Mailwatch(ed) Forum

The issue of course is that it's £2.5bn you can't spend on something else- to use one particularly apposite example, paying care workers more.

Here's Jez. He's misquoting Enoch Powell as well. But he's right about care worker shortages.

It's notable how much support Cooper is getting from Labour MPs who you'd think are most vulnerable to a Reform challenge. I thought that was interesting, because the conventional view is that this strategy is a gift to Reform. I think it's worth considering that they have picked something up in their constituencies that there's a political audience for it who doesn't think "Fuck it, Farage will do it properly".

I guess we'll see.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 6:01 pm I'm actually surprised the amount isn't higher. I think there are quite a lot of the public who'd actually pay their share of that in extra tax. Or preferably have other people pay it, of course.

Care workers are paid by the public sector, why would that money vanish because of a lower
wage bill?

Fair point, I tried to shoehorn a clever example in.

For me, Starmer is getting close to Iraq. Last time around, I was able to choke on Eccelstone, as I was with WFA and the nonsensical hysteria being peddled by the tories' broadcast and press mates.

The naked assault on the crips and the forrins is looking to me like I/we misread Starmer. He looked like a thoroughbred in a fine suit but is falling at the second fence in a free one.

The speech is bad enough without the Guardian having to misrepresent it. The "immigrants have done incalculable economic harm" misquote is being widely shared. I just went on to a blog where this was taken up, and I pointed out that he didn't say this. After the second attempt, it was accepted (I think) that I was right, but this was criticized as being (of all things) "literal".

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 8:08 pm The speech is bad enough without the Guardian having to misrepresent it.

Is there any push-back from Labour comms on this? Or are they too busy, tucking in to the free buffet at the focus groups in Doncaster?

Starmer doing a blinding job of making his own voters feel like strangers in their own land. Throwing all you have to hang onto Stoke and Hull may cost him dearly in safer Labour seats. I know who won't be electorally downhearted at Starmer joining Badenoch in dancing to Farage’s tune and that's Ed Davey. And the Greens if they get their shit together.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 8:16 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 8:08 pm The speech is bad enough without the Guardian having to misrepresent it.

Is there any push-back from Labour comms on this? Or are they too busy, tucking in to the free buffet at the focus groups in Doncaster?

Cooper was clear enough about it. But above all, I think it's reasonable not to expect bullshit from the Guardian.

Starmer is looking like a dud. Cooper does this much better and less contentiously.

This will all settle down to net migration of about 250-350,000 a year. Which is pretty much what would have happened anyway, with (per Sam Freedman) at most 100k difference being made by all the announcements today.

Youngian wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 8:18 pm Starmer doing a blinding job of making his own voters feel like strangers in their own land. Throwing all you have to hang onto Stoke and Hull may cost him dearly in safer Labour seats. I know who won't be electorally downhearted at Starmer joining Badenoch in dancing to Farage’s tune and that's Ed Davey. And the Greens if they get their shit together.

Davey's almost achieved cross over with Badenoch in the polls. I don't know how many he can take off Labour where he needs them- the distribution was very efficient before. Can he take them where Labour needs them though?

Wasn't the mood music "Labour's doing OK with these deals" a few days ago?

It's probably worth pointing out that rhetoric from Starmer aside, the policies themselves aren't that bad.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cje72plqk17o

Sir Keir Starmer has unveiled Labour's long-awaited plans to cut levels of immigration into the UK.

The prime minister said measures in the white paper, external, a blueprint for future laws, would make the system "controlled, selective and fair".

Here is a summary of the key measures.

I think I understand the reasons for the proposals in the White Paper (though I don’t really see that there’s a need to double the residency requirement for citizenship and ending adult social care visas is questionable), but the rhetoric that Starmer has chosen to employ in announcing the proposals is, I think, a rather large political mistake. It won’t satisfy the Farage/Reform crew and their voters, and it has , I sense, dismayed many natural and long-term Labour supporters (a group in which I include myself). I know he has been disingenuously misquoted, but the “nation of strangers” stuff was just too close to the shite Powell was coming out with 50 odd years ago, and easy meat for the Corbynista keyboard social media smartarses. I simply don’t see what there is to be gained from this kind of rhetoric.

Quite disappointing.

Demand for labour ultimately is the biggest determinant of immigration levels. There's a neat argument among free market wonks that labour shortages result in exorbitant pay demands. Which will concentrate employers' minds to invest in more mechanisation. Creepy Japanese robots coming to a care home near you.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 12:37 pm Panic. Probably not just at Reform, but also at the Democrats and other Labour-type parties losing support over immigration to populist parties. It's often said that those various Labour-type parties all did it wrong by moving right on immigration, but I don't really see many examples of parties who didn't and then romped home in elections. The nearest anyone has in Sanchez is Spain, but last time I checked he was behind in the polls despite the economy doing well.

I mean, even Biden had a pretty liberal approach towards immigration in his first two years, and it did him no good he was kicked by the right and left he changed tack and came close to passing a good package in immigration but Trump scuppered it.

Some interesting points about the care visas made here, by someone not at all happy about the overall language or policies.

Short version- the system inherited is terrible, and there were loads of people ripped off by rogue organisations who want to work in care and haven't been able to. The Government is actually getting them into care jobs.

Which again raises the question. How has Starmer managed to contrive overwhelming liberal-left opposition from all of this?

https://bsky.app/profile/lukepiper.bsky ... vbb35fuc2k

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 9:16 pm It's probably worth pointing out that rhetoric from Starmer aside, the policies themselves aren't that bad.

The characterization of the rhetoric is a bit unfair there too. It isn't Powellite.

But the fact remains that a load of stuff that would be broadly agreed with by lots of people who vote Labour has been mashed together and come out pissing lots of them off. That's on Starmer.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 5:49 pm Cooper's actually making a reasonable job of this. She'd be a better leader than Starmer, I think.

I've said before, had Corbyn not 'magnanimously' been allowed onto the ballot in 2015 via false endorsement by a handful of MPs, Cooper would have been the leader and history would have been very different.

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 10:19 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 5:49 pm Cooper's actually making a reasonable job of this. She'd be a better leader than Starmer, I think.

I've said before, had Corbyn not 'magnanimously' been allowed onto the ballot in 2015 via false endorsement by a handful of MPs, Cooper would have been the leader and history would have been very different.

Well, perhaps. Yvette finished third of the four candidates, a few thousand votes behind Andy Burnham. But yes, we wouldn’t have had the Corbyn nightmare and have had to basically mark time until he was gone.

I voted for her, and I would do so again.