is what the entirety of the Labour party should be thinking right now. If we choose to ignore the views of half the country because they conflict with our own, do we deserve to represent them?
To characterise what Rachel Reeves said in that way is unhelpful. To argue for a sensible immigration policy - and I accept that what constitutes "sensible" will vary from person to person - is not racism. Theresa May has said that the UK doesn't need 300,000+ net migration each year. Public services can't sustain that kind of population increase indefinitely, and it's typically poorer people who bear the heaviest burden. Labour are supposed to represent those people. There's nothing wrong with her comments.
Representatives are supposed to act in the best interests of their client (not sure that's quite the right word). That doesn't always mean doing what they want or what they say. Sometimes doing what's best for someone is also going to upset them (I'd imagine you could get confirmation of that from just about any parent).
Sort of related, it sounded like she was suggesting that one of the main reasons to change immigration policy was to avoid rioting/violence. It feels like there's something wrong with that way of thinking, the implication is that people would somehow be expected to riot simply because they're not happy with the way things are being handled (maybe even implying they'd be right to do so). Rioting and violence are generally just done by people looking for an excuse and it's a completely independent problem with no justification. The only times that riots or violence might become political is if they're directed against political bodies (at which point, they probably are closer to civil war), even then they should probably be seen as a last resort against a system that has comprehensively failed rather than a way to express displeasure on a specific issue. There's a pretty huge difference between protests and riots.
I can understand how it might come across that way, but I believe her sentiments come from a good place. She sees divisions in her constituency and is worried about where that may lead. To immediately assert that she's pandering to racists just doesn't make any sense to me.
I think the larger issue is that many of these politicians still seem to be trying to act based on what they think people want, in a way that seems like they're actually dictating what people want rather than really listening. One thing the referendum showed is that far too many politicians seem to have no idea how to communicate with the public (or even understand them).
Between you, me and the man upstairs, I expected us to get a bum deal out of that whole devolution of powers thing. But this nonsense takes every last cake in creation.
Lines like "If you are a citizen of the world, then you are a citizen of nowhere" are rather clearly aimed at Remain voters and complaints of losing our EU citizenship and rights.
