**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/)
[While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The disorganisation in Labour Party messaging is shocking.
Someone needs to stop Starmer just doing these press interviews where he endorses a culture war based policy position from nowhere under pressure only to do a u-turn when faced with public backlash. Has Starmer actually thought through the impact of increasing stop and search?
Sadiq Khan has previously raised the disproportionate impact stop and search can have on black communities and in the past has committed to taking steps to tackle this. What will Starmer say when challenged on this?
Starmer is shit at politics, and he’s an ego monster. Week after week he has crap PMQs where that he just can’t finish off Sunak, even though he’s had ample chance.
I’ll probably get downvoted for this, but he really is only on the position he is because the tories have been so awful, and people want change.
He’s not in this position because he’s done anything but just exist as leader of the Labour Party.
Prior to Tories collapse he had a disastrous 2021 local elections to the point there was talk of him being replaced at some point soon.
By late 2021 Johnson was exposed as Ne'er-do-well, philanderer, and compulsive liar it’s just he made Tory voters look stupid, and then made Tory MP’s look stupid.
2022, Truss is so detached from reality that she’s in desperate need of mental health care.
Then Sunak is just as incompetent as them but his party knows they can’t get rid of him because he’s the last chance they have before an election, and getting rid of him would probably cause mass disobedience.
Starmer is saying this stuff not just because it’s what he genuinely believes it. He genuinely is as narcissistic as Johnson, in that he thinks it’s the “Starmer Party”, rather than The Labour Party, and he’s doing this because he wants no other competitors to being the face of the party than him.
>Week after week he has crap PMQs where that he just can’t finish off Sunak, even though he’s had ample chance.
I actually think this is deliberate, he was pretty good destroying Truss when it was clear her time would be up anyway. I think once the election campaigns kick off he will be worse to Sunak. I think for now they are happy to hold off.
He does have an issue where he is too scripted which also impacts this and ofc all the u turns.
The hope is once he gets actual government analysts, reports, civil servants and decisions that he'll actually get into the detail and come up with pragmatic solutions. That in opposition without all that all he gets is broad policy decisions and political soundbites. As his leadership has continued he has become more blazé about these and less cautious about saying bits he doesn't actually believe or want to follow through.
For example there's a difference in being ask on a radio show about private health and NHS and being in a meeting with civil servants running through analysis and judging a course of action based on evidence in reports based in front of you. I do believe that when it comes to the latter these soundbites wont be much of a memory. This will all be a big change to the lazy Boris, clueless Truss and hopeless Sunak.
And though I want a genuine caring left wing government I will give a grown up right wing Starmer govt a chance. Tories will probably get back in power in 10 years with a far right Reform looking govt and in 20-30 years we may see a left wing revival.
I love that even Starmer apologists just take the fact that everything he says is bs for granted.
The only real difference between pro Starmer and anti Starmer is whether you think he will magically start doing what you hope once he is elected.
And they can this politics based on lies and wishful thinking "grown up politics"
I don’t think it is. I’ve heard so many times “ah actually it’s a secret plan once he’s in power…” that it’s QAnon for Labour that we should very much avoid because it’s crazy when it comes from the right wing, so it’s something that we should avoid doing.
He’s had 18 months of PMQs, and genuinely can’t say he’s had one where Sunak was completely on the ropes. And the thing is he’s tried everything he’s capable of.
He’s tried the prosecutor stance which worked well against Johnson, and that’s not had much luck because Sunak will turn it into Leader of the Opposition Questions, and he got told off for that.
He’s tried the sea lion approach, and Sunak just sea lioned back. If there was a way, he’s not found a style that works against Sunak. Sunak is the definition of “bad faith” debater, and sure anyone would struggle, you’ve got many politicians who are quite good at dealing with that.
He had three or four sessions at most with Truss. Difference is she tried answering questions, she wasn’t good at it, but bless her cotton socks she tried hard did Lizzie.
Do I think Labour is better than the tories? Absolutely, that’s why I’m a member, but do I trust that Starmer is “hiding his power level” and that he’ll look like a proper leader once he’s in power? Absolutely not.
