Jeremy Corbyn

Those Cohibas don't smoke themselves, comrade!

No, he runs a hedge fund, based in Berkeley Square. Unless he's in his Monaco office, that is.

You forgot that he is also the secretive billionaire owner of Gregg's

Greggsanista

Might be having his tea, it's tea time in Yorkshire, just had my tea..

I believe he's on [i]The Other Side[/i].

Not just of the Pennines, but also he's an evil traitorous Red Tory, donchankow.

, but also he's an evil traitorous Red Tory, donchankow.

David Nuttall is his godparent, and he has a relation that was a close friend of William the Conqueror

I think he went to Eton, too. After all, you can't have an opinion if you're posh.

What Manchester.. that changes things

Good job you lot told me the truth and exposed Binners... thanks lads.

exposed Binners

Do you want to see [i]those[/i] photos as well?

Slight thread hijack. Serious question apart from the Independance debate and all that guff. How does the average Scot view the ability of the SNP to actually govern and run the Country with regard to employment, housing, education and healthcare? It's been 15 yrs since my better Scottish half left Scotland to move to England and just curious if people think the SNP are delivering on the everyday mundane stuff?

Slight thread hijack. Serious question apart from the Independance debate and all that guff. How does the average Scot view the ability of the SNP to actually govern and run the Country with regard to employment, housing, education and healthcare? It's been 15 yrs since my better Scottish half left Scotland to move to England and just curious if people think the SNP are delivering on the everyday mundane stuff?

The non average Scot I chat to think the bubble will burst

Ask yourself why so many kids around Edinburgh are privately educated

last time i ate a gregg's sausage roll i got the trots.
not so much an entryist as an exitist.

Right so Labours approach to Scotland is just to ignore it? Northwind I think your reply is the only one who gives a reasoned answer to my query.

'How are SNP seen by typical Scot', well like every party some are for and some against. But i do think they are more marmite than most political parties for obvious reasons. I think the bubble will probably burst but it will be more a slow puncture than a bang.

[quote=oldmanmtb ]Binners you a Website developer- serious question

Expert crayonist on the computer

http://www.adamrowlinson.co.uk/

dragon - Member

Right so Labours approach to Scotland is just to ignore it?

I wouldn't say so. Certainly ignore isn't the right word. I think they're aware that they've mishandled Scotland badly in the recent past and they're now wary of making the same mistake again- with a decent Scottish leader, it could well have been the right move. It's just that unfortunately the last leader seemed to be genuinely mentally ill, and you wouldn't leave the new one in charge of your plants if you went on holiday. But at the same time, even with Corbyn's initial popularity up here it'd still have been potentially disastrous for him to overrule Dugdale.

Also, to be fair to them it is a conundrum; Scottish Labour and Westminster Labour want/need to do different things. We don't really [i]want[/i] to vote Labour as they have been lately, or Lib Dem for that matter, and we no longer do so out of a sense of civic responsibility to keep the Tories out. And "unionists" have turned Scotland into a stick to beat them with in England.

But it doesn't feel like they've really grappled with this at all. There's a comfortable myth that Labour love- "We got a kicking in Scotland for siding with the Tories in the indyref". It's obvious bullshit; their decline and the SNP rise pre-date the indyref. "Red Tories" is nothing to do with aligning with the Tories, it dates back to Blair. But it's a comfort blanket that seems to allow them to not engage with the reality; we fell out of love with them, then we stayed together out of habit and duty, but finally we met someone new and dumped them.

There's a comfortable myth that Labour love- "We got a kicking in Scotland for siding with the Tories in the indyref". It's obvious bullshit; their decline and the SNP rise pre-date the indyref.

Labour Scottish vote share, General elections (with SNP in brackets by way of comparison)

'79 - 41.5% (13.1%)
'83 - 35.1% (11.8%)
'87 - 42.4% (14.1%)
'92 - 39.0% (21.5%)
'97 - [b]45.6[/b]% (22.1%)
'02 - 43.3% (20.1%)
'05 - 39.5% (17.7%)
'10 - 42.0% (19.9%)
'15 - 24.3% ([b]50.0[/b]%)

So much for the collapse in Labour support due to Iraq/Blair/Centrism

[b]Edit[/b], Interestingly, Ive just replicated those figures for whole UK Labour vote share:

'79 - 36.9%
'83 - 27.6%
'87 - 30.8%
'92 - 34.4%
'97 - 43.2%
'02 - 40.7%
'05 - 35.2%
'10 - 29.0%
'15 - 30.4%

Despite the 'collapse' in support for Blair/Labour post Iraq, they still did far better than any election but 79 (and look what happens every time they move left...)

