-
sorry ma'am, just to highlight
“Fly-tipping, off-road biking in rural communities, drugs… Some people call this low-level - I don’t want to hear those words.”
"i for one am less peturbed by the noisy moped, or the addict on my steps struggaling as a threat to me or my estate, than i am..."
these are specific dog whistles to upper middle class, subruban voters, starmer has outlined here the crime he wants to be tough on, and how he wants to be tough on it. the comment also follows a joke about how what we / he decides to police is socially decided along class lines and avoids speaking about a lot of the often, violent crime done by state and capital which affects me. such as my landlord not dealing with asbestos and trying to evict me, or the council selling public land and then private buyers hiring security to police residents.
these are not projections of peoples character, but a response to starmer.
Maj-
these are specific dog whistles to upper middle class, subruban voters
That's just like your opinion man. I can't add anything to BR's lengthy response - but imo it is aimed at a number of groups including low income voters.
I don't have any stories to share about addicts on estates, but ime upper middle class suburban voters are much more concerned with cost of living and a shit shower of economic management.
-
these are specific dog whistles to upper middle class, subruban voters
Judging by my local, street WhatsApp group (which definitely isn't an upper middle class area) or my hometown (which I think may sneak into the top 10 most deprived towns in the UK) these are exactly the kind of things that people are worried about.
hugo7
aggi
Dude TBF you started it with your opening gambit and then the 2nd paragraph in response to BR.
Fwiw I think there were some excellent points made in your OP but all the anti-Waitrose agenda undermined it. Moreover, being tough on crime is not mutually exclusive to being tough on the causes of crime.