stand for breaches of employment law. Employers who flout the rules will be barred from hiring workers from abroad.
Seems pretty clear to me that the government is simply doing what it said it would do in its manifesto.
I had a very tough and sad weekend but I’m back now with a level head.
I’m slightly baffled at some of the criticism here. People have said that Reform are doing well because they’re winning arguments on things like immigration. So isn’t it a good thing that Labour are agreeing and taking this on?
We can judge Labour’s record in four years but I am slightly bemused that Labour can simultaneously be attacked for not doing anything and then attacked for doing something.
For my side, I was very happy with immigration around 300K a year but it’s too high now and I think we need to bring it back down. As we’ve voted to leave the EU and I’ve lost that argument long ago we may as well use the powers we’ve got for what the majority seemingly want to do. I don’t hold any shame in conceding that argument.
They do have to stop the boats though. To me it seems obvious, write a blank cheque to France to take them back.
Sorry to hear about your tough weekend. Hope it's okay now.
I don’t understand why people consider it a bad thing that Labour are tackling Reform on immigration. At the end of the day you can be as woke as you like but immigration is still a concern. You can try to convince the population that we have a “moral duty” to accept all these people but you’re not going to win. It’s a much better left wing position to make sure that those we do accept and treated well and chosen wisely and appropriately.
It’s also a much better left wing position to improve the economy so we can better look after and support those already here.
Frankly I trust Labour much more than Reform to do this without ripping up our rights and the economy in the process.
It could be done at policy level without the totally unnecessary dogwhistle language and nastiness, which is classic home office and just encourages others to ramp up the rhetoric further.
What language are you referring to?
“Nation of strangers” “City the size of Birmingham” “That’s not control, it’s chaos” “An immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse”
All in this morning’s speech, and all calculated to paint a picture of an invasion and a system out of control. They heighten people’s fears rather than reassuring them.
And Cooper invited journalists in to film migrants being forcibly deported back in February. Again, all part of the theatre of immigration policy. Not quite up there with Trump and his El Salvador prisons I grant you, but unnecessary and in my view self defeating.
Is "Island of strangers" a much-needed cry for better integration, or is it a Great Replacement dog whistle?
Anecdotally, of course, my old primary school (Noobury Park) is now almost entirely Asian, with a few east Europeans. When I started going there in 1980, there were half a dozen of us ethnics in my class of about 30.
I don’t understand why people consider it a bad thing that Labour are tackling Reform on immigration. At the end of the day you can be as woke as you like but immigration is still a concern. You can try to convince the population that we have a “moral duty” to accept all these people but you’re not going to win. It’s a much better left wing position to make sure that those we do accept and treated well and chosen wisely and appropriately.
It’s also a much better left wing position to improve the economy so we can better look after and support those already here.
Frankly I trust Labour much more than Reform to do this without ripping up our rights and the economy in the process.
It could be done at policy level without the totally unnecessary dogwhistle language and nastiness, which is classic home office and just encourages others to ramp up the rhetoric further.
What language are you referring to?
“Nation of strangers” “City the size of Birmingham” “That’s not control, it’s chaos” “An immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse”
All in this morning’s speech, and all calculated to paint a picture of an invasion and a system out of control. They heighten people’s fears rather than reassuring them.
And Cooper invited journalists in to film migrants being forcibly deported back in February. Again, all part of the theatre of immigration policy. Not quite up there with Trump and his El Salvador prisons I grant you, but unnecessary and in my view self defeating.
I consider myself to be woke but none of that is inaccurate is it?
I can understand the argument that you can’t out-Reform Reform but surely it’s about persuading the voters who are Labour minded but are currently voting Reform to come back? You don’t need to out Reform to do that, just respond to their concerns. Focus groups from Luke Tryl have said voters will be willing to come back if Labour deliver.
I’m struggling to see how this move - if successful, I accept a big if - won’t do that. You can call it as cynical or as pathetic as you like but if migration comes down Labour have a record to speak to. Perhaps it won’t come down by enough but what exactly is enough to these voters? I confess I don’t know.
I think what it does show is that Labour is not going to sit around for four years and give up. They have time on their side.
On the economy, how is it looking? My own sense is it’s not as bad as people say but I am in a London bubble.
I must say that I am very surprised that people are talking about 0.6% in Q1. I thought that we would be struggling to get that in the year. Some solid growth would certainly help.
I see Farage is now moving onto leaving the ECHR as his main slogan .
Will the media do its job properly here or allow him to run on this without asking what that means in a host of areas especially the GFA?
Gaelic Football Association??
Probably the Good Friday Agreement, which explicitly references the ECHR.
If we want to exit the ECHR, then we have to renegotiate the Good Friday Agreement, or else unilaterally (if partially) pull out of the GFA by nullifying those clauses & seeing if any of the other participants do anything in response.
I can understand the argument that you can’t out-Reform Reform but surely it’s about persuading the voters who are Labour minded but are currently voting Reform to come back? You don’t need to out Reform to do that, just respond to their concerns. Focus groups from Luke Tryl have said voters will be willing to come back if Labour deliver.
I’m struggling to see how this move - if successful, I accept a big if - won’t do that. You can call it as cynical or as pathetic as you like but if migration comes down Labour have a record to speak to. Perhaps it won’t come down by enough but what exactly is enough to these voters? I confess I don’t know.
I think what it does show is that Labour is not going to sit around for four years and give up. They have time on their side.
On the economy, how is it looking? My own sense is it’s not as bad as people say but I am in a London bubble.
I must say that I am very surprised that people are talking about 0.6% in Q1. I thought that we would be struggling to get that in the year. Some solid growth would certainly help.
Where can that figure be cited? Presumably before the NI changes?
I can understand the argument that you can’t out-Reform Reform but surely it’s about persuading the voters who are Labour minded but are currently voting Reform to come back? You don’t need to out Reform to do that, just respond to their concerns. Focus groups from Luke Tryl have said voters will be willing to come back if Labour deliver.
I’m struggling to see how this move - if successful, I accept a big if - won’t do that. You can call it as cynical or as pathetic as you like but if migration comes down Labour have a record to speak to. Perhaps it won’t come down by enough but what exactly is enough to these voters? I confess I don’t know.
I think what it does show is that Labour is not going to sit around for four years and give up. They have time on their side.
On the economy, how is it looking? My own sense is it’s not as bad as people say but I am in a London bubble.
Well, I agree that this is a positioning tactic from Labour that they probably had to make, in light of the threats they face. They need to at least do something to try to neutralise the issue. The jury is out on if they’ll manage it or if it simply drives people to the people who’ll be even “tougher” - Reform - but I see the logic of the move. It definitely could work.