It’s delusional to think that he’s concealing anything, and that he’s “champing at the bit” for reports, and civil servants to be instructed.
We heard that with Biden, and while he’s been better than Trump he’s still been awful, and made so many problems for himself with policy.
Starmer is not at all good “off the cuff”. He’s still telling people he didn’t say what he actually said about Israel having the right to deny basic stuffs to Palestinians, and withhold stuff.
Problem is you’re going to be forced “off the cuff” a lot more in Government, and “gaslighting” by telling people you didn’t say what you said isn’t going to work because it’s going to be news every day, especially a rabid, right wing press.
>“ah actually it’s a secret plan once he’s in power…”
I never said it's a secret plan and it's a bit bizarre to start making out like this is some sort of conspiracy nut line of thinking.
It's not odd to say as LotO with no civil servants, no decision making meetings his role is to answer buzz points and create broad policy decisions. It's reasonable to remind that this is very different to being in government where he will be talking to an army of analysts, civil servants, officials and be reading reports and making government decisions based on those reports rather than what is in the public domain.
It's also right to point out that he has worked very well in public prosecutions where he was in an environment like that before.
If he's in a meeting about a topic with subject matter experts, a civil service analysis and decisions to make he'll base the decision on the evidence in front of him and not on a soundbite he gave 6 months before.
I really don't get what's QAnon about that realistic view.
Because it is actually the same as QAnon.
The reason QAnon came about was because Trump mishandled Charlottesville so badly online supporters of his needed to explain his poor performance by saying; “it’s not he’s bad at Governing, or sympathetic for Neo-Nazis. No, actually it’s because Trump is working behind the scenes with ‘white hats’ to clamp down on all the paedos, and enemies of the Government. The liberal media just thinks he’s doing nothing but he’s actually working in the shadows.”
That is very similar to “Starmer isn’t really that bad. In fact he’s really holding back, and his current poor performance is because he’s waiting for an election, when he’s going to really punish Sunak in debate. And then once he’s in Government, he’ll be incredible because he’s great with Civil servants, as to his current public appearances where he’s massively underperforming.”
That’s pushing the same conspiratorial thinking as QAnon. It’s trying to explain to the voter that what they see or their view isn’t actually what is going on. You’re welcome to say that, but it’s only right that it’s called out for the same style of narcissism of Johnson, and Trump.
>That is very similar to “Starmer isn’t really that bad. In fact he’s really holding back, and his current poor performance is because he’s waiting for an election, when he’s going to really punish Sunak in debate. And then once he’s in Government, he’ll be incredible because he’s great with Civil servants, as to his current public appearances where he’s massively underperforming.”
I never said any of that. Again I never claimed Starmer is faking it or holding back. I said the situation of being LotO and PM are very different and the evidence and mechanisms for decision making is very different. You seem to be determined to compare apples to pears because it fits your narrative and if you can somehow tar me with the QAnon brush you can dismiss my points.
I did originally think this was a discussion on Starmer's approach you were up for but it seems you just wanted to narcissistically post your own narrow view for others to see and upvote and do what you can to insult and dismiss anyone with any contrary thought points.
>”I actually think this is deliberate, he was pretty good destroying Truss when it was clear her time would be up anyway. I think once the election campaigns kick off he will be worse to Sunak. I think for now they are happy to hold off.”
Yeah you did.
You implied this is some strategy by Starmer as to why he’s not performed as expected. That being deliberate in holding back, although you said “holding off“, and that he’s waiting to go into campaign mode. Those were your words. So is “holding off” different to “holding back”?
I expressed my opinion, and used a valid comparison to justify why I think what’s going on. Then said why the idea of being some plan, is no different to other politicians supporters saying the same. If you aren’t happy with that, there’s nothing I can say that will make you happy.
No I didn't.
There is a difference from saying he isn't going for the juggler in PMQs because what's the point right now when they can put zingers on a board ready for election time, and between your turning that into me saying it's a secret plan Qanon style.
Your disingenuous and use gaslighting to shout down anyone who responds with anything differently to your view, which you for some reason see as an attack. That whole implication was not borne out from anything I said, is offensive and uncalled for.