Bastard right wingers, winning elections.

I do think I agree with Northwinds analysis however i except those numbers paint a slighly different picture. My explanation would be that it takes a while for non-swing voters to start considering leaving a party that they've always supported, but once they do then the network effect means it happens in large numbers quickly.

Key thing bribing it back to Corbyn is what does he or any other leader, do about it? I'd probably sack Dugdale as she is useless for someone charismatic to lead and then build a decent strategy (the tricky part). Going to be hard while the Tories attempt to mop up the Unionist vote.

ninfan - Member

Despite the 'collapse' in support for Blair/Labour post Iraq, they still did far better than any election but 79

The Iraq War was in 2003. In 2005 with Blair still leader Labour according to your figures did even worse than they had done in 1979.

And you think this proves that Blair and the Iraq War had no effect on the Labour vote ?

How did you come to this interesting conclusion ?

The Iraq War was in 2003. In 2005 with Blair still leader Labour according to your figures did even worse than they had done in 1979.

But better than they did in 83, 87, 92, 10 or 15

Wow, The Iraq invasion made them [b]so[/b] unpopular.

Yes, Labour seem to have become unpopular after the Iraq War. As you figures show in 2005, 2 years after the Iraq War started, the Labour vote was lower than it was in 1979 - when they lost the general election.

And in 2010 and 2015, which was obviously also after the start of the Iraq War, the Labour vote fell even further.

So in [i][b]every general election since the start of the Iraq War[/b][/i] the Labour vote has been lower than it was in 1979, when they lost the general election.

Now I don't know if this loss of support for Labour post 2003 can all be attributed to the start of the Iraq War. Personally I think it's extremely unlikely, to say the least. I imagine that many other factors also contributed.

But you seem to bizarrely think that this drop in support for Labour after 2003 proves that the Iraq War had nothing to do with Labour's falling popularity.

To say that your conclusion is very strange would be an understatement.

But it shows that even despite the calamitous effect of the Iraq war, Blairs 'hardcore right of centre neo-liberal free market politics were still electable.

And that every time the LP move left (and let us remember very clearly that both GB and EM were very clearly portrayed as moves back to the left and 'old Labour values' at the time) they move further away from electoral success.

Which is nice 😀

William Hague and Michael Howard big factors in those elections.

And for that matter Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband. Neither Gordon Brown or Ed Milliabnd moved to the left. Yes Dave called him red Ed but thats about it! Did he actually have any policies? Freeze energy prices um ...

Dude; did you forget there's a Scottish parliament? 😆 By ignoring Holyrood you ignore 2 absolute watershed moments- 2007, first SNP administration. 2011, first majority in Holyrood. Here's some lines showing what you missed

[img] [/img]

Makes a mockery of any claim that Labour's decline in Scottish happened recently, or post-2014, or because of the indy ref. There [i]was[/i] no indy ref, for any of these data points.

As for Westminster, there's no way to remove the impact of FPTP and tactical voting, and I don't think I need to explain how critical that is, especially up here. The gamechanger in 2015 was that every seat was in contention- until then, across much of Scotland a vote for the SNP was a wasted vote at best, and often it was seen as opening the door to the Tories.

Expenses from 2010-2015 exclusive of office costs:

Jeremy Corbyn £5,618
Angela Eagle £57,943
Owen Smith £150,681

and let us remember very clearly that both GB and EM were very clearly portrayed as moves back to the left and 'old Labour values' at the time

Really ? I have always associated 3 principle characters behind the "New Labour" project.

In no particular order Peter Mandelson - the marketing guru behind the project, he coined the term New Labour, Tony Blair - the front man, and Gordon Brown - the actual brains behind the whole project.

I think I'm right is saying that it was Gordon Brown who dreamt up the slogan [i]"Labour is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime"[/i] for Tony Blair to use when he was an ambitious young Shadow Home Secretary under John Smith.

It was Gordon Brown that Tony Blair let deal with all the boring difficult to understand stuff at the Treasury. And the Chancellorship is central to a political regime's policies.

The Blair–Brown deal, or Granita Pact, went to the very heart of the New Labour project, without it there would have been no New Labour.

.

