Starmer

[headshot]

Instead, saying "I'd love to scrap the two-child cap, I think it's an appalling piece of legislation which worsens child poverty, but unfortunately the Tories have f.cked the economy so badly, I can't commit to repealing it until we're confident we can afford it." sends the right message to all parties.

Rachel Reeves is on Radio 4 right now saying exactly the above.

It’s a really good interview, worth listening to.

“It is our determination to lift children out of poverty, it’s something Labour governments always do. We’ll set out how in our fully-costed manifesto.”

[lpm]

Yes, you're right.

"We're going to inherit an economic disaster therefore..."

Then after a year "we can afford to do this because we've been so brilliant at fixing their economic disaster".

[Sciolus]

Isn't it possible to say 'the tories f.cked the economy by spending your taxes on their mates. We want to spend your taxes on you those scroungers over there?'

Have you forgotten the parable of the biscuits?

[El Pollo Diablo]

Instead, saying "I'd love to scrap the two-child cap, I think it's an appalling piece of legislation which worsens child poverty, but unfortunately the Tories have f.cked the economy so badly, I can't commit to repealing it until we're confident we can afford it." sends the right message to all parties.

Rachel Reeves is on Radio 4 right now saying exactly the above.

It’s a really good interview, worth listening to.

“It is our determination to lift children out of poverty, it’s something Labour governments always do. We’ll set out how in our fully-costed manifesto.”

Great that Rachel Reeves is doing that, but she isn't Starmer, no one knows who she is, and no one listens to the Today programme any more.

[bagpuss]

Instead, saying "I'd love to scrap the two-child cap, I think it's an appalling piece of legislation which worsens child poverty, but unfortunately the Tories have f.cked the economy so badly, I can't commit to repealing it until we're confident we can afford it." sends the right message to all parties.

Rachel Reeves is on Radio 4 right now saying exactly the above.

It’s a really good interview, worth listening to.

“It is our determination to lift children out of poverty, it’s something Labour governments always do. We’ll set out how in our fully-costed manifesto.”

Great that Rachel Reeves is doing that, but she isn't Starmer, no one knows who she is, and no one listens to the Today programme any more.

It's a tad harsh calling me no one, but I can't disagree with your general point, sadly.

[Millennie Al]

saying "I'd love to scrap the two-child cap, I think it's an appalling piece of legislation which worsens child poverty, but unfortunately the Tories have f.cked the economy so badly, I can't commit to repealing it until we're confident we can afford it." sends the right message to all parties.

But if he actually wants to scrap the two-child cap, it may be a bad idea to say so. A recent poll (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/su ... 11/fa421/1) asked:

Currently there is a two child limit on the number of children parents can claim child‑related welfare benefits for. Do you think this limit should be kept, or should be it be abolished?

And 60% of those surveyed said it should be kept (22% abolished, 18% don't know).

[JQH]

And if a poll said 60% favoured the Rwanda policy would that mean we should drop opposition to that too?

[dyqik]

Polls say that >50% say we should rejoin the EU.

[jimbob]

I think Starmer has made a few mistakes, but the Overton window is shifted most effectively from a position of power rather than opposition.

[Woodchopper]

Polls say that >50% say we should rejoin the EU.

51% for rejoin - https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... -rejoin-eu

[dyqik]

Polls say that >50% say we should rejoin the EU.

51% for rejoin - https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... -rejoin-eu

And 61% of those that would vote/gave a preference.

[shpalman]

And if a poll said 60% favoured the Rwanda policy would that mean we should drop opposition to that too?

For starters, despite the public being more likely than not to support the [Rwanda] policy, in no public poll has support reached a majority.

There is no doubt that many want to see the government take action to stop migrants crossing the Channel. Britons rank it among the top issues facing the country — and it is even more important for the group we call Loyal Nationals — a segment of socially conservative voters who swung behind the Conservatives in 2019 to deliver victory in red wall seats. In numerous focus group conversations over the last few months, it is clear this concern is not because the public is anti-refugee or racist, as some suggest, but because they view channel crossings as unfair — favouring those with the physical and material means, empowering traffickers, and crucially removing our ability to control who gets into the country.

That desire for control drives public support for the Rwanda policy with 46 per cent backing the government’s plans, 27 per cent opposing and the rest saying they don’t know. But this is where a simplistic picture of support for the policy ends.

Our polling finds that the public wants exemptions from the no asylum rule for many of those who might cross the Channel — including genuine refugees, women fleeing persecution, children, victims of modern slavery, those who’ve supported us in Afghanistan and those fleeing civil war and conflict. Across the groups we tested, there were only two groups that the public felt should not be granted an exemption — LGBT people fleeing countries where it is illegal to be gay and by a larger margin economic migrants.

I was rather hoping that public support for the policy would be less than 46%. Scrutable is not representative of the British public.