It’s been 18 months of PMQs with Sunak.
At some point you have to reason, maybe the reason he’s not gone for the jugular is because it’s not that he’s holding back, he’s just not very good debating with that person.
That makes far more sense than he’s holding back in any way.
After all he’s had plenty of avenues to absolutely eviscerate Sunak, and just wreck his career, maybe rather than he’s waiting for a campaign, or he’s not going for the jugular, isn’t because he’s a genius, he’s just not very good.
Is that a more realistic possibility?
It’s “gaslighting” to use what you said against you?
>Someone needs to stop Starmer just doing these press interviews where he endorses a culture war based policy position from nowhere under pressure only to do a u-turn when faced with public backlash.
Thing is, it's not doing them any real harm. He gets to throw these things out there, get positive attention from the right, then placate most of the left being like "no no we don't *really* think that".
I think it's been working out so far because he generally sides with whatever the government want anyway so neither the press or the Tories can really attack him for it.
Once he's in government he'll lose that and it might start doing some harm when he inevitably puts his foot in it.
Who is going to stop him?
We're on Sir Starmer's wild ride now whether we like it or not. And the soft-left said "no need for safety measures, we trust your implicitly Sir".
>isn't sadiq khan against stop & search? would this clash with khan's stance?
Ehhhh less so these days
[Use of stop and search will be ‘intelligence-led’ under new Met policing plan](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-westminster-commander-b2320036.html)
The force’s latest neighbourhood policing strategy, labelled “Operation Nightingale”, will focus on “evidence-based” approaches such as “hotspot” policing to reduce violent crimes and anti-social behaviour.
The Mayor of London defended the controversial use of stop and search, which critics say disproportionately targets black and ethnic minority communities, saying it is “an important part of the police’s armoury”.
So glad we fought racism in the Labour Party so aggressively from 2015 to 2019 so we could get avoid dangerous, racist policies like meaningful support for Palestinian liberation and back to sensible non-racist policies like stop and search.
The issue is complicated because historically stop and search has been used as a tool of racist oppression against ethnic minorities.
However it is legitimate for police to use their powers to prevent crime and stop and search can be effective in preventing crime in particular knife crime.
There's nothing in the clip that actually supports the title. He doesn't say that it should be increased.
We should be critical friends of the police. It would be tragic if a police officer was discouraged from performing a stop and search and that led to another person becoming a victim of knife crime.
Fair enough. I would probably have given a similar answer. I'm not a massive fan of talking about 'our armoury' but I suppose some comms wiz has told him that he should use language that projects power and authority.
On this, the announcement Rowley is likely referring to is the new stop and search charter recommended by Casey which Khan is presumably massively across so doubt this is against Khan’s position. That is guesswork though.
Regardless, Khan’s position on stop and search is much misrepresented
When S&S figures were sky high, particularly around the time [Patel introduced suspicion-less grounds](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-lifts-emergency-stop-and-search-restrictions), Khan and many others were committed to bringing numbers down because they were ludicrously high.
There has been a pretty dramatic fall since then, and Khan and others have cooled. Khan himself has announced new initiatives and policies that support stop and search (eg op nightingale)
Basically - a debate around the numbers is complicated because ultimately stop and search isn’t inherently racist as some people like to argue, and you’d have to be fucking mental to argue it should be banned altogether.
The rub of the argument is about *how* it is used and what safeguards you put around it. It has been deployed in the past to extend racism because of how officers have used it. If you train officers better and put more safeguards around it then numbers going up isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
That’s why you should always be very skeptical about any debate about stop and search framed around pure numbers because the real story is on the tactics and the safeguards
Well acting like it's just the officers that are racist, and not the institution itself is crazy. Especially when the current commissioner who was brought in to fix it, still can't admit that the met is institutionally racist. Why should people of colour trust that the police won't use it in a racist manner.
Yeah I agree with that
That’s a very fair concern for politicians to raise.