Anyway, back on topic. I found this article interesting :

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/11/jeremy-corbyn-earns-geordie-acclaim-at-debate-against-owen-smith ]Jeremy Corbyn earns geordie acclaim at debate against Owen Smith[/url]

I particularly liked this :

[i][b]Speaking after the debate, Nick Gilks, a retired police officer, said the evening’s event had not changed his mind and he would be voting for Corbyn. “I didn’t know who he was when I first went to the hustings last year,” he said. “I know him now and there was nothing I saw in there tonight that is going to change my mind and I’m not a Trot.”[/i][/b]

Although I also found this quite interesting :

[i][b]One woman, who asked not to be named, said: “I find the Corbyn hysteria quite irritating, regardless of what you think [of the candidates]. [The audience is] just not listening. I went in there with an open mind but the hysteria really was making me switch off.”[/i][/b]

I have to say that when I went to one of Corbyn's local rallies during the leadership campaign last year I found the over-the-top sycophantic rhetoric expressed by [i]some[/i] people rather nauseating.

OK, I thought, he might be a breath of fresh air compared to most other politicians, but let's not get carried away - at the end of the day he's just some bloke.

And ironically that sort of stuff goes completely against what Corbyn is all about. A point which some people had obviously missed.

Although it has to be said that I'm now more supportive of Corbyn than I was then. But I still only see him as some geezer saying mostly the right things.

I'd probably sack Dugdale as she is useless for someone charismatic to lead and then build a decent strategy (the tricky part). Going to be hard while the Tories attempt to mop up the Unionist vote.

Its not just "up here", ducks.

Time for some honesty - Corbyn, Smith (who?),[s] Eagle[/s] None of them are PMs in the making. They are not even party leaders. That is blindingly obvious. Corbyn only got bought in to widen the debate, but then the law of unintended consequences set in again. He wants the job as much as he wanted to stay in Europe.

But parties go through these phases - remember Tories with IDS and Howard. "The quiet man" was not for anything other than weak opposition!!! It seems to be part of a necessary internal cleansing process although this time you have the complication of the cuckoos taking over the nest.

Lets not forget that Labour are held back first and fromost by the perception that they cannot be trusted on the economy. None of this current charade nor the calls of the [s]Croydonistas[/s] Corbynistas for a inglorious bygone age is going to change that. They simply make it worse.

So it will be Panto time for quite some period.

people up here having become more "interested" in what the parties "do"

If there is a lesson from Scotland, it's that this is simply not true. The gap between what the SNP say and what they do is massive. But as epic conceded earlier, they are forgiven because the ends justify the means. They continue to benefit form the light touch scrutiny that typified the City of London's approach to documentation in the run up to the GFC. We shall see if the results are the same,,,,

So how the hell did this happen ?

OK this could be just a rogue poll, and it probably is,

😀

as u sed many times mr hurtmore
all post truth politics
labour don't need principles or policies
just a slogan on a bus
where will it end?
hard to be optimistic
for labour or country

Expenses from 2010-2015 exclusive of office costs:

Jeremy Corbyn £5,618
Angela Eagle £57,943
Owen Smith £150,681

outofbreath - Member

😀

And the next word had you not your ever so slightly edited the post was the word "but".

I wonder if this perhaps signifies a deeper meaning ?

teamhurtmore - Member

None of this current charade nor the calls of the Croydonistas Corbynistas for a inglorious bygone age is going to change that. They simply make it worse.

And yet it is New Labour/the Blairites who are living in the past under the mistaken belief that we are still in the 1980s or 90s.

They are either incapable of understanding, or deluding themselves, or far more likely too terrified of change, to accept that the world has changed. And changed in a way that they really don't like.

And they won't simply ignore those changes which are reflected in the massive growth of the Labour Party under a new and very different leader, they will also ignore the SNP's now political hegemony in Scotland, the growth of UKIP in England and Wales, and the universal and now well-established collapse of the LibDem vote, as they try to kid themselves and everyone else that the political solutions of 20 or 30 years ago are still applicable.

What an ignominious ending for the New Labour dinosaurs.

EDIT : This living the the past and being unable to understand that the world has changed isn't confined to the PLP, it goes right across the political establishment.

There only one reason that David Cameron agreed to hold a referendum on the EU and that reason is that he felt absolutely certain that the British electorate would vote to stay in.

20 or 30 years that would have been an absolute certainty, in fact the Labour Party's opposition to the EEC in 1983 was probably the greatest contributing factor to their electoral defeat.

Cameron was incapable of understanding that the world has changed, so has politics.

theauthorities - Member

as u sed many times mr hurtmore
all post truth politics
labour don't need principles or policies
just a slogan on a bus
where will it end?
hard to be optimistic
for labour or country

It's a shame that doesn't rhyme tbh, as it's otherwise perfect.

Ernie - its also that they would have to admit they were culpable over expenses and had wasted the last 10 years going in the wrong direction.

