It has either lost them millions & millions of voters, or at best, it's failing to stop millions of voters leaving. At this point they would be smarter to flip a coin to pick a policy to focus on. A small chance of success would be better than guaranteed failure.

What I genuinely don't understand is Labour went very hard against immigration for a year, and their popularity plummeted. Why are they doubling down on a failing strategy? Even if they had no moral issues with it, pure Machivallian survival would tell them to focus their comms on something else.

I don't think it's money, women date men they meet and if young men don't go out, they can't date them.

Talking about it *before* it's been fixed just makes you look like you're failing the whole time. (I realise the conversation is partly media driven, but Labour are also choosing to focus their comms on their least popular issue, and ignore much more popular policies they've brought in).

They can fix asylum without talking about it the whole time. It would be much smarter for them to talk more about the minimum wage, renters rights & the women's safety bills they've brought in - popular policies. Then if in a couple of years they've improved asylum talk about it then as a victory...

"It is terrible that Shabana Mahmood faces overt racism for being a high profile Asian woman" = good argument

"The key to ending overt racism against Asians in Britain is that we must Stop the Boats" = a very bad argument indeed, on so many levels

It’s also extremely unpopular except with voters who will never vote Labour

A good update on rules would be to require corrections to have the same prominence as the original story.

London is also diverse. It's hugely multicultural, and it's a largely tolerant and welcoming place.

Sure it has it's problems and the housing crisis is a big one.

But the haters don't hate this city because of that.

They hate it because it stands as living proof that multiculturalism works.

That’s a good point. I can’t understand why they see their approach lose their huge majority and think “we need to do that more”. It’s baffling

If they understood it was bad electorally but they believed in it, they’d do it more quietly. The fact that most of their comms is about asylum/immigration makes me think they still believe it’ll help them.

Portugal vs USA shows why decriminalisation is great & legalisation is bad for hard drugs. Opioids were legally given by doctors in US & caused a huge crisis. Portugal kept them illegal but gave users treatment rather than punished them. Though soft drugs seem safer to legalise

It takes an obscene amount of hubris to lecture the BBC when you have The Telegraph’s record on truth-telling.

Some of the paper’s errors this year are so bad they’re almost laughable 👇🏻

Was Samir Zitouni the caterer on the train also hearing " ancestral voices" when he risked his life to save peoples lives during the attack?

It makes no sense in a country where not enough children are being born to penalise families that have more children.