You will spare me a slight moment of amusement though to see Starmer coming out with the type of rhetoric which would for decades have been condemned by the left as being irresponsible, dog whistle and unacceptable political language. Talking of “islands of strangers” would have stirred up some quarters into absolute apoplexy. It is quite amusing to read commentary now trying to explain that the Labour Party are right to address concerns etc when for a very long time the public were told by some that the concerns were illegitimate.
I don’t understand why people consider it a bad thing that Labour are tackling Reform on immigration. At the end of the day you can be as woke as you like but immigration is still a concern. You can try to convince the population that we have a “moral duty” to accept all these people but you’re not going to win. It’s a much better left wing position to make sure that those we do accept and treated well and chosen wisely and appropriately.
It’s also a much better left wing position to improve the economy so we can better look after and support those already here.
Frankly I trust Labour much more than Reform to do this without ripping up our rights and the economy in the process.
It could be done at policy level without the totally unnecessary dogwhistle language and nastiness, which is classic home office and just encourages others to ramp up the rhetoric further.
What language are you referring to?
“Nation of strangers” “City the size of Birmingham” “That’s not control, it’s chaos” “An immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse”
All in this morning’s speech, and all calculated to paint a picture of an invasion and a system out of control. They heighten people’s fears rather than reassuring them.
And Cooper invited journalists in to film migrants being forcibly deported back in February. Again, all part of the theatre of immigration policy. Not quite up there with Trump and his El Salvador prisons I grant you, but unnecessary and in my view self defeating.
It’s far worse than self defeating - it’s deluded dishonest politics and a former imperial power flushing itself down the pan.
Clearly after this mornings insanity we are voting Labour out, but who are we going to vote in who is actually being honest with us?
Starmer “Let’s take back control.” “BJ4BW.” “Post Brexit Tories didn’t let a million a year in by accident, they did it on purpose.”
What a load of UTTER JIBBERISH.
When will the UK have a sane government, living in the real world, actually being honest with us about the price of globalisation, ageing populations, automation, and climate change the UK MUST PAY. Real, real world, inescapable costs, taking control away from governments and electorates. Instead of the utter deluded bullshit we heard from Starmer this morning.
I can understand the argument that you can’t out-Reform Reform but surely it’s about persuading the voters who are Labour minded but are currently voting Reform to come back? You don’t need to out Reform to do that, just respond to their concerns. Focus groups from Luke Tryl have said voters will be willing to come back if Labour deliver.
I’m struggling to see how this move - if successful, I accept a big if - won’t do that. You can call it as cynical or as pathetic as you like but if migration comes down Labour have a record to speak to. Perhaps it won’t come down by enough but what exactly is enough to these voters? I confess I don’t know.
I think what it does show is that Labour is not going to sit around for four years and give up. They have time on their side.
On the economy, how is it looking? My own sense is it’s not as bad as people say but I am in a London bubble.
Well, I agree that this is a positioning tactic from Labour that they probably had to make, in light of the threats they face. They need to at least do something to try to neutralise the issue. The jury is out on if they’ll manage it or if it simply drives people to the people who’ll be even “tougher” - Reform - but I see the logic of the move. It definitely could work.
You will spare me a slight moment of amusement though to see Starmer coming out with the type of rhetoric which would for decades have been condemned by the left as being irresponsible, dog whistle and unacceptable political language. Talking of “islands of strangers” would have stirred up some quarters into absolute apoplexy. It is quite amusing to read commentary now trying to explain that the Labour Party are right to address concerns etc when for a very long time the public were told by some that the concerns were illegitimate.
I’m happy to concede that on immigration whilst I didn’t agree with some of the more fruity rhetoric, I also did not understand the strength of feeling that many do legitimately feel. I got it wrong.
I do think though that is a difference in the migration we’ve had post Brexit and before. The negativity towards mostly Christian immigrants from Poland baffled me.
I can understand the argument that you can’t out-Reform Reform but surely it’s about persuading the voters who are Labour minded but are currently voting Reform to come back? You don’t need to out Reform to do that, just respond to their concerns. Focus groups from Luke Tryl have said voters will be willing to come back if Labour deliver.
I’m struggling to see how this move - if successful, I accept a big if - won’t do that. You can call it as cynical or as pathetic as you like but if migration comes down Labour have a record to speak to. Perhaps it won’t come down by enough but what exactly is enough to these voters? I confess I don’t know.
I think what it does show is that Labour is not going to sit around for four years and give up. They have time on their side.
On the economy, how is it looking? My own sense is it’s not as bad as people say but I am in a London bubble.
Well, I agree that this is a positioning tactic from Labour that they probably had to make, in light of the threats they face. They need to at least do something to try to neutralise the issue. The jury is out on if they’ll manage it or if it simply drives people to the people who’ll be even “tougher” - Reform - but I see the logic of the move. It definitely could work.
You will spare me a slight moment of amusement though to see Starmer coming out with the type of rhetoric which would for decades have been condemned by the left as being irresponsible, dog whistle and unacceptable political language. Talking of “islands of strangers” would have stirred up some quarters into absolute apoplexy. It is quite amusing to read commentary now trying to explain that the Labour Party are right to address concerns etc when for a very long time the public were told by some that the concerns were illegitimate.
I’m happy to concede that on immigration whilst I didn’t agree with some of the more fruity rhetoric, I did not understand the strength of feeling that many do feel. I got it wrong.
Now, now, this is PB. This is NOT the place for changing your mind and especially not for admitting that you got something wrong!
Made it over the last big hill. I can now see Perpignan and the sea..
About eleven miles to go
Many years ago my wife and I walked most of the Cathar trail from the coast to Foix in a blazing hot September - temperatures hit 30 degrees IIRC.
We chickened out of climbing all the way up to Perpignan due to the heat and eventually abandoned the entire endeavour for a few days relaxing in Foix as my wife developed an infection in her foot from a blister. But I still have fond memories of walking across the Garrigue & smelling the sage underfoot & Montsegur was stunning.
Hope you’re having a cooler time of it than we did!
"Keir Starmer admitted mass immigration risks making Britain an 'island of strangers' today as he scrambles to blunt the threat from Reform.
The PM deployed the 'take back control' Brexit slogan at a press conference in Downing Street as he pledged to end the 'betrayal' of reliance on cheap foreign labour.
Sir Keir accused the Tories of overseeing an explosion in numbers while in power, saying the system seemed 'designed to permit abuse' and was 'contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart'."
I think Starmer's strategy is what's known as giving your enemy possession of the battlefield.
That’s the madness of it to me. The more the focus is on immigration the more Farage can sit back and let Starmer do his marketing for him. But then I appreciate ignoring the issue is also tricky.