We have seen the future up here - and its in politicians with honesty and who sound like normal people.

There only one reason that David Cameron agreed to hold a referendum on the EU and that reason is that he felt absolutely certain that the British electorate would vote to stay in.

Expenses: Corbyn has a London constituency and thus needs only one home

IMO traditional Labour voters in Scotland today think there is little point in voting Labour, at least the SNP are something "different". That irrelevance is somethig which Labour nationally need to be very wary of. Infighting over the Iraq war has only weakened them further, the harder left / anti-war elements of Labour and the entryists are inconsistent with a party of Government. Any leader must be prepared to use nuclear weapons and use our military when required. Corbyn and his supporters stance on these issues is yet another vote loser

Expenses from 2010-2015 exclusive of office costs:
Jeremy Corbyn £5,618
Angela Eagle £57,943
Owen Smith £150,681

And?

Corbyn lives 6 miles away from the House of Commons, Smith lives in South Wales so has the cost of travel and accommodation for the nights he's in London.

I don't have any time for Corbyn or Smith - both are equally useless, but even a cursory review of Smith's expense claims suggests they are reasonable. The £155K also includes Constituency Office costs and phone calls.

http://www.mpsexpenses.info/#!/mp/32

And they won't simply ignore those changes which are reflected in the massive growth of the Labour Party under a new and very different leader, they will also ignore the SNP's now political hegemony in Scotland, the growth of UKIP in England and Wales, and the universal and now well-established collapse of the LibDem vote, as they try to kid themselves and everyone else that the political solutions of 20 or 30 years ago are still applicable

Hmmmmmm..... the view from Croydon? Heres the view from North Manchester comrade....

The problem is that the elephant in the room in labours 'Northern Heartlands (tm) has just painted itself pink (during the EU referendum) and is now dancing around in a tutu, just to make itself even more massively visible. But the labour party is still resolutely pretending it isn't there. I think its the main reason that the beardy messiah refused to engage in the EU referendum. Because it would have meant talking about.... you know.... that that we can't talk about. Whisper it.... 'immigration'

Millibeans official policy was to 'move the conversation on' if voters brought it up. And we all know Browns attitude. But Jezzas leftie credentials mean that he's even less inclined to talk about it.

But they need too.

The uncomfortable reality of the matter is that the unquestioning 'come one, come all' policy that shouts 'racist bigot' at anyone who questions open door immigration isn't playing well in ghettoised post-industrial towns, and looks very different to the metropolitan melting pot of Westminster Labours comfort zone.

[url= http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/labour-win-heywood-middleton-by-election-7913084 ]The writing has been on the wall for quite some time[/url]

Whoever wins - and unfortunately it looks like your hero - they have to grasp the nettle and address this issue. Otherwise the same people who just voted us out of the EU are going to return a slew of new UKIP MPs to Westminster from seats where you'd previously been able to pin a labour rosette on a monkey to get it elected. Remeber when UKIP were apparently the Tories problem? Hows that notion looking nowadays?

So what we could be seeing after the next election IMHO is labour losing 150 seats under Jezza, and the Tories being returned with a huge majority, and a sizeable UKIP rump supporting most of what they do. The labour party reduced to a shouty, lefty, sixth form common room, disappearing up its own politically correct jacksy.

I don't know if Owen Smith, or anyone else in the laboour party is prepared to acknowledge this yet, but the Corbyn camp most definitely won't. Because Jezza only talks to the converted.And they don't want to hear any of this. Please... no reality here. We'll keep our heads resolutely buried in the sand.

*sits back and awaits being called a racist*

Cameron believes in democracy, he was brave enough to hold the Indy and EU referendums. He had no obligation to hold the Indy vote or make it binding, he chose to do that. Ditto EU vote came about as he quite rightly thought the public should get a say on the EU after 40 years with the electoral bonus of saving that would happen if he won a Conservative majority

@binners has nailed it.

Come on Binners, tell us what you really think.

Jeremy is at a rally in Milton Keynes tomorrow afternoon Saturday 13th up

"living in the past"
calling people "trots"
are we still worried about
brest-litovsk?

Expert crayonist on the computer

not actually very friendly
outing someone's "real life" identity
imo

in fact the Labour Party's opposition to the EEC in 1983 was probably the greatest contributing factor to their electoral defeat.

Yes, that's probably it, the shortest suicide note in history.