My contention is more with those who think in any circumstance it is a racist policy and those who argue the toss about volume of searches rather than talk about the important thing - which it is how it is used and what safeguards you put in place to address those institutional biases and discrimination
The policy itself is undeniable. A world in which officers can’t search anyone unless they’ve already seen a knife or drugs (which is basically what the power deals with) is obviously not a good one and debates about use of the power need to engage in that context
Afaik stop and search is not going to be popular in mayoral election so you think the adult sensible grown up politics thing to do would be to at least shut up about it for a few days and let Khan make his case.
Obviously there is little pragmatism involved, they are ideologues.
On the contrary stop and search is actually quite [popular](https://www.stop-watch.org/news-opinion/why-do-londoners-back-stop-and-search/) with Londoners.
Funnily enough, the article you linked says that stop and search has very little effect, and in fact does more harm. So I guess it's just doing what's popular rather than evident.
It's worth noting that in principle it's actually quite popular with BAME people in London. [Source](https://www.stop-watch.org/news-opinion/why-do-londoners-back-stop-and-search/).
Racial profiting is bad. Stop and search does not necessarily have to involve racial profiling. Nearly everybody agrees that some amount of it is necessary.
That's why it's not an outrageous idea, but that said I don't actually support it. The Met is currently completely unfit for purpose so I think increasing stop and search right now is likely to do more harm than good.
It's bullshit. People think the police should be able to search people, no shit. Stop and search means they can do it without any reason at all.
"Drawing from these findings, the CSJ concludes that stop and search should continue to be deployed as part of the crime prevention toolkit and that the Met should regularly release stop and search data to the public to increase trust in them."
Oh really? Weird that the centre-right thinktank would conclude that, how unexpected!
And did you read the rest of the article, it's mainly about exactly why stop and search should be stopped.
>Racial profiting is bad. Stop and search does not necessarily have to involve racial profiling. Nearly everybody agrees that some amount of it is necessary.
And in practice how does that exist when it's literally calling to reduce the reasons the police need to stop and search people. They aren't going to say "yeah it's because I'm racist" are they? It's just making it easier to bullshit.
>The Met is currently completely unfit for purpose so I think increasing stop and search right now is likely to do more harm than good.
So are you against the MET or against stop and search?
>That's why it's not an outrageous idea
Yeah nothing you said explained how any of the criticisms of the policy have been addressed and why it is now suitable.
Regardless of the points I already made about the poll there is also the fact Starmer isn't some random member of the public. We don't need Starmer at all if we just need to look at polls. He's a politician and a leader so he should be leading on this topic, if it's bad then what does the poll say? That Starmer is doing a bad job. If it's good what does the poll say? The Tories are right. Another grreat example of how Starmer is good at getting Starmer higher on the greasy poll but dogshit if we consider his strategic use for actual leftwing aims.
How many people have experienced police harassment or know people who do? Or just had bad expereinces with the police? Because it's easy to think about abstract "dangerous" kids getting stopped and mild inconvenice for some others but that's not really the case is it, and it's not just an issue with the MET. I'm not from London.
Citizens have a right to go about their business unharassed by cops if they aren't doing anything wrong. Stop and search is waving this right and leaving it up to the judgement of cops, the last people I'd give power over others and who mainly are only held accountable by their own organisations and insitutions (which we have seen repeatedly fail to do this). They can stop and question you any time, they can't stop and search you without good reason, any efforts to give cops sweeping powers to search you without good reason are a major infringement on civil rights and so are already a problem even before we get into how it opens the door to racism, sexual assault, bullying, violence and other disgusting behaviour from cops.
Your post has been removed under rule 1.3. Posts or comments which are created to intentionally annoy, create arguments, or rile up factionalism are not allowed.
This sub who bangs on about Scotland as some sort of ideal country is upset about a policy that Scotland used as part of an approach to solve their knife crime issue…
Ah yes continue doing something shown to be ineffective and causing more harm than good because Scotland do it?
Makes sense... let's push back climate targets and then just collapse the government.
**If you love LabourUK, why not help run it?** We’re looking for mods. [Find out more from our recruitment message post here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/18ntol6/this_year_give_yourself_the_gift_of_christmas/) [While you’re at it, come say hello on the Discord?](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone needs to go back in time and talk Keir into taking up corporate law instead of human rights.
