That Starmer fella...

Lots of talk previously about Labour not presenting any of their own strategies and policies and whether that was deliberate or just not having any.

Noticed recently that has started to change, this on immigration for instance
https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/1633203186944147459

No mention of providing safe & legal routes for people to claim asylum. So Labour just want to send them back, but nicer?

That's point 3 isn't it? Have new agreements on both returns AND family reunion.

Obviously whether or not they are policies that people will agree with is a different matter.

I suspect, although may be entirely wrong, that mention of legal routes has been glossed over as most people don't really understand the nuances around legal/illegal immigration and they don't want to leave themselves open to an accusation of "inviting immigrants in".

Is it? It's completely vague at best. How does that apply let's say to an Afghani fleeing the Taliban because they have worked for the British government but has no family in the UK?

I suspect, although may be entirely wrong, that mention of legal routes has been glossed over as most people don't really understand the nuances around legal/illegal immigration and they don't want to leave themselves open to an accusation of "inviting immigrants in".

You're probably right, here's Labour's shadow immigration minister.

https://twitter.com/SKinnock/status/1633075254850379776

How does that apply let's say to an Afghani fleeing the Taliban because they have worked for the British government but has no family in the UK?

Bad example - Afghans are one of the only countries with an actual legal route, along with Ukranians and there's one other but I can't remember it.

For let's say Africa, you're right, it says nothing about opening up safe and legal routes for people without family in UK.

and there's one other but I can't remember it.

Hong Kong, which will dwarf the other options, think they are forecasting 500k+ to take it up in first five years

Labour's statements on immigration, especially from Yvette Cooper, are appalling. I think they've decided that immigration is like Brexit, so basically they avoid being any different from the Tories so as to prevent it being an attack line by the right wing press.

That may be sensible from a tactical perspective, but we're seeing fascistic policies/messaging from Braverman and Sunak and Labour should, in my view, be calling them out for what they are.

so basically they avoid being any different from the Tories so as to prevent it being an attack line by the right wing press

Which seems to be at least part of the reason why the Tories are pushing this further and further right, to try to make a point of difference in an area they feel they can gain some traction with the electorate.

Well that and they actually want to be cruel and it's really what they think.

labours new immigration policy is quite consitent for them and their direction

tough on [x political topic], tough on the causes of [x political topic] etc etc

this will be a consistent theme over the next few years, the beauty of it is it's non commital and never really defines what these things involve, they could involve opening all boarders and expanding benefits, could mean having more women borderforce guards. which is why you'll find people arguing in circles about it.

i'd say they're pinning their bets on just having a low turn out election in which quiet, but reliable swing voters will turn out and let them take a nominal majority, with the wedge issue voters on either side staying home due to apathy. in turn allowing them to have a managerial approach to government, tinkering with the dials on established policies.

reassuring if you don't have any pressing needs over the next decade and can get on with it "as long as things don't get any worse", less so if you're affected by anything like immigration status, overpolicing, being trans, the rental market, crushing prices of childcare, neocolonialist interventionalism in your country or generational poverty and need some quite transformative poltics to undo 2 decades of targeted structural agression on your existance

Starmer refers to reform of legal routes. (Some would of course suggest that reform is obviously not well defined in this context.)

https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1633485994010746881

There's another option, which is that Labour sees its way to power through convincing a bunch of socially conservative swing voters to vote for them, which means not scaring the bejesus out of them at all costs, even if it means staying quiet on things you're passionate about. Then once you're in, you enact socialist policy, albeit wrapped in the union jack.

I agree with you that we have failed to make the argument for some things, like trans rights, that we really should be. But I also think there's a strategy there, and it's one that's working at the polls.

It's not a very honest policy which is what bothers me. Plus, I don't trust them to suddenly enact a load of socialist policies when in power.

if you build your base from people who are socially conservative, you're inherently held to enforcing at the very least, a policy set which is not socially progressive, as we've seen with this voter contingent it's highly mobile and not wedded to party affiliation. the conservatives have been burned by this over the last decade. starmer very well could flip to more progressive lines post power, but he would not be in power very long, this will either mean a 1 term labour government, or more likely, the same mechanics which installed him, will move to oust him with someone who fits their voter base.

the tories in power now have been very successful at weaponsing the liquidity of modern voters, they're not entrenched or as tribal as previous cohorts. democratisation of news sources, media and ever individualised communities with the help of ever growing data tech has allowed for fringe groups to weild a disproportionate influence, mainly due to the fact that traditional political groups/ bodies/ interest groups have not been wise to it. the success especially over the last few, disaterous tory politicians have been examples of the party trying to cling to this liquidity.