Binners has nailed it (2) JC is a long way from the Old Labour/UKIP voter on immigration and their "wishes" for enforced repatriation (if you think that's anot idle comment get into any northern/economically depressed area on a Friday night in the pubs and listen) this is JCs problem and these "old left" labour voters will vote UKIP in a heartbeat the second JC fails to shout "send them home" The Tories have the a similar problem but money (free trade including free movement) benefits more of their core vote.

Theauthorities - indeed, and look, here's a good example of how the #posttruthpolitics world looks like

We have seen the future up here - and its in politicians with honesty

The SNP are people who lie about how you can reduce taxes and increase spending without implications, about Europe about the status of a currency, private sector involvement in NHS etc. Why? Because, the ends justify the means and..

and who sound like normal people.

Its acceptable to fool those who don't know better and who you/they are meant to represent

The world of the new politics!!! What a crock

Ernie, the joy on not being handcuffed to any party is that you can see that no party is immune to this. A mediocre* home secretary is made to stand out because of the actual oppo and the oppo in her own party. Blimey Tory choice #2 lied about Brexit and lied about her own career. And people thought she was capable of being PM. Ridiculous. At least the Tories saw through the absurdity that is Gove (finally) before that.

* TBH, she has surprised me on the upside so far. So we shall see...

Meanwhile, back to the panto....

not actually very friendly
outing someone's "real life" identity
imo

I'm fairly sure Binners outed his real life identity himself a while back on here.

He wants the job as much as he wanted to stay in Europe.

he had at least two ways to not be leader and chose neither

Deeply deeply flawed point that is ,frankly, untrue.

Cameron believes in democracy, he was brave enough to hold the Indy and EU referendums

Ditto EU vote came about as he quite rightly thought the public should get a say on the EU after 40 years

Expenses: Corbyn has a London constituency and thus needs only one home

£14,021.26-JC
£20,390.89-OS
£38,004.60-Eagle

OH damn it looks like the facts are against you ...who could have predicted such an outcome?

Still what do they matter Jamby?

Dave held the EU vote for a deep held principle...very funny but utterly untrue

Jeremy Corbyn £5,618
Angela Eagle £57,943
Owen Smith £150,681

I have removed accommodation and travel from their claim

£14,021.26-JC
£20,390.89-OS
£38,004.60-Eagle

JC is even worse with numbers than it first appeared.

"living in the past"
calling people "trots"
are we still worried about
brest-litovsk?

Art.

"JC is a long way from the Old Labour/UKIP voter on immigration and their "wishes" for enforced repatriation (if you think that's anot idle comment get into any northern/economically depressed area on a Friday night in the pubs and listen) this is JCs problem and these "old left" labour voters will vote UKIP in a heartbeat the second JC fails to shout "send them home" "

This is true, and clear evidence that the nasty divisive politics of the right has been successful, in getting people to fear myths. The answer, however, isn't to pander to fear, but to confront it and disprove the fear mongers. Because the reality is that economic deprivation in such areas Binners refers to, has **** all to do with immigration, and everything to do with right-wing governments choosing to ignore such places and concentrate investment in others. The fact that areas with high levels of immigration had much higher Remain votes, is proof that the issue of immigration is little more than a red herring.

What Labour need to do, is to select people from their own local areas, to represent their constituencies, rather than parachuting public schoolboys into ''safe' seats. This means that an awful lot of current Labour MPs will have to be deselected. By replacing them with educated, intelligent people who can talk to their peers on a more equal level, rather than talking down to the proles, Labour can re-engage with those very disaffected people who've been deliberately mislead by the right. The real fear of groups like Momentum, is that they might actually start to pull the wool from peoples' eyes, and see politics as it currently stands, for what it really is; a mechanism to serve the elite at the expense of everyone else. Obviously the establishment don't want that at all, hence the repeated attempts to demonise Momentum, Corbyn, and anything vaguely left of One Nation conservatism.

Corbyn has stated that he wants to tackle the evils that society now faces; inequality, neglect, insecurity, prejudice and discrimination. Because [i]thes[/i]e are the things that are actually causing the problems, not 'immigration'.

"The uncomfortable reality of the matter is that the unquestioning 'come one, come all' policy that shouts 'racist bigot' at anyone who questions open door immigration isn't playing well in ghettoised post-industrial towns, and looks very different to the metropolitan melting pot of Westminster Labours comfort zone."

You see, the UK doesn't have an 'open door' policy on immigration. Far from it. [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36963050 ]We even deport nice, white middle class families ffs! [/url] Confronting and dispelling such myths will be difficult, with a right wing government and press with a vested interest in scaring people about 'hordes', 'swarms' and 'illegals'.

The fact that areas with high levels of immigration had much higher Remain votes, is proof that the issue of immigration is little more than a red herring.