Labour needs to find its political strong point and get media focus on it as much as possible. Historically it’s always been the NHS. Waiting lists do seem to be creeping down. Why not blitz everyone with that. And Streeting hasn’t yet done himself major brand damage like Reeves has. (Admittedly nor has Cooper, but she risks losing Labour some more votes to the Greens and Lib Dems if she keeps upping the rhetoric)
Alternatively, ignoring the immigration issues destines Labour to a large defeat to Reform in 2029, an outcome I'd do pretty much anything to avoid. I think the days when Labour can win an election on the NHS are gone.
For sure , if immigration not cut big time and boats completely they are stuffed and Nigel will have to sort it out. It is festering just like the crazy trans/LGBT thing and at some point people will have had enough, rightly or wrongly. When people cannot get houses , medical treatment , etc and peopel can waltz in on an RN taxi , straight to 4* hotel , issued with all the comforts of life, houses being built/issued to them , then at some point it will backfire. The great unwashed will take the hump big time.
I don’t understand why people consider it a bad thing that Labour are tackling Reform on immigration. At the end of the day you can be as woke as you like but immigration is still a concern. You can try to convince the population that we have a “moral duty” to accept all these people but you’re not going to win. It’s a much better left wing position to make sure that those we do accept and treated well and chosen wisely and appropriately.
It’s also a much better left wing position to improve the economy so we can better look after and support those already here.
Frankly I trust Labour much more than Reform to do this without ripping up our rights and the economy in the process.
It could be done at policy level without the totally unnecessary dogwhistle language and nastiness, which is classic home office and just encourages others to ramp up the rhetoric further.
What language are you referring to?
“Nation of strangers” “City the size of Birmingham” “That’s not control, it’s chaos” “An immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse”
All in this morning’s speech, and all calculated to paint a picture of an invasion and a system out of control. They heighten people’s fears rather than reassuring them.
And Cooper invited journalists in to film migrants being forcibly deported back in February. Again, all part of the theatre of immigration policy. Not quite up there with Trump and his El Salvador prisons I grant you, but unnecessary and in my view self defeating.
I consider myself to be woke but none of that is inaccurate is it?
We seem to have lost sight of the imprecation to speak softly but carry a big stick. Isn’t one of the reasons political trust is so low that successive governments have spoken ever more loudly while carrying a very small stick? Not just on this topic but most notably on tax and spend and public services.
I don’t understand why people consider it a bad thing that Labour are tackling Reform on immigration. At the end of the day you can be as woke as you like but immigration is still a concern. You can try to convince the population that we have a “moral duty” to accept all these people but you’re not going to win. It’s a much better left wing position to make sure that those we do accept and treated well and chosen wisely and appropriately.
It’s also a much better left wing position to improve the economy so we can better look after and support those already here.
Frankly I trust Labour much more than Reform to do this without ripping up our rights and the economy in the process.
It could be done at policy level without the totally unnecessary dogwhistle language and nastiness, which is classic home office and just encourages others to ramp up the rhetoric further.
What language are you referring to?
“Nation of strangers” “City the size of Birmingham” “That’s not control, it’s chaos” “An immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse”
All in this morning’s speech, and all calculated to paint a picture of an invasion and a system out of control. They heighten people’s fears rather than reassuring them.
And Cooper invited journalists in to film migrants being forcibly deported back in February. Again, all part of the theatre of immigration policy. Not quite up there with Trump and his El Salvador prisons I grant you, but unnecessary and in my view self defeating.
You wouldn't listen to me when I said that you should group Labour and Reform as the two populist parties rather than right versus left.
I can understand the argument that you can’t out-Reform Reform but surely it’s about persuading the voters who are Labour minded but are currently voting Reform to come back? You don’t need to out Reform to do that, just respond to their concerns. Focus groups from Luke Tryl have said voters will be willing to come back if Labour deliver.
I’m struggling to see how this move - if successful, I accept a big if - won’t do that. You can call it as cynical or as pathetic as you like but if migration comes down Labour have a record to speak to. Perhaps it won’t come down by enough but what exactly is enough to these voters? I confess I don’t know.
I think what it does show is that Labour is not going to sit around for four years and give up. They have time on their side.
On the economy, how is it looking? My own sense is it’s not as bad as people say but I am in a London bubble.
Well, I agree that this is a positioning tactic from Labour that they probably had to make, in light of the threats they face. They need to at least do something to try to neutralise the issue. The jury is out on if they’ll manage it or if it simply drives people to the people who’ll be even “tougher” - Reform - but I see the logic of the move. It definitely could work.
You will spare me a slight moment of amusement though to see Starmer coming out with the type of rhetoric which would for decades have been condemned by the left as being irresponsible, dog whistle and unacceptable political language. Talking of “islands of strangers” would have stirred up some quarters into absolute apoplexy. It is quite amusing to read commentary now trying to explain that the Labour Party are right to address concerns etc when for a very long time the public were told by some that the concerns were illegitimate.
I’m happy to concede that on immigration whilst I didn’t agree with some of the more fruity rhetoric, I also did not understand the strength of feeling that many do legitimately feel. I got it wrong.
I do think though that is a difference in the migration we’ve had post Brexit and before. The negativity towards mostly Christian immigrants from Poland baffled me.
I understand that viewpoint, though I think that the ground was laid in the mid noughties for the issues we see coming to light now. The problem was that policy makers were by and large successful at casting concerns about immigration as being somehow wrong or beyond the pale, and that rhetoric has continued for a very long time, and caused a significant running sore with western electorates (this isn’t just a British condition). The failure of politicians of all parties to confront these difficult truths, and discuss them maturely with voters, has led to people reaching out for those that offer an alternative - and hence to the rise of populist politics and policies like Brexit.
I can understand the argument that you can’t out-Reform Reform but surely it’s about persuading the voters who are Labour minded but are currently voting Reform to come back? You don’t need to out Reform to do that, just respond to their concerns. Focus groups from Luke Tryl have said voters will be willing to come back if Labour deliver.
I’m struggling to see how this move - if successful, I accept a big if - won’t do that. You can call it as cynical or as pathetic as you like but if migration comes down Labour have a record to speak to. Perhaps it won’t come down by enough but what exactly is enough to these voters? I confess I don’t know.
I think what it does show is that Labour is not going to sit around for four years and give up. They have time on their side.
On the economy, how is it looking? My own sense is it’s not as bad as people say but I am in a London bubble.
I must say that I am very surprised that people are talking about 0.6% in Q1. I thought that we would be struggling to get that in the year. Some solid growth would certainly help.
The BOE last week downgraded its 2025 growth forecast to 0.8%. They quoted that Q1 growth number and said that was due to one offs and underlying growth is around zero currently.
With US/China de-escalating economically, Pakistan / India de-escalating properly, Starmer toughing up migration rules and Ukr/Russia inching towards a deal there definitely seems to be a general wave of sanity today.
Of course tommorow could bring fresh horrors but it's not a bad Monday all things told.
Sometimes economic booms and busts come when nobody’s expecting them. In fact I’d venture that most economic booms and busts come when nobody’s expecting them.
