Ok PK, I don't think you're arguing about strategy, or optics, or “ordinary voters”. You’re actually arguing about who is allowed to be empathised with, and under what conditions.
What has happened is that the moment migrants are presented as human beings rather than abstractions, the conversation immediately shifts to whether that empathy is allowed unless it’s offset, qualified, or domestically pre-approved.
Meanwhile, relentless immigration rhetoric from Reform (and often the Tories), frequently dehumanising, gets a free pass. No balancing requirement. No companion pieces. No hand-wringing about tone.
That’s not realism or fairness. It’s revealing.
Calling this “pious rubbish”, Corbynism, or a messiah complex is just sneering in place of an argument. It avoids saying the quiet part out loud, which is that you’re uncomfortable with migrants being presented as people at all unless it comes with a disclaimer about UK suffering first.
You keep insisting you’re asking a “simple question”, but it’s already been answered. Polanski talks constantly about domestic issues: housing, poverty, cost of living, on TV, radio, QT, podcasts, YouTube. You keep ignonoring that and saying you haven't been answered, so i keep making the point.
If you think humanising migrants is wrong, say that.
If you think voters can’t hold more than one moral concern at once, say that.
Once empathy has to be balanced to be permitted, it stops being empathy.
greenparty.org.uk
samf.substack.com
www.independent.co.uk