Like Boston in Lincolnshire?

Or most of the northern towns with high levels of immigration?

What Labour need to do, is to select people from their own local areas, to represent their constituencies, rather than parachuting public schoolboys into ''safe' seats. This means that an awful lot of current Labour MPs will have to be deselected. By replacing them with educated, intelligent people who can talk to their peers on a more equal level, rather than talking down to the proles, Labour can re-engage with those very disaffected people who've been deliberately mislead by the right.

Binners for MP!!!!!!!

I'm hoping Binners will stand as the local PPC for Bury North, at least the campaign will have better leaflets and someone who is able to get the new mayor to focus on the area whilst reminiscing about their school days

You see, the UK doesn't have an 'open door' policy on immigration.

We have a tiered policy, EU national : open door, anyone else: hoops to jump through, size and number varying according to origin and reason

"Like Boston in Lincolnshire?"

No, like Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Bristol, Cardiff, Leicester and London.

"Binners for MP!!!!!!!"

😕 You know you've quoted [i]me[/i], right?

You see, the UK doesn't have an 'open door' policy on immigration. Far from it. We even deport nice, white middle class families ffs!

So why is it racist to extend the same policy to Europeans?

"So why is it racist to extend the same policy to Europeans?"

Because until recently, we enjoyed exactly the same privileges, and besides, it's statistically proven that such immigration is of economic benefit to the UK. If people were shown the actual facts about immigration, instead of the distortion and lies peddled by the right, hardly anyone would be at all concerned by immigration.

Whenever I hear anyone banging on about 'immigration' being a 'problem', I'm reminded of this:

All I hear, is 'duk ur durrr!'

Because until recently, we enjoyed exactly the same privileges

Yes, you only need to look at the number of workers who have abandoned the low pay of Northern mill towns to flock to work in Romanian factories, subsidised by housing benefit and tax credits.

and besides, it's statistically proven that such immigration is of economic benefit to the UK. If people were shown the actual facts about immigration, instead of the distortion and lies peddled by the right, hardly anyone would be at all concerned by immigration.

Thats right, those stupid proles need more lecturing from the intelligentsia - drink it up now, its good for you.

And you wonder why they voted to leave 🙄

What should Labour's policy on immigration be then?

The Tories 'cut immigration to the 10s of thousands' policy legitimized UKIP. And all the poor Tory voters who are sad about brexit are fools! They voted for it.

Labour's silence on immigration last G.E was deafening. At least Corbyn is honest enough to be pro immigration. But yes I'm not sure its a vote winner for Corbs.

& immigration is beneficial to UK economy of course it is but it has pushed some peoples wages down and immigrants have taken some peoples jobs.

I feel so sad that immigrants are feeling less welcome post brexit.

JC is even worse with numbers than it first appeared.

Perhaps I was unclear perhaps you wanted to just attack him whatever the facts showed...bit of both I assume

the problem with immigration is we know it benefits us
An immigrant is more likely to treat you in the NHS than be in fron in the queue for example
However "ordinary folk" who apparently we must respect are "fearful" of immigration
Hence why the tories talked tough but did **** all

AN honest debate where we explain the figures and the benefit and then get folk to meet immigrants and realise they are not a threat to some sort of halcyon rose tinted view of albion , which is after all a mongrel race

Even racists go for a curry and a kebab and enjoy it

The alternative is to respect the view try and curb immigration and pander to racist morons
I dont like that approach personally but the racist morons do

"Thats right, those stupid proles need more lecturing from the intelligentsia - drink it up now, its good for you."

No; what's needed is a far more balanced and objective media, not the mainly right-wing bullshit that so many people currently swallow.

"Yes, you only need to look at the number of workers who have abandoned the low pay of Northern mill towns to flock to work in Romanian factories."

Or you could just look at the 1.3 million Brits permanently living in the EU. And how many people on here travel to EU countries for work?

"immigrants have taken some peoples jobs."

No they haven't. No job 'belongs' to anyone else. If an 'immigrant' from another country, probably speaking English as a second language, not to mention having other difficulties settling here, gets a job over you, it says more about how crap you are, not about immigration. As for 'immigrants pushing wages down'; I'd like to see some facts to support that myth.

"What should Labour's policy on immigration be then?"

Personally, I'd deport anyone moaning about 'immigration' to the Falkland Islands. Each would get a free shovel and some turnip seeds. Would free up loads of space and jobs for more immigrants. 😀

& immigration is beneficial to UK economy of course it is but it has pushed some peoples wages down and immigrants have taken some peoples jobs.

