Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
I’m in the what sometimes seems to be one per cent who can’t get too worked up about immigration. In resality, I suspect that there are plenty more who feel like I do, but, in the case of Starmer’s Labour Party, they’re determined to chase the votes of a group of people who, in most cases, would never vote for them.
My point is that politics is always a game of where you draw the line. I remember an episode of question time years ago where an audience member went off on a 'public sector can't run a tap, everything should be privatised, free markets hurrah' rant and a panel member picked his overconfidence apart by listing off things that are currently government funded/run that it would be mental to privatise demonstrating the above - it's always about where you draw the line. Similarly with the WFA, its probably the threshold that divides opinion on the policy - I can't believe a majority of Britons think millionaire retiree should get free money for energy bills.

The problem that focusing on principles leads to is that the maths doesn't add up long term. The projections of benefits system right now, the projections of triple lock, the projections of just letting migration drift. And when you combine it all together we have a country where:

- Pension cohort and cost increasing
- Benefit claimants increasing massively (in work and out of work)
- Importing more and more people to do low paying jobs (filling the gaps left by UK workers)

Project that forward and it just isn't sustainable, right? It doesn't even sound functional now. And I'll say it again, labour has no hope of achieving anything they said without doing it - e.g. they could build more houses than ever and not even keep up with demand..