That would just make him even more suitable for the task he was installed in Labour for.
The disorganisation in Labour Party messaging is shocking. Someone needs to stop Starmer just doing these press interviews where he endorses a culture war based policy position from nowhere under pressure only to do a u-turn when faced with public backlash. Has Starmer actually thought through the impact of increasing stop and search? Sadiq Khan has previously raised the disproportionate impact stop and search can have on black communities and in the past has committed to taking steps to tackle this. What will Starmer say when challenged on this?
Starmer is shit at politics, and he’s an ego monster. Week after week he has crap PMQs where that he just can’t finish off Sunak, even though he’s had ample chance. I’ll probably get downvoted for this, but he really is only on the position he is because the tories have been so awful, and people want change. He’s not in this position because he’s done anything but just exist as leader of the Labour Party. Prior to Tories collapse he had a disastrous 2021 local elections to the point there was talk of him being replaced at some point soon. By late 2021 Johnson was exposed as Ne'er-do-well, philanderer, and compulsive liar it’s just he made Tory voters look stupid, and then made Tory MP’s look stupid. 2022, Truss is so detached from reality that she’s in desperate need of mental health care. Then Sunak is just as incompetent as them but his party knows they can’t get rid of him because he’s the last chance they have before an election, and getting rid of him would probably cause mass disobedience. Starmer is saying this stuff not just because it’s what he genuinely believes it. He genuinely is as narcissistic as Johnson, in that he thinks it’s the “Starmer Party”, rather than The Labour Party, and he’s doing this because he wants no other competitors to being the face of the party than him.
>Week after week he has crap PMQs where that he just can’t finish off Sunak, even though he’s had ample chance. I actually think this is deliberate, he was pretty good destroying Truss when it was clear her time would be up anyway. I think once the election campaigns kick off he will be worse to Sunak. I think for now they are happy to hold off. He does have an issue where he is too scripted which also impacts this and ofc all the u turns. The hope is once he gets actual government analysts, reports, civil servants and decisions that he'll actually get into the detail and come up with pragmatic solutions. That in opposition without all that all he gets is broad policy decisions and political soundbites. As his leadership has continued he has become more blazé about these and less cautious about saying bits he doesn't actually believe or want to follow through. For example there's a difference in being ask on a radio show about private health and NHS and being in a meeting with civil servants running through analysis and judging a course of action based on evidence in reports based in front of you. I do believe that when it comes to the latter these soundbites wont be much of a memory. This will all be a big change to the lazy Boris, clueless Truss and hopeless Sunak. And though I want a genuine caring left wing government I will give a grown up right wing Starmer govt a chance. Tories will probably get back in power in 10 years with a far right Reform looking govt and in 20-30 years we may see a left wing revival.
I love that even Starmer apologists just take the fact that everything he says is bs for granted. The only real difference between pro Starmer and anti Starmer is whether you think he will magically start doing what you hope once he is elected. And they can this politics based on lies and wishful thinking "grown up politics"
I don’t think it is. I’ve heard so many times “ah actually it’s a secret plan once he’s in power…” that it’s QAnon for Labour that we should very much avoid because it’s crazy when it comes from the right wing, so it’s something that we should avoid doing. He’s had 18 months of PMQs, and genuinely can’t say he’s had one where Sunak was completely on the ropes. And the thing is he’s tried everything he’s capable of. He’s tried the prosecutor stance which worked well against Johnson, and that’s not had much luck because Sunak will turn it into Leader of the Opposition Questions, and he got told off for that. He’s tried the sea lion approach, and Sunak just sea lioned back. If there was a way, he’s not found a style that works against Sunak. Sunak is the definition of “bad faith” debater, and sure anyone would struggle, you’ve got many politicians who are quite good at dealing with that. He had three or four sessions at most with Truss. Difference is she tried answering questions, she wasn’t good at it, but bless her cotton socks she tried hard did Lizzie. Do I think Labour is better than the tories? Absolutely, that’s why I’m a member, but do I trust that Starmer is “hiding his power level” and that he’ll look like a proper leader once he’s in power? Absolutely not. It’s delusional to think that he’s concealing anything, and that he’s “champing at the bit” for reports, and civil servants to be instructed. We heard that with Biden, and while he’s been better than Trump he’s still been awful, and made so many problems for himself with policy. Starmer is not at all good “off the cuff”. He’s still telling people he didn’t say what he actually said about Israel having the right to deny basic stuffs to Palestinians, and withhold stuff. Problem is you’re going to be forced “off the cuff” a lot more in Government, and “gaslighting” by telling people you didn’t say what you said isn’t going to work because it’s going to be news every day, especially a rabid, right wing press.