I wonder. I wonder. I’ve been saying for a while that on the basic numbers the UK and some European countries’ economies (though not Germany’s or Ireland’s) seem perfectly poised for a period of expansion.
Private debt has been falling since 2009 and it way lower than at any time since the mid 90s. That’s both corporate private debt, and household debt.
Corporates know they need to spend hundreds of millions on digital and AI, and green transformation. They’ve been putting it off but can’t put it off forever. Households have been putting off buying new cars while they wait to see what happens with ICE and EVs. They may well also have put off home improvements while building material inflation was galloping and interest rates were high.
Now we have falling interest rates, lower inflation and a very low oil price, the prospect of a bit of Chinese dumping thanks to US tariffs, and a recovering stock market. The sun is shining. Reeves’ miserabilist tone is priced in.
We could all do with a bit of good luck, none more so than this timid government. Starmer’s generalship has been conspicuously less lucky since the election.
I don’t understand why people consider it a bad thing that Labour are tackling Reform on immigration. At the end of the day you can be as woke as you like but immigration is still a concern. You can try to convince the population that we have a “moral duty” to accept all these people but you’re not going to win. It’s a much better left wing position to make sure that those we do accept and treated well and chosen wisely and appropriately.
It’s also a much better left wing position to improve the economy so we can better look after and support those already here.
Frankly I trust Labour much more than Reform to do this without ripping up our rights and the economy in the process.
It could be done at policy level without the totally unnecessary dogwhistle language and nastiness, which is classic home office and just encourages others to ramp up the rhetoric further.
What language are you referring to?
“Nation of strangers” “City the size of Birmingham” “That’s not control, it’s chaos” “An immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse”
All in this morning’s speech, and all calculated to paint a picture of an invasion and a system out of control. They heighten people’s fears rather than reassuring them.
And Cooper invited journalists in to film migrants being forcibly deported back in February. Again, all part of the theatre of immigration policy. Not quite up there with Trump and his El Salvador prisons I grant you, but unnecessary and in my view self defeating.
I consider myself to be woke but none of that is inaccurate is it?
We seem to have lost sight of the imprecation to speak softly but carry a big stick. Isn’t one of the reasons political trust is so low that successive governments have spoken ever more loudly while carrying a very small stick? Not just on this topic but most notably on tax and spend and public services.
"For too long, politicians have made big promises while leaving delivery as an afterthough. That ends now!
My government will set up a broken promise hotline, so that politicians can be held to account."
I can understand the argument that you can’t out-Reform Reform but surely it’s about persuading the voters who are Labour minded but are currently voting Reform to come back? You don’t need to out Reform to do that, just respond to their concerns. Focus groups from Luke Tryl have said voters will be willing to come back if Labour deliver.
I’m struggling to see how this move - if successful, I accept a big if - won’t do that. You can call it as cynical or as pathetic as you like but if migration comes down Labour have a record to speak to. Perhaps it won’t come down by enough but what exactly is enough to these voters? I confess I don’t know.
I think what it does show is that Labour is not going to sit around for four years and give up. They have time on their side.
On the economy, how is it looking? My own sense is it’s not as bad as people say but I am in a London bubble.
I must say that I am very surprised that people are talking about 0.6% in Q1. I thought that we would be struggling to get that in the year. Some solid growth would certainly help.
Where can that figure be cited? Presumably before the NI changes?
It was referred to by a couple of sources around the time that the BoE cut interest rates. It is largely based on the very good number for February (0.4 IIRC).
At the risk of following @BatteryCorrectHorse on admitting to getting things wrong, it’s way better than I expected. I was muttering about a technical recession at the start of this year.
"Keir Starmer admitted mass immigration risks making Britain an 'island of strangers' today as he scrambles to blunt the threat from Reform.
The PM deployed the 'take back control' Brexit slogan at a press conference in Downing Street as he pledged to end the 'betrayal' of reliance on cheap foreign labour.
Sir Keir accused the Tories of overseeing an explosion in numbers while in power, saying the system seemed 'designed to permit abuse' and was 'contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart'."
I think Starmer's strategy is what's known as giving your enemy possession of the battlefield.
That’s the madness of it to me. The more the focus is on immigration the more Farage can sit back and let Starmer do his marketing for him. But then I appreciate ignoring the issue is also tricky.
Labour needs to find its political strong point and get media focus on it as much as possible. Historically it’s always been the NHS. Waiting lists do seem to be creeping down. Why not blitz everyone with that. And Streeting hasn’t yet done himself major brand damage like Reeves has. (Admittedly nor has Cooper, but she risks losing Labour some more votes to the Greens and Lib Dems if she keeps upping the rhetoric)
Alternatively, ignoring the immigration issues destines Labour to a large defeat to Reform in 2029, an outcome I'd do pretty much anything to avoid. I think the days when Labour can win an election on the NHS are gone.
For sure , if immigration not cut big time and boats completely they are stuffed and Nigel will have to sort it out. It is festering just like the crazy trans/LGBT thing and at some point people will have had enough, rightly or wrongly. When people cannot get houses , medical treatment , etc and peopel can waltz in on an RN taxi , straight to 4* hotel , issued with all the comforts of life, houses being built/issued to them , then at some point it will backfire. The great unwashed will take the hump big time.
No asylum seekers are in 4* hotels. That’s a lie that’s been repeated far too often.
They are not issued with all the comforts of life. You would not want to try to live on the money they are given.
"Keir Starmer admitted mass immigration risks making Britain an 'island of strangers' today as he scrambles to blunt the threat from Reform.
The PM deployed the 'take back control' Brexit slogan at a press conference in Downing Street as he pledged to end the 'betrayal' of reliance on cheap foreign labour.
Sir Keir accused the Tories of overseeing an explosion in numbers while in power, saying the system seemed 'designed to permit abuse' and was 'contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart'."
I think Starmer's strategy is what's known as giving your enemy possession of the battlefield.
That’s the madness of it to me. The more the focus is on immigration the more Farage can sit back and let Starmer do his marketing for him. But then I appreciate ignoring the issue is also tricky.
Labour needs to find its political strong point and get media focus on it as much as possible. Historically it’s always been the NHS. Waiting lists do seem to be creeping down. Why not blitz everyone with that. And Streeting hasn’t yet done himself major brand damage like Reeves has. (Admittedly nor has Cooper, but she risks losing Labour some more votes to the Greens and Lib Dems if she keeps upping the rhetoric)
You have to admire the sheer energetic shameless mendacity of it though. As someone recently said of Sir, he takes a lot of convincing about something, but once he's committed, that's it, he goes all in. It was like that with the purge of the Cornynites and it seems like that with his new 'fight them on the beaches' approach to migrants, despite being a human rights lawyer who has dedicated his life to more of them being allowed to stay.