much like yourself, i don't think he has to do anything actually big to diversify his liquid core base with a more solid, wedded, progressive one, it's however very strange and worrying on clear open goals like migration and policing, even lgbt rights he isn't ready to sure that support up. to use you're analogy it's all union jack, no socialist policy . i'm increasingly less bothered about holding him to account on things he is saying , the circuis and sport of doing gotchyas is fun, but immiterial when he's proven to be so flexible on 80% of issues. but i am increasingly concerned, even if he has noble intentions, he's leaving himself open to either a one term premiership, or a mutiny from his own party from the social right (which hand on heart, i do not think he's a part of).

i think this is really the core of what makes starmer so polarising, he is a well intentioned dude trying to do his best in a pragmatic way that reduces harm accross the board, even if it might not be radical and often appear uncaring. however, he appears seemingly unaware of the creature he's dealing with, believing he is taming the beast with calculated dodges and rolls, but only when he is carried out of the arena under the sheet, it becomes clear the beast was playing with its food.

Nice to see Labour finally backing some striking workers

I hear what you're saying, and it's a reasonable analysis, but I don't agree. I keep thinking back to Blair pre-1997; he was so afraid of spooking the horses that he kept schtum about the things he really wanted to do, just the same way that Starmer is now. He's a man carrying a vase over a slippery floor. His reticence is understandable pre-government - any bold decisions create a possible attack line.

But in the first few weeks of government Blair/Brown had decoupled the bank of england exchange rate from the government control and had a working plan to fix the GFA - huge, radical, fundamental changes to the way we work as a country.

If Starmer fails to do the same thing, then I agree with you, he's in for one term. But I just can't see him being that short sighted. There's political calculus in being cautious pre-election; there's absolutely none in being cautious once you're in power given the absolute state of the country.

I think a key difference between Starmer now and Blair in 1996 is that there isn't really much of a sense of optimism now, whereas Blair definitely seemed to be offering something different.

There is a real optimism/hope deficit at the moment that Starmer doesn't seem to be doing much about.

Given the polls it's hard to argue that what he's doing isn't working, but he's hardly riding the crest of a wave.

Optimism for Blair came from Murdoch's endorsement in The Sun IMO, and without that happening again I can't see Labour holding onto their polling lead until the GE.

I think the influence of The Sun is overrated - they back, rather than pick winners.

They only announced their support for Blair in March 1997 but Labour had been ahead in the polls since 1993.

Surely any senae of pessimism now comes from the general economic, environmental and political gloom we're in, and I think Starmer is being so cautious that I can't see a tangibly better version of life being offered to anyone.

And everyone was smashing pills and the world wasn't at or past the point of no return.

Fair points all.

By the way, I definitely want Labour to win, and I do believe that life would be better under Labour. But I'm biased and minded to think that way, and even I'm relying on blind faith and not anything specific. If I was a swing voter, what do I have?

Wes Streeting and Jess Phillips in cabinet fill me with dread - I just can't help but feel like they're the next bunch for the Cabinet to Big Business conveyor belt rather than people with a genuine desire to help others.

blair is a funny example because he himself did, very successfully, what starmer is doing now, building a coalition around stable turn out voters who drift fiscally rightward, his key policies are small c conservative wrt increasing privatisation in public bodies, tough on migration and crime. he then sealed these up with nods to populist issues like education and child care. a gift to the conservative party of the 2010's who could now operate under his figleaf while being unable to be held accountable for the reckless nature of the unchecked financial industry at the heart of the macro economy, or the heat of a disasterous foreign policy both of them agreed on.

what's more is that in subsequent elections labour could not even have successful political messaging to differenciate themselves because they fundamentally agreed with what the tory party was doing. although thought it was uncouth they were saying the quiet part out loud and could see that it wasn't going to be successful long term due to the inherent greed of conservatives to move in self interest as opposed to a mutal managerial nihalism.

as the tory party has evolved in this manner, once again allowing their personal greed and irrationality to destabalise themselves, the electorate and the economy. labour now finds themselves able to slip back into a very comfortable set of shoes. ones which may slow down this countries descent of the world living standards table, admittedly, but ones destined to take them, and us at the whims of these parties, the same places as before.

Optimism for Blair came from Mudoch's endorsement in The Sun IMO

People also forget thst the economy was already on the up before Labour came in. Now there is a real challenge about how we improve this country's economic performance when access to our main trading partner is so restricted.