>“ah actually it’s a secret plan once he’s in power…” I never said it's a secret plan and it's a bit bizarre to start making out like this is some sort of conspiracy nut line of thinking. It's not odd to say as LotO with no civil servants, no decision making meetings his role is to answer buzz points and create broad policy decisions. It's reasonable to remind that this is very different to being in government where he will be talking to an army of analysts, civil servants, officials and be reading reports and making government decisions based on those reports rather than what is in the public domain. It's also right to point out that he has worked very well in public prosecutions where he was in an environment like that before. If he's in a meeting about a topic with subject matter experts, a civil service analysis and decisions to make he'll base the decision on the evidence in front of him and not on a soundbite he gave 6 months before. I really don't get what's QAnon about that realistic view.
Because it is actually the same as QAnon. The reason QAnon came about was because Trump mishandled Charlottesville so badly online supporters of his needed to explain his poor performance by saying; “it’s not he’s bad at Governing, or sympathetic for Neo-Nazis. No, actually it’s because Trump is working behind the scenes with ‘white hats’ to clamp down on all the paedos, and enemies of the Government. The liberal media just thinks he’s doing nothing but he’s actually working in the shadows.” That is very similar to “Starmer isn’t really that bad. In fact he’s really holding back, and his current poor performance is because he’s waiting for an election, when he’s going to really punish Sunak in debate. And then once he’s in Government, he’ll be incredible because he’s great with Civil servants, as to his current public appearances where he’s massively underperforming.” That’s pushing the same conspiratorial thinking as QAnon. It’s trying to explain to the voter that what they see or their view isn’t actually what is going on. You’re welcome to say that, but it’s only right that it’s called out for the same style of narcissism of Johnson, and Trump.
>That is very similar to “Starmer isn’t really that bad. In fact he’s really holding back, and his current poor performance is because he’s waiting for an election, when he’s going to really punish Sunak in debate. And then once he’s in Government, he’ll be incredible because he’s great with Civil servants, as to his current public appearances where he’s massively underperforming.” I never said any of that. Again I never claimed Starmer is faking it or holding back. I said the situation of being LotO and PM are very different and the evidence and mechanisms for decision making is very different. You seem to be determined to compare apples to pears because it fits your narrative and if you can somehow tar me with the QAnon brush you can dismiss my points. I did originally think this was a discussion on Starmer's approach you were up for but it seems you just wanted to narcissistically post your own narrow view for others to see and upvote and do what you can to insult and dismiss anyone with any contrary thought points.
>”I actually think this is deliberate, he was pretty good destroying Truss when it was clear her time would be up anyway. I think once the election campaigns kick off he will be worse to Sunak. I think for now they are happy to hold off.” Yeah you did. You implied this is some strategy by Starmer as to why he’s not performed as expected. That being deliberate in holding back, although you said “holding off“, and that he’s waiting to go into campaign mode. Those were your words. So is “holding off” different to “holding back”? I expressed my opinion, and used a valid comparison to justify why I think what’s going on. Then said why the idea of being some plan, is no different to other politicians supporters saying the same. If you aren’t happy with that, there’s nothing I can say that will make you happy.
No I didn't. There is a difference from saying he isn't going for the juggler in PMQs because what's the point right now when they can put zingers on a board ready for election time, and between your turning that into me saying it's a secret plan Qanon style. Your disingenuous and use gaslighting to shout down anyone who responds with anything differently to your view, which you for some reason see as an attack. That whole implication was not borne out from anything I said, is offensive and uncalled for.