I don’t often agree with you on anything, in fact you are as close to an ideological nemesis as I have in here, but I am inclined to concur with “sheer energetic shameless mendacity”.
That sounds more like Trump. Starmer is far lower wattage.
I can understand the argument that you can’t out-Reform Reform but surely it’s about persuading the voters who are Labour minded but are currently voting Reform to come back? You don’t need to out Reform to do that, just respond to their concerns. Focus groups from Luke Tryl have said voters will be willing to come back if Labour deliver.
I’m struggling to see how this move - if successful, I accept a big if - won’t do that. You can call it as cynical or as pathetic as you like but if migration comes down Labour have a record to speak to. Perhaps it won’t come down by enough but what exactly is enough to these voters? I confess I don’t know.
I think what it does show is that Labour is not going to sit around for four years and give up. They have time on their side.
On the economy, how is it looking? My own sense is it’s not as bad as people say but I am in a London bubble.
Well, I agree that this is a positioning tactic from Labour that they probably had to make, in light of the threats they face. They need to at least do something to try to neutralise the issue. The jury is out on if they’ll manage it or if it simply drives people to the people who’ll be even “tougher” - Reform - but I see the logic of the move. It definitely could work.
You will spare me a slight moment of amusement though to see Starmer coming out with the type of rhetoric which would for decades have been condemned by the left as being irresponsible, dog whistle and unacceptable political language. Talking of “islands of strangers” would have stirred up some quarters into absolute apoplexy. It is quite amusing to read commentary now trying to explain that the Labour Party are right to address concerns etc when for a very long time the public were told by some that the concerns were illegitimate.
I’m happy to concede that on immigration whilst I didn’t agree with some of the more fruity rhetoric, I also did not understand the strength of feeling that many do legitimately feel. I got it wrong.
I do think though that is a difference in the migration we’ve had post Brexit and before. The negativity towards mostly Christian immigrants from Poland baffled me.
I understand that viewpoint, though I think that the ground was laid in the mid noughties for the issues we see coming to light now. The problem was that policy makers were by and large successful at casting concerns about immigration as being somehow wrong or beyond the pale, and that rhetoric has continued for a very long time, and caused a significant running sore with western electorates (this isn’t just a British condition). The failure of politicians of all parties to confront these difficult truths, and discuss them maturely with voters, has led to people reaching out for those that offer an alternative - and hence to the rise of populist politics and policies like Brexit.
Politicians have been talking about immigration for at least the last two decades. The idea that it’s been a taboo subject is silly.
Chinese kit is apparently better at shooting down Storm Shadows (or their French equivalent), too.
As per PAF multiple IAF SCALP-EG ALCMs (launched by IAF Rafales) were intercepted by Pakistani air defense systems. So far I have been able to find wreckage of 1 x SCALP-EG with a fully intact unexploded warhead. Looking for more. https://x.com/FarooqB90714421/status/1921592438331683186
I can understand the argument that you can’t out-Reform Reform but surely it’s about persuading the voters who are Labour minded but are currently voting Reform to come back? You don’t need to out Reform to do that, just respond to their concerns. Focus groups from Luke Tryl have said voters will be willing to come back if Labour deliver.
I’m struggling to see how this move - if successful, I accept a big if - won’t do that. You can call it as cynical or as pathetic as you like but if migration comes down Labour have a record to speak to. Perhaps it won’t come down by enough but what exactly is enough to these voters? I confess I don’t know.
I think what it does show is that Labour is not going to sit around for four years and give up. They have time on their side.
On the economy, how is it looking? My own sense is it’s not as bad as people say but I am in a London bubble.
I must say that I am very surprised that people are talking about 0.6% in Q1. I thought that we would be struggling to get that in the year. Some solid growth would certainly help.
Where can that figure be cited? Presumably before the NI changes?
It was referred to by a couple of sources around the time that the BoE cut interest rates. It is largely based on the very good number for February (0.4 IIRC).
At the risk of following @BatteryCorrectHorse on admitting to getting things wrong, it’s way better than I expected. I was muttering about a technical recession at the start of this year.
6: Monthly GDP growth in February had been much stronger than expected, at 0.5%, and Bank staff now estimated that headline GDP growth in 2025 Q1 had been 0.6%. But this news had been accounted for largely by erratic factors, for instance those that had affected output in the manufacturing sector. Bank staff estimated that underlying growth in Q1 had been around zero. Headline GDP growth was projected to slow sharply in Q2, to 0.1%, with risks to the downside, given the signal from high-frequency data. The S&P Global UK composite output PMI had fallen sharply in April, although it remained unclear how much of this decline stemmed from a potentially reversible deterioration in business sentiment.
"Keir Starmer admitted mass immigration risks making Britain an 'island of strangers' today as he scrambles to blunt the threat from Reform.
The PM deployed the 'take back control' Brexit slogan at a press conference in Downing Street as he pledged to end the 'betrayal' of reliance on cheap foreign labour.
Sir Keir accused the Tories of overseeing an explosion in numbers while in power, saying the system seemed 'designed to permit abuse' and was 'contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart'."
I think Starmer's strategy is what's known as giving your enemy possession of the battlefield.
That’s the madness of it to me. The more the focus is on immigration the more Farage can sit back and let Starmer do his marketing for him. But then I appreciate ignoring the issue is also tricky.
Labour needs to find its political strong point and get media focus on it as much as possible. Historically it’s always been the NHS. Waiting lists do seem to be creeping down. Why not blitz everyone with that. And Streeting hasn’t yet done himself major brand damage like Reeves has. (Admittedly nor has Cooper, but she risks losing Labour some more votes to the Greens and Lib Dems if she keeps upping the rhetoric)
Alternatively, ignoring the immigration issues destines Labour to a large defeat to Reform in 2029, an outcome I'd do pretty much anything to avoid. I think the days when Labour can win an election on the NHS are gone.
For sure , if immigration not cut big time and boats completely they are stuffed and Nigel will have to sort it out. It is festering just like the crazy trans/LGBT thing and at some point people will have had enough, rightly or wrongly. When people cannot get houses , medical treatment , etc and peopel can waltz in on an RN taxi , straight to 4* hotel , issued with all the comforts of life, houses being built/issued to them , then at some point it will backfire. The great unwashed will take the hump big time.
No asylum seekers are in 4* hotels. That’s a lie that’s been repeated far too often.
They are not issued with all the comforts of life. You would not want to try to live on the money they are given.
The £8 a week they get after housing and food? Barely enough for toiletries and oxfam clothes. But now add in the £100-£200 a week earned illegally on deliveroo and I would think it's tolerable for a while.
I can understand the argument that you can’t out-Reform Reform but surely it’s about persuading the voters who are Labour minded but are currently voting Reform to come back? You don’t need to out Reform to do that, just respond to their concerns. Focus groups from Luke Tryl have said voters will be willing to come back if Labour deliver.