[Sciolus]

British public attitudes to migration are based on, shall we say, not thinking it through. As your second quote says, ask people if we should reduce immigration, and people say yes. List the groups of people who immigrate, and people are nearly always happy to allow or encourage them. "What about Ukrainians? Yes, of course. Hong Kong? Sure. People fleeing torture or persecution? Absolutely. Care and health workers? Yes please..."

I'm reminded of polling shortly before the referendum, which showed that people wanted to reduce immigration, but asked how much they would be prepared to personally pay to do so, most people said no money at all.

[Millennie Al]

And if a poll said 60% favoured the Rwanda policy would that mean we should drop opposition to that too?

We should oppose even if 99% favoured it because it is an immoral and unjust policy. That is not the same as saying that the leader of the Labour party should make his opposition to it part of a campaign to be elected - on the contrary, in such circumstances he should keep quiet about it and concentrate on those moral and just policies that are popular.

However, polls can be very deceptive. Looking at the YouGov poll on Rwanda (To what extent do you support or oppose the government's proposed policy to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda? - answer: a slight majority favour it), I read another that was promoted on the website: Would you rather watch a film about... which found that 36% chose "A biographical thriller about Robert Oppenheimer, one of the key figures in the development of the nuclear bomb", 9% chose "A fantasy comedy film based on the Barbie fashion dolls" and 10% chose "Both". Box office reports show these figures are wildly wrong. Barbie is significantly more popular than Oppenheimer - not a mere quarter. Though there is one interesting point - the figure for "Both" as a proportion of those wanting to watch either is 18% (10% of 36+9+10), and Oppenheimer and Barbie give Vue cinemas best UK weekend since Covid tells us that "(Vue) said a fifth of its customers had bought tickets to see both films", so that figure seems accurate. We can conclude that when people are asked a question, even by a reputable polling organisation, their responses may be highly inaccurate.

[Grumble]

I suspect polls about films are going to get it significantly wrong because they aren’t asking enough (or any?) kids. The demographics for the two films’ audiences are quite possibly very different.

[Woodchopper]

I suspect polls about films are going to get it significantly wrong because they aren’t asking enough (or any?) kids. The demographics for the two films’ audiences are quite possibly very different.

The link in the post shows that the survey was of adults only. Which is normal.

[Edited for syntax]

[headshot]

What’s funny is that Barbie’s humour flew over the heads of most of the teens in the cinema we went to.

Our group of five were laughing like drains and getting funny looks from kids who missed the jokes completely.

[Grumble]

I suspect polls about films are going to get it significantly wrong because they aren’t asking enough (or any?) kids. The demographics for the two films’ audiences are quite possibly very different.

The link in the post shows that the survey was of adults only. Which is normal.

[Edited for syntax]

Good god man, you can’t expect me to inform myself before I comment! What crazy kind of world would that be?

[shpalman]

And if a poll said 60% favoured the Rwanda policy would that mean we should drop opposition to that too?

We should oppose even if 99% favoured it because it is an immoral and unjust policy.

Is there a particular name for this sort of fallacy? "Democracy is bad because it would force to accept some thing most of us recognise as bad if most of us were to actually think that it were ok, which we don't or else the appeal to emotion over public opinion wouldn't work"

[discovolante]

Most people seem to think that outright lying on your manifesto is unforgiveablt bad an undemocratic. E.g. 'we won't scrap the two child benefit policy' but then doing it once elected. But apparently lying about why policies are needed 'we need to stop boat smugglers' is very bad but just not quite on the same level, in democratic terms.

[Woodchopper]

Most people seem to think that outright lying on your manifesto is unforgiveablt bad an undemocratic. E.g. 'we won't scrap the two child benefit policy' but then doing it once elected. But apparently lying about why policies are needed 'we need to stop boat smugglers' is very bad but just not quite on the same level, in democratic terms.

That probably just reflects how we view truthfulness in the rest of our lives. In some circumstances I’m content to be told some things that I know are lies. At least the person is making the effort. Whereas in others I’d be outraged at being lied to.

[dyqik]

And if a poll said 60% favoured the Rwanda policy would that mean we should drop opposition to that too?

We should oppose even if 99% favoured it because it is an immoral and unjust policy.

Is there a particular name for this sort of fallacy? "Democracy is bad because it would force to accept some thing most of us recognise as bad if most of us were to actually think that it were ok, which we don't or else the appeal to emotion over public opinion wouldn't work"

"Tyranny of the majority" when I'm in the minority.

And it's a reasonable position to hold - the majority accepted slavery, in both the the US and the UK. The majority of voters accepted that women shouldn't have the vote.

The history of democracy and civil rights is one of overcoming majority opinion to expand the vote and to expand legal equality.

[noggins]

The point of democracy isnt to give the majority their own way.

Its to stop an elite minority always getting their own way about everything.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Oh right, well we've always been so good at that haven't we.

[dyqik]

Oh right, well we've always been so good at that haven't we.

You mean the country with a House of Lords and a monarchy isn't the best at democracy?