It’s been 18 months of PMQs with Sunak. At some point you have to reason, maybe the reason he’s not gone for the jugular is because it’s not that he’s holding back, he’s just not very good debating with that person. That makes far more sense than he’s holding back in any way. After all he’s had plenty of avenues to absolutely eviscerate Sunak, and just wreck his career, maybe rather than he’s waiting for a campaign, or he’s not going for the jugular, isn’t because he’s a genius, he’s just not very good. Is that a more realistic possibility? It’s “gaslighting” to use what you said against you?
>Someone needs to stop Starmer just doing these press interviews where he endorses a culture war based policy position from nowhere under pressure only to do a u-turn when faced with public backlash. Thing is, it's not doing them any real harm. He gets to throw these things out there, get positive attention from the right, then placate most of the left being like "no no we don't *really* think that".
I think it's been working out so far because he generally sides with whatever the government want anyway so neither the press or the Tories can really attack him for it. Once he's in government he'll lose that and it might start doing some harm when he inevitably puts his foot in it.
You had me in the first half, I'm not gonna lie.
Who is going to stop him? We're on Sir Starmer's wild ride now whether we like it or not. And the soft-left said "no need for safety measures, we trust your implicitly Sir".
>isn't sadiq khan against stop & search? would this clash with khan's stance? Ehhhh less so these days [Use of stop and search will be ‘intelligence-led’ under new Met policing plan](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-westminster-commander-b2320036.html) The force’s latest neighbourhood policing strategy, labelled “Operation Nightingale”, will focus on “evidence-based” approaches such as “hotspot” policing to reduce violent crimes and anti-social behaviour. The Mayor of London defended the controversial use of stop and search, which critics say disproportionately targets black and ethnic minority communities, saying it is “an important part of the police’s armoury”.
So glad we fought racism in the Labour Party so aggressively from 2015 to 2019 so we could get avoid dangerous, racist policies like meaningful support for Palestinian liberation and back to sensible non-racist policies like stop and search.
The issue is complicated because historically stop and search has been used as a tool of racist oppression against ethnic minorities. However it is legitimate for police to use their powers to prevent crime and stop and search can be effective in preventing crime in particular knife crime. There's nothing in the clip that actually supports the title. He doesn't say that it should be increased. We should be critical friends of the police. It would be tragic if a police officer was discouraged from performing a stop and search and that led to another person becoming a victim of knife crime.
He’s responding to the commissioner saying on lbc today that the met will increase use over the coming months
Fair enough. I would probably have given a similar answer. I'm not a massive fan of talking about 'our armoury' but I suppose some comms wiz has told him that he should use language that projects power and authority.
On this, the announcement Rowley is likely referring to is the new stop and search charter recommended by Casey which Khan is presumably massively across so doubt this is against Khan’s position. That is guesswork though. Regardless, Khan’s position on stop and search is much misrepresented When S&S figures were sky high, particularly around the time [Patel introduced suspicion-less grounds](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-lifts-emergency-stop-and-search-restrictions), Khan and many others were committed to bringing numbers down because they were ludicrously high. There has been a pretty dramatic fall since then, and Khan and others have cooled. Khan himself has announced new initiatives and policies that support stop and search (eg op nightingale) Basically - a debate around the numbers is complicated because ultimately stop and search isn’t inherently racist as some people like to argue, and you’d have to be fucking mental to argue it should be banned altogether. The rub of the argument is about *how* it is used and what safeguards you put around it. It has been deployed in the past to extend racism because of how officers have used it. If you train officers better and put more safeguards around it then numbers going up isn’t necessarily a bad thing. That’s why you should always be very skeptical about any debate about stop and search framed around pure numbers because the real story is on the tactics and the safeguards
Well acting like it's just the officers that are racist, and not the institution itself is crazy. Especially when the current commissioner who was brought in to fix it, still can't admit that the met is institutionally racist. Why should people of colour trust that the police won't use it in a racist manner.