I’m struggling to see how this move - if successful, I accept a big if - won’t do that. You can call it as cynical or as pathetic as you like but if migration comes down Labour have a record to speak to. Perhaps it won’t come down by enough but what exactly is enough to these voters? I confess I don’t know.
I think what it does show is that Labour is not going to sit around for four years and give up. They have time on their side.
On the economy, how is it looking? My own sense is it’s not as bad as people say but I am in a London bubble.
I must say that I am very surprised that people are talking about 0.6% in Q1. I thought that we would be struggling to get that in the year. Some solid growth would certainly help.
Where can that figure be cited? Presumably before the NI changes?
It was referred to by a couple of sources around the time that the BoE cut interest rates. It is largely based on the very good number for February (0.4 IIRC).
At the risk of following @BatteryCorrectHorse on admitting to getting things wrong, it’s way better than I expected. I was muttering about a technical recession at the start of this year.
6: Monthly GDP growth in February had been much stronger than expected, at 0.5%, and Bank staff now estimated that headline GDP growth in 2025 Q1 had been 0.6%. But this news had been accounted for largely by erratic factors, for instance those that had affected output in the manufacturing sector. Bank staff estimated that underlying growth in Q1 had been around zero. Headline GDP growth was projected to slow sharply in Q2, to 0.1%, with risks to the downside, given the signal from high-frequency data. The S&P Global UK composite output PMI had fallen sharply in April, although it remained unclear how much of this decline stemmed from a potentially reversible deterioration in business sentiment.
I can understand the argument that you can’t out-Reform Reform but surely it’s about persuading the voters who are Labour minded but are currently voting Reform to come back? You don’t need to out Reform to do that, just respond to their concerns. Focus groups from Luke Tryl have said voters will be willing to come back if Labour deliver.
I’m struggling to see how this move - if successful, I accept a big if - won’t do that. You can call it as cynical or as pathetic as you like but if migration comes down Labour have a record to speak to. Perhaps it won’t come down by enough but what exactly is enough to these voters? I confess I don’t know.
I think what it does show is that Labour is not going to sit around for four years and give up. They have time on their side.
On the economy, how is it looking? My own sense is it’s not as bad as people say but I am in a London bubble.
Well, I agree that this is a positioning tactic from Labour that they probably had to make, in light of the threats they face. They need to at least do something to try to neutralise the issue. The jury is out on if they’ll manage it or if it simply drives people to the people who’ll be even “tougher” - Reform - but I see the logic of the move. It definitely could work.
You will spare me a slight moment of amusement though to see Starmer coming out with the type of rhetoric which would for decades have been condemned by the left as being irresponsible, dog whistle and unacceptable political language. Talking of “islands of strangers” would have stirred up some quarters into absolute apoplexy. It is quite amusing to read commentary now trying to explain that the Labour Party are right to address concerns etc when for a very long time the public were told by some that the concerns were illegitimate.
I’m happy to concede that on immigration whilst I didn’t agree with some of the more fruity rhetoric, I also did not understand the strength of feeling that many do legitimately feel. I got it wrong.
I do think though that is a difference in the migration we’ve had post Brexit and before. The negativity towards mostly Christian immigrants from Poland baffled me.
I understand that viewpoint, though I think that the ground was laid in the mid noughties for the issues we see coming to light now. The problem was that policy makers were by and large successful at casting concerns about immigration as being somehow wrong or beyond the pale, and that rhetoric has continued for a very long time, and caused a significant running sore with western electorates (this isn’t just a British condition). The failure of politicians of all parties to confront these difficult truths, and discuss them maturely with voters, has led to people reaching out for those that offer an alternative - and hence to the rise of populist politics and policies like Brexit.
Politicians have been talking about immigration for at least the last two decades. The idea that it’s been a taboo subject is silly.
Having the wrong opinion on immigration is the big taboo. You only need to look at what people have said when others suggest that having too much immigration might be a bad thing.
"Keir Starmer admitted mass immigration risks making Britain an 'island of strangers' today as he scrambles to blunt the threat from Reform.
The PM deployed the 'take back control' Brexit slogan at a press conference in Downing Street as he pledged to end the 'betrayal' of reliance on cheap foreign labour.
Sir Keir accused the Tories of overseeing an explosion in numbers while in power, saying the system seemed 'designed to permit abuse' and was 'contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart'."
I think Starmer's strategy is what's known as giving your enemy possession of the battlefield.
That’s the madness of it to me. The more the focus is on immigration the more Farage can sit back and let Starmer do his marketing for him. But then I appreciate ignoring the issue is also tricky.
Labour needs to find its political strong point and get media focus on it as much as possible. Historically it’s always been the NHS. Waiting lists do seem to be creeping down. Why not blitz everyone with that. And Streeting hasn’t yet done himself major brand damage like Reeves has. (Admittedly nor has Cooper, but she risks losing Labour some more votes to the Greens and Lib Dems if she keeps upping the rhetoric)
Alternatively, ignoring the immigration issues destines Labour to a large defeat to Reform in 2029, an outcome I'd do pretty much anything to avoid. I think the days when Labour can win an election on the NHS are gone.
For sure , if immigration not cut big time and boats completely they are stuffed and Nigel will have to sort it out. It is festering just like the crazy trans/LGBT thing and at some point people will have had enough, rightly or wrongly. When people cannot get houses , medical treatment , etc and peopel can waltz in on an RN taxi , straight to 4* hotel , issued with all the comforts of life, houses being built/issued to them , then at some point it will backfire. The great unwashed will take the hump big time.
No asylum seekers are in 4* hotels. That’s a lie that’s been repeated far too often.
They are not issued with all the comforts of life. You would not want to try to live on the money they are given.
To try and be accurate - in some cases they closed down 4* hotel, and shutdown most of the facilities. Then used it into a migrant hostel.
Most migrant hotels are less ranked hotels - the one that had @SeanT steaming the other day was a business/travel hotel on the edge of a business park. A nice(ish) Travel Lodge equivalent.
The newly elected Pope spoke out about the war for the first time - he accused Russia of an imperialist invasion of Ukraine, calling its actions crimes against humanity.
"This is a real imperialist invasion, where Russia wants to conquer territory for reasons of strength and its own superiority... Crimes against humanity are being committed in Ukraine," Pope Leo XIV said in an interview with the Peruvian publication Semanario Expresión. Ukraine Now https://x.com/jurgen_nauditt/status/1921456221082599497
I don’t understand why people consider it a bad thing that Labour are tackling Reform on immigration. At the end of the day you can be as woke as you like but immigration is still a concern. You can try to convince the population that we have a “moral duty” to accept all these people but you’re not going to win. It’s a much better left wing position to make sure that those we do accept and treated well and chosen wisely and appropriately.