On a micro, micro scale. There are no studies that demonstrate a significant negative impact. The BSers had to lie about the BoE one.

I feel so sad that immigrants are feeling less welcome post brexit.

[b]Indeed it is shameful. [/b]The referendum was a wake up call re the undercurrent of xenophobia and racism (not to mention economic illiteracy) that exists in the UK. Its was only hidden below the surface.

Whoever wins - and unfortunately it looks like your hero - they have to grasp the nettle and address this issue.

I agree this the crux of it. But what does 'grasping the nettle' mean?

Is it:

Pander to petty prejudices, ignorance and racism (sorry, however much people protest otherwise, racism is a major factor) and jump on the anti-immigration bandwagon in a shameless act of appeasement to the darker side of society.

Or:

Address the grievances of former industrial heartlands and the growing economic and cultural inequalities that have been allowed to develop over the past 30 years between them and metropolitan centres, with radical policies to redistribute wealth, and regenerate former industrial areas to provide housing, worthwhile jobs and quality public services.

It would appear to me that Corbyn's policy is the latter, and I'm all for that. Yet his critics dismiss this as lefty fantasism, so if that's true does that leave us with the former? If so I'm out.

No they haven't. No job 'belongs' to anyone else. If an 'immigrant' from another country, probably speaking English as a second language, not to mention having other difficulties settling here, gets a job over you, it says more about how crap you are, not about immigration.

Crap people still get a vote, lots of other people worry about the impacts of having a group of people out competed in the workforce becoming essentially unemployable. Other people worry about population growth and where people are going to live and where the resources come from to support them.

As for 'immigrants pushing wages down'; I'd like to see some facts to support that myth.

The Croydon Communist himself has highlighted the impacts on the building sector of migrant labour and the wages of skilled workers,

Junkyard I am not sure what part of society you spend your day but the sad fact is (reflected in Brexit vote) that this country is fundamentally racist - UKIP has exposed this beyond doubt and if you had a media system that was positive about immigration then the above "racists" would think it's a left wing plot! I would love to see you sit in a room with some of the **** wits I run into in the North of England and discuss tolerance/understanding of others, they would quite literally kick the shit out of you. Also let's be honest large parts of the Tory electorate only "accept" these immigrants as they -
A. Don't have to live next to them
B. They don't impact their kids (perceived) prospects
C. They fix, clean, build, nurse etc for minimum wage.

Sometimes I do wonder where some of the folks on here actually live their lives, as I said get into a northern town on a Friday night and see how much stick the takeaway, taxi, bus drivers get from "English White Folks" there's your voters "poll"

I Agree dazh - I think people have been told again and again that the reason their lives are shitty is immigration. It doesn't make it true.

That people were also told that voting 'leave' would fix that, doesn't make it true either.

If you check my profile you will see i live in he north of england
If you read my stuff from here you will know what sort of folk I work with - not my colleagues but the clientele so forgive me for not being interested in your "real" lecture as trust me i do work with them and i do interact with them much more than you could ever imagine

As for racism i am not sure why you think i denied there was a problem or an issue i simply said we should not pander to them and we should educate them
Do you disagree with either of these two points and if so why- more logic and coherence would be much more appreciated than more withering personal bile threatening to get my " head kicked in" if i go out in my town.

Sometimes I do wonder where some of the folks on here actually live their lives,

Because until recently, we enjoyed exactly the same privileges, and besides, it's statistically proven that such immigration is of economic benefit to the UK. If people were shown the actual facts about immigration, instead of the distortion and lies peddled by the right, hardly anyone would be at all concerned by immigration.

This needs to be treated in the same way your claim that we don't have a open door immigration policy.

When looked at as a marginal cost issue, yes there is a benefit to GDP but it is small. it also ignores the issues when things start to become capital cost issues, ie you suddenly need to accelerate school building, hospital building transport infrastructure etc as the demand outstrips the capacity. Schools are going to be a massive issue in some areas very quickly for example. Housing is already an issue, population growth doesn't increase availability etc

Yes the issues can be resolved but the speed of change is faster than the response which means that people experience the squeeze on capacity long before it is eased.

In other words immigration brings problems, to dismiss that is to essentially telling people they are "crap". Immigration also brings benefits but to increase the benefits and to reduce the problems it needs to be managed. Even UKIP are pro managed immigration

Trouble is you need a reasonably well educated and informed mind to understand and extrapolate the difference between central government policies and the Polish lads knocking up an extension next door when your a builder in Middlesbrough and your sat on your arse, then it takes one UKIP door knocker to take that vote.