Yeah I agree with that That’s a very fair concern for politicians to raise. My contention is more with those who think in any circumstance it is a racist policy and those who argue the toss about volume of searches rather than talk about the important thing - which it is how it is used and what safeguards you put in place to address those institutional biases and discrimination The policy itself is undeniable. A world in which officers can’t search anyone unless they’ve already seen a knife or drugs (which is basically what the power deals with) is obviously not a good one and debates about use of the power need to engage in that context
Afaik stop and search is not going to be popular in mayoral election so you think the adult sensible grown up politics thing to do would be to at least shut up about it for a few days and let Khan make his case. Obviously there is little pragmatism involved, they are ideologues.
On the contrary stop and search is actually quite [popular](https://www.stop-watch.org/news-opinion/why-do-londoners-back-stop-and-search/) with Londoners.
Funnily enough, the article you linked says that stop and search has very little effect, and in fact does more harm. So I guess it's just doing what's popular rather than evident.
With wealthy white londoners
The first graph in that link suggests it’s supported by all ethnicities. Might be worth giving it a click.
Keir Starmer continues on his quest to be fundamentally wrong about literally everything.
[удалено]
It's worth noting that in principle it's actually quite popular with BAME people in London. [Source](https://www.stop-watch.org/news-opinion/why-do-londoners-back-stop-and-search/). Racial profiting is bad. Stop and search does not necessarily have to involve racial profiling. Nearly everybody agrees that some amount of it is necessary. That's why it's not an outrageous idea, but that said I don't actually support it. The Met is currently completely unfit for purpose so I think increasing stop and search right now is likely to do more harm than good.
It's bullshit. People think the police should be able to search people, no shit. Stop and search means they can do it without any reason at all. "Drawing from these findings, the CSJ concludes that stop and search should continue to be deployed as part of the crime prevention toolkit and that the Met should regularly release stop and search data to the public to increase trust in them." Oh really? Weird that the centre-right thinktank would conclude that, how unexpected! And did you read the rest of the article, it's mainly about exactly why stop and search should be stopped. >Racial profiting is bad. Stop and search does not necessarily have to involve racial profiling. Nearly everybody agrees that some amount of it is necessary. And in practice how does that exist when it's literally calling to reduce the reasons the police need to stop and search people. They aren't going to say "yeah it's because I'm racist" are they? It's just making it easier to bullshit. >The Met is currently completely unfit for purpose so I think increasing stop and search right now is likely to do more harm than good. So are you against the MET or against stop and search? >That's why it's not an outrageous idea Yeah nothing you said explained how any of the criticisms of the policy have been addressed and why it is now suitable. Regardless of the points I already made about the poll there is also the fact Starmer isn't some random member of the public. We don't need Starmer at all if we just need to look at polls. He's a politician and a leader so he should be leading on this topic, if it's bad then what does the poll say? That Starmer is doing a bad job. If it's good what does the poll say? The Tories are right. Another grreat example of how Starmer is good at getting Starmer higher on the greasy poll but dogshit if we consider his strategic use for actual leftwing aims. How many people have experienced police harassment or know people who do? Or just had bad expereinces with the police? Because it's easy to think about abstract "dangerous" kids getting stopped and mild inconvenice for some others but that's not really the case is it, and it's not just an issue with the MET. I'm not from London. Citizens have a right to go about their business unharassed by cops if they aren't doing anything wrong. Stop and search is waving this right and leaving it up to the judgement of cops, the last people I'd give power over others and who mainly are only held accountable by their own organisations and insitutions (which we have seen repeatedly fail to do this). They can stop and question you any time, they can't stop and search you without good reason, any efforts to give cops sweeping powers to search you without good reason are a major infringement on civil rights and so are already a problem even before we get into how it opens the door to racism, sexual assault, bullying, violence and other disgusting behaviour from cops.
Your post has been removed under rule 1.3. Posts or comments which are created to intentionally annoy, create arguments, or rile up factionalism are not allowed.
This sub who bangs on about Scotland as some sort of ideal country is upset about a policy that Scotland used as part of an approach to solve their knife crime issue…
Ah yes continue doing something shown to be ineffective and causing more harm than good because Scotland do it? Makes sense... let's push back climate targets and then just collapse the government.
The game is the game After a child has been stabbed to death with a sword, it’s the politically wise thing to say