It’s also a much better left wing position to improve the economy so we can better look after and support those already here.
Frankly I trust Labour much more than Reform to do this without ripping up our rights and the economy in the process.
It could be done at policy level without the totally unnecessary dogwhistle language and nastiness, which is classic home office and just encourages others to ramp up the rhetoric further.
What language are you referring to?
“Nation of strangers” “City the size of Birmingham” “That’s not control, it’s chaos” “An immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse”
All in this morning’s speech, and all calculated to paint a picture of an invasion and a system out of control. They heighten people’s fears rather than reassuring them.
And Cooper invited journalists in to film migrants being forcibly deported back in February. Again, all part of the theatre of immigration policy. Not quite up there with Trump and his El Salvador prisons I grant you, but unnecessary and in my view self defeating.
I consider myself to be woke but none of that is inaccurate is it?
We seem to have lost sight of the imprecation to speak softly but carry a big stick. Isn’t one of the reasons political trust is so low that successive governments have spoken ever more loudly while carrying a very small stick? Not just on this topic but most notably on tax and spend and public services.
"For too long, politicians have made big promises while leaving delivery as an afterthough. That ends now!
My government will set up a broken promise hotline, so that politicians can be held to account."
[The hotline never opens.]
Ironically, the Cones Hotline cause fear, angst and even some change in the Highways Agency. Apparently, they hadn't experienced consumer feedback before.
"What do you mean, I can't cone off a lane of a road for 8 months before we start work???!!!!"
I can understand the argument that you can’t out-Reform Reform but surely it’s about persuading the voters who are Labour minded but are currently voting Reform to come back? You don’t need to out Reform to do that, just respond to their concerns. Focus groups from Luke Tryl have said voters will be willing to come back if Labour deliver.
I’m struggling to see how this move - if successful, I accept a big if - won’t do that. You can call it as cynical or as pathetic as you like but if migration comes down Labour have a record to speak to. Perhaps it won’t come down by enough but what exactly is enough to these voters? I confess I don’t know.
I think what it does show is that Labour is not going to sit around for four years and give up. They have time on their side.
On the economy, how is it looking? My own sense is it’s not as bad as people say but I am in a London bubble.
Well, I agree that this is a positioning tactic from Labour that they probably had to make, in light of the threats they face. They need to at least do something to try to neutralise the issue. The jury is out on if they’ll manage it or if it simply drives people to the people who’ll be even “tougher” - Reform - but I see the logic of the move. It definitely could work.
You will spare me a slight moment of amusement though to see Starmer coming out with the type of rhetoric which would for decades have been condemned by the left as being irresponsible, dog whistle and unacceptable political language. Talking of “islands of strangers” would have stirred up some quarters into absolute apoplexy. It is quite amusing to read commentary now trying to explain that the Labour Party are right to address concerns etc when for a very long time the public were told by some that the concerns were illegitimate.
I’m happy to concede that on immigration whilst I didn’t agree with some of the more fruity rhetoric, I also did not understand the strength of feeling that many do legitimately feel. I got it wrong.
I do think though that is a difference in the migration we’ve had post Brexit and before. The negativity towards mostly Christian immigrants from Poland baffled me.
I understand that viewpoint, though I think that the ground was laid in the mid noughties for the issues we see coming to light now. The problem was that policy makers were by and large successful at casting concerns about immigration as being somehow wrong or beyond the pale, and that rhetoric has continued for a very long time, and caused a significant running sore with western electorates (this isn’t just a British condition). The failure of politicians of all parties to confront these difficult truths, and discuss them maturely with voters, has led to people reaching out for those that offer an alternative - and hence to the rise of populist politics and policies like Brexit.
Politicians have been talking about immigration for at least the last two decades. The idea that it’s been a taboo subject is silly.
Do you think that voters have felt that their concerns have been listened to?
Comments
As a general election Tory for nearly 50 years but Labour in 2024, currently I would vote Labour in my seat - where historically the LDs can't win - but would happily vote LD in any seat where they could.
Reform have gone from being unable to win in more than a few seats, to being competitive in hundreds. That phenomenon can be replicated.
Your mileage of "wrong" may vary.
Why is it only ever the liberal half of politics that must compromise with the other half, and not vice versa?
I’m slightly baffled at some of the criticism here. People have said that Reform are doing well because they’re winning arguments on things like immigration. So isn’t it a good thing that Labour are agreeing and taking this on?
We can judge Labour’s record in four years but I am slightly bemused that Labour can simultaneously be attacked for not doing anything and then attacked for doing something.
For my side, I was very happy with immigration around 300K a year but it’s too high now and I think we need to bring it back down. As we’ve voted to leave the EU and I’ve lost that argument long ago we may as well use the powers we’ve got for what the majority seemingly want to do. I don’t hold any shame in conceding that argument.
They do have to stop the boats though. To me it seems obvious, write a blank cheque to France to take them back.
If NHS waiting lists come down significantly and immigration has also fallen by a large number then what exactly does Reform offer?
Labour could try to do both. Cut immigration, neuter Reform whole delivering other policies that attract their own voters back from DK and Greens/LD. Not much evidence of that yet, but they have 4 years...
The numbers we managed to return through the much vaunted Dublin agreement would barely fill a couple of dinghies.
Of course, UK politicians never engage with the question of why the French should want to take these migrants back when they have far more than we do.
Real leadership is the task of leaders persuading the voters, having first established a clear and rational set of principles and policies, not voters persuading leaders.
We do seem to be getting some economic growth at last. If he can get a big drop in immigration numbers (which Sunak's changes will likely deliver), and a reduction in NHS waiting lists, he'll be favourite to win, if only narrowly, like Carney.
Will the media do its job properly here or allow him to run on this without asking what that means in a host of areas especially the GFA?
If he hadn't, he'd have refused a referendum on the EU Constitution, and the euro, and waved away concerns on asylum numbers.
He didn't. Which is why he stayed in office 10 years.
In fact, the one area in which he was supremely stubborn (Iraq, and liberal interventionism) was eventually his undoing.
Ask EICIPM about the value of midterm poll leads. Or Farage who led the polls in 2019. Or Corbyn who also led the polls in 2019.
There is a tendency, especially on here, to ignore the large component of public opinion that isn’t totally on board with the hard right worldview. I understand the temptation, because Reform is on the up and Labour is floundering. But Reform is at best on 30%ish in the polls and the combination of them and the Tories is roughly the same as the combination of the 3 left of centre parties.
Liberal voices matter. They still vote, and in large numbers. They are still real people, a point that I think gets lost when populists - as they have done through the centuries - claim that they, and only they, represent “the people”.
If the GFA has to adapt to us changing our policies democratically, or be renegotiated as a result of that, then so be it. Just as if Ireland does, that's their free, democratic right.