Junkyard in respect to getting the shit kicked comment it reflects the people who hold these views and there approach to "discussion" they are through no fault of their own often ill informed and poorly educated, half my family sit in this group of people and it's unpleasant.

The EU referendum offered the absolute perfect opportunity to take the racists on, head on, take a stand, and make a statement about the society the labour party believes in and wanted, and against the vile attitudes being displayed by the right wingers

Unfortunately Jeremy was a bit busy doing something else at the time to be bothered with any of that nonsense. What? Who knows.....?

And thats half the reason that we are where we are.

Its all very well preaching to the converted at your echo-chamber/cult meetings. But being a leader, and having any pretence to be a future PM involves communicating your ideals to everyone else too. What the referendum ruthlessly exposed was the fact he has little or no interest in doing that. Nor has he now.

And I'll answer the next question from the believers before they even ask it. No it isn't the fault of the right wing press not giving him enough coverage. Its because he went AWOL for the whole campaign. And he has to take some bloody responsibility for that!

radical policies to redistribute wealth

not completely sure about the need to be completely radical - I would like to see more companies run in the same manner as John Lewis/Waitrose or even more biased towards 'collective ownership' as highlighted at one point in that Capitalism film by Michael Moore.

Seems to work for JL/Waitrose, all their staff seem a lot happier and give better service than their competitors. I shop at Waitrose partly because of it, and when I remember I try to use JL for my bigger purchases.

Maybe a corporation tax incentive could be brought in to encourage companies to adopt this structure.

It encourages everyone to 'pull their weight'.

The bosses/workers/union structure is just adversarial from the start and deserves to die a death.

Might be able to get rid of HR people as well, as they pull no weight at all...

dazh - Member

Yet his critics dismiss this as lefty fantasism

Actually Corbyn's opponents do very little in attacking his views, they know are on the dodgy ground if they try that - for the reasons you highlight.

In fact Corbyn's opponents are united behind a man who claims to share almost identical views to Corbyn. Remarkably he wants everyone to believe that he is possibly even more radical and left-wing than Corbyn. He wants a "socialist revolution" I kid you not.

The important difference between him and Corbyn he claims is that he has better presentation skills than Corbyn. I have no idea why he thinks that.

No, Corbyn's opponents are not attacking him on his views which they know chimes with the views of millions of ordinary working people.

Instead they are focusing on his alleged lack of presentation skills (Angela Eagle was their initial first choice which speaks volumes about their real motives) And vilifying those who support him by calling them bullies (after their unrelenting attempts to bully Corbyn and rig the leadership ballot) and racists, and sexists, and now the latest, homophobics apparently.

Exactly the same newspapers which some years back were describing people like Corbyn as "loony lefties" because of their apparent politically correct obsession of opposing the racists, the sexists, and the homophobic, are now accusing them of being outrageously racist, sexist, and homophobic.

How some people are incapable of seeing through this bollox mystifies me. Obviously I can understand why Tories and other right-wingers want people to believe that, but how dumb, gullible, and naive, do you need to be ffs to believe it ?

Perhaps this explains why despite throwing everything at it they have had far less success than they might have hoped for. It seems that there's probably just not enough dumb, gullible, and naive people in the world, to guarantee them complete success.

The EU referendum offered the absolute perfect opportunity to take the racists on, head on, take a stand, and make a statement about the society the labour party believes in and wanted, and against the vile attitudes being displayed by the right wingers

Unfortunately Jeremy was a bit busy doing something else at the time to be bothered with any of that nonsense. What? Who knows.....?

And thats half the reason that we are where we are.

Its all very well preaching to the converted at your echo-chamber/cult meetings. But being a leader, and having any pretence to be a future PM involves communicating your ideals to everyone else too. What the referendum ruthlessly exposed was the fact he has little or no interest in doing that. Nor has he now.

And I'll answer the next question from the believers before they even ask it. No it isn't the fault of the right wing press not giving him enough coverage. Its because he went AWOL for the whole campaign. And he has to take some bloody responsibility for that!

Binners for Parliament!!!!!!!

Turner Guy that is exactly how our business is run every one gets paid the same and shares the bad times.

Binners for Parliament!!!!!!!

Although it's hard, if not impossible, to find a Tory supporter on here who doesn't agree with binners, safe Tory seats which have become vacant aren't easy to find.

I think it might be a while before binners makes his maiden speech from the floor of the House of Commons.

Unfortunately Jeremy was a bit busy doing something else at the time to be bothered with any of that nonsense. What? Who knows.....?

He was on a walking holiday.