Nothing supersedes democracy. Certainly not international agreements.
It was only when it all went to her head "We have become a Grandmother." etc. that she lost her edge, and the premiership.
IMHO, as far, anyway as Kashmir is concerned the situation is quieter but by no means peaceful.
I understand your point about the Imperial argument but these things take a couple of generations to die down completely. How long will (some at least) English football fans sing abusive songs about the Germans?
Suppose the local elections of 2026/27 are as brutal for Labour and the Conservatives as the ones we've just have. You could easily see Labour and Reform on 50-60 councils apiece, and the Conservatives down to about 10, in which case, voters will conclude the Conservatives are irrelevant. That's fatal under FPTP.
I don't know if Farage has a policy on this, but I wouldn't mind knowing what it is.
Hague gained hundreds of Councillors in 1998 and 2000 . . . then net just 1 seat in 2001 at the General Election.
For all the misery the Starmer government is experiencing (some poor judgement, lots of being passed the baby just before the poonami), they are still in second place, and the Conservatives are doing worse than at the General Election. That is not normal.
I think what’s so different this time though is the low absolute vote share the governing party is getting. At times in the low 20s.
She had a rather sad and lonely last 10 years of her life, if well looked after, that I wouldn't wish on anyone.
It’s also a much better left wing position to improve the economy so we can better look after and support those already here.
Frankly I trust Labour much more than Reform to do this without ripping up our rights and the economy in the process.
Same applied to Corbyn, only Boris won a landslide against him in late 2019, May nearly lost her majority to Corbyn in 2017 and was trailing him by Spring 2019.
As long as Kemi remains Tory leader the Tories look like also rans, basically a centre right version of the LDs, Farage might need them for power if he falls short of a majority as Starmer might need the LDs if the same applies to him but the next GE for now is a choice between Starmer or Farage as PM not Starmer or Kemi as PM
I’m struggling to see how this move - if successful, I accept a big if - won’t do that. You can call it as cynical or as pathetic as you like but if migration comes down Labour have a record to speak to. Perhaps it won’t come down by enough but what exactly is enough to these voters? I confess I don’t know.
I think what it does show is that Labour is not going to sit around for four years and give up. They have time on their side.
On the economy, how is it looking? My own sense is it’s not as bad as people say but I am in a London bubble.
It would obviously help if Reform didn’t leap up into contention.
People who have come to the UK to work make a substantial contribution to our economy, our public services, and our communities.
But under the Conservatives, our economy has become overly dependent on workers from abroad to fill skills shortages. As a result, we have seen net migration reach record highs; more than triple the level than at the last election in 2019. The overall level must be properly controlled and managed. Failure to do so reduces the incentives for businesses to train locally. So, Labour will reduce net migration.
We will reform the points-based immigration system so that it is fair and properly managed, with appropriate restrictions on visas, and by linking immigration and skills policy. Labour will not tolerate employers or recruitment agencies abusing the visa system. And we will not stand for breaches of employment law. Employers who flout the rules will be barred from hiring workers from abroad.
Seems pretty clear to me that the government is simply doing what it said it would do in its manifesto.
“City the size of Birmingham”
“That’s not control, it’s chaos”
“An immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse”
All in this morning’s speech, and all calculated to paint a picture of an invasion and a system out of control. They heighten people’s fears rather than reassuring them.
And Cooper invited journalists in to film migrants being forcibly deported back in February. Again, all part of the theatre of immigration policy. Not quite up there with Trump and his El Salvador prisons I grant you, but unnecessary and in my view self defeating.
I got the sense Sunak had given up by the end. I feel sorry for him that his immigration changes - which I agree with - won’t give him much credit.
About eleven miles to go
If we want to exit the ECHR, then we have to renegotiate the Good Friday Agreement, or else unilaterally (if partially) pull out of the GFA by nullifying those clauses & seeing if any of the other participants do anything in response.
https://davidallengreen.com/2023/07/why-the-united-kingdom-government-cannot-leave-the-echr-without-either-breaching-or-re-negotiating-the-good-friday-agreement/
You will spare me a slight moment of amusement though to see Starmer coming out with the type of rhetoric which would for decades have been condemned by the left as being irresponsible, dog whistle and unacceptable political language. Talking of “islands of strangers” would have stirred up some quarters into absolute apoplexy. It is quite amusing to read commentary now trying to explain that the Labour Party are right to address concerns etc when for a very long time the public were told by some that the concerns were illegitimate.
Clearly after this mornings insanity we are voting Labour out, but who are we going to vote in who is actually being honest with us?
Starmer “Let’s take back control.” “BJ4BW.” “Post Brexit Tories didn’t let a million a year in by accident, they did it on purpose.”
What a load of UTTER JIBBERISH.
When will the UK have a sane government, living in the real world, actually being honest with us about the price of globalisation, ageing populations, automation, and climate change the UK MUST PAY. Real, real world, inescapable costs, taking control away from governments and electorates. Instead of the utter deluded bullshit we heard from Starmer this morning.
I do think though that is a difference in the migration we’ve had post Brexit and before. The negativity towards mostly Christian immigrants from Poland baffled me.
We chickened out of climbing all the way up to Perpignan due to the heat and eventually abandoned the entire endeavour for a few days relaxing in Foix as my wife developed an infection in her foot from a blister. But I still have fond memories of walking across the Garrigue & smelling the sage underfoot & Montsegur was stunning.
Hope you’re having a cooler time of it than we did!
My government will set up a broken promise hotline, so that politicians can be held to account."
[The hotline never opens.]
At the risk of following @BatteryCorrectHorse on admitting to getting things wrong, it’s way better than I expected. I was muttering about a technical recession at the start of this year.
They are not issued with all the comforts of life. You would not want to try to live on the money they are given.
Starmer is far lower wattage.
As per PAF multiple IAF SCALP-EG ALCMs (launched by IAF Rafales) were intercepted by Pakistani air defense systems.
So far I have been able to find wreckage of 1 x SCALP-EG with a fully intact unexploded warhead. Looking for more.
https://x.com/FarooqB90714421/status/1921592438331683186
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy-summary-and-minutes/2025/may-2025
Nothing on small boats, which the BBC could have easily shoehorned in.
Most migrant hotels are less ranked hotels - the one that had @SeanT steaming the other day was a business/travel hotel on the edge of a business park. A nice(ish) Travel Lodge equivalent.
"This is a real imperialist invasion, where Russia wants to conquer territory for reasons of strength and its own superiority... Crimes against humanity are being committed in Ukraine," Pope Leo XIV said in an interview with the Peruvian publication Semanario Expresión.
Ukraine Now
https://x.com/jurgen_nauditt/status/1921456221082599497
"What do you mean, I can't cone off a lane of a road for 8 months before we start work???!!!!"