Jeremy Corbyn

Spot on dazh 'revelling in his own ignorance'. Perfect.

As for not having an opposition- bolx. An opposition to me means an opposing view which is what we have now. When did we last have it? Charles Kennedy?

Of all the bad decisions made in the last 20 years how many were opposed by the opposition?

An opposition to means an opposing view which is what we have now.

An opposition to me means an opposing view which is what we have now.

An opposing view sure, but not just that. Also where relevant putting forward alternative plans. Communicating that opposing view. Scrutinising policy and challenging the government, not just in PMQs but also via PQs, in parliamentary debates, and crucially in committee to amend legislation. It means doing this across the two houses, and across all areas of policy including Brexit, health, social care, local authorities, regions, defence, transport, pensions, the economy, foreign affairs, farming, food, drugs, energy etcetera etcetera et bleedin cetera,

It means doing this in a coordinated way, so that one bit of policy for food say, doesn't contradict another for health, with collective agreement across the opposition.

It also means dealing with the key organisations outside government responsible for all the above, and lobby groups etc.

And it means communicating all this to the public in a coordinated way, and also responding the the public of course.

This is a highly complex task requiring significant organisation and leadership, and some discipline on the part of the opposition.

It's not just disagreeing with whatever May says.

A starting point would be to form a Shadow Cabinet - blimey if you cant sort that out (even with 8 hour meetings) do you deserve any form of executive power?

@5th yep that only happens in the Labour Party.

@johnx2 yep the PLP need to pull their socks up! Maybe if the big hitters didn't throw their toys out of the pram when he was elected first time they could have carried on the fantastic job they were all doing in their respective departments.

This is a highly complex task requiring significant organisation and leadership, and some discipline on the part of the opposition.

When've we had that in recent years?

Seems like the whole of UK politics has a competency issue since.. well.. Blair really. Think what you like about the war, but he knew how to play the game.

Hang on a minute.....

So it's not just railing against absolutely *ing everything then? You have to actually offer alternatives? Suggestions? Ideas? That are costed? And stand up to scrutiny?

* that! I'm off to make some placards, everyone loves a good slogan on a placard. They'll all vote for that. The next election is in the bag

[img] [/img]

In an attempt at sensible discussion....

So it's not just railing against absolutely ****ing everything then?

But isn't that what everyone keeps saying? All this talk of 'effective opposition' etc implies 'opposing'. Only a few posts ago johnx2 says..

It means doing this across the two houses, and across all areas of policy including Brexit, health, social care, local authorities, regions, defence, transport, pensions, the economy, foreign affairs, farming, food, drugs, energy etcetera etcetera et bleedin cetera,

So it it 'railing' or 'opposing'? Should they be agreeing with the tories instead (they tried that recently BTW, and it didn't quite work our)? I'm confused.

You have to actually offer alternatives? Suggestions? Ideas?

Come on, they've been overflowing with ideas and alternatives. Universal basic income, re-nationalising the railways, National Education Service, people's quantitative easing, abolition of tuition fees, etc. I'm not saying these are good ideas, but they are still ideas and suggestions, so to claim otherwise is daft.

That are costed? And stand up to scrutiny?

When has a first year opposition of any party ever been required to produce detailed costed policy proposals 4 years in advance of the next election? Are we suddenly changing the rules because labour MPs don't like their leader?

Honestly, I have a fair amount of stamina for talking about this stuff but even I'm becoming a bit jaded with the irrationality on display on this thread. Has anyone actually got anything to say that is actually based on reality? (stupid question I know, we're about 240 pages past that 🙂 )

@5th yep that only happens in the Labour Party.

Not strictly true I guess, it's only 40 or so at odds with the rest, but they're the ones on the side of the leader.

It's unprecedented anyway.

ninfan - Member

So are you saying that The £3 I spent last year was wasted?

Not wasted. Obviously it had no effect whatsover on the outcome, so some [s]practically everyone [/s]would consider that a waste. But don't forget, it also meant you gave a cash donation to a political party that you apparently hate, how could that be a waste?

And it wont be used by Militant so you are ok.....

[quote=teamhurtmore ]And it wont be used by Militant so you are ok.....

<taps nose>

....and winks back

Have we done the 1-hour Ken Loach documentary yet?
Just about to sit down and watch:

Edit: 5mins in and it's not what I expected at all. I thought it was going to be Ken Loach talking with JC 🙁

Alex. Thanks for that, tried to find it the other day withoit success.

Ironic Corbyn is calling for unity tonight, he has spend his whole career opposing and voting against the Labour leadership. Now he's understanding what it really means.

An hour of Ken Loach with added Corbyn?

[img] [/img]

Ironic Corbyn is calling for unity tonight, he has spend his whole career opposing and voting against the Labour leadership. Now he's understanding what it really means.

Anything new? We're a whole year into this and this has just occurred to you? What next? I suppose you're going to point out that he's also an IRA sympathiser? Or the fact he has a beard? Did you know he's also quite old, hasn't got the best dress sense, and once had an alleged liaison with Diane Abbot? I look forward to hearing all this again come saturday. Here's to another 300 pages 🙂

JC's pose in AlexSimon's video swung it for me. Makes him look all gangster-like.

A proper thinkerer.

@dazh JC brought it up again, unity that is. He seems not to realise how ridiculous it makes him sound. Another classic example of him "do as I say not as I do"

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-miliband-savages-jeremy-corbyn-and-his-own-brother-too-a7321531.html ]The Prince Over The Water makes his move.[/url]

The article referenced above, David Milliband in New Statesman. To be honest it says nothing new which wasn't said during the leadership campaign a year ago. You can achieve nothing if you are not a credible or trustworthy government in waiting, Labour has lurched backwards and further away from power while discrediting it's own 13 years in government

[url= http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/09/new-times-david-miliband-why-left-needs-move-forward-not-back ]The Left needs to move forward not back[/url]

Could that article not be summed up by the sentence "I told you this would happen, you muppets?"

I'm inclined to the opposite view, I'm finding this whole media attempt to discredit Corbyn is having precisely the opposite effect.

Folk are not stupid, even though we're being treated as a moronic market place fed constant drivel by this and that PR entity by a media that is convinced it should decide who governs.

That Channel 4 Dispatches programme I happened to watch was a prime example and has had a considerable back lash, even from Tory MP's like [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dispatches-momentum-jeremy-corbyn-zac-goldsmith-channel-4-twitter-criticism-tweets-a7317686.html ]Zak Goldsmith[/url]

The Working poor have been starved of representation here for years, whatever anyone says, New labour was Tory Lite and the rise of UKIP was the result, it was a mistake thinking UKIP was purely right wing, it might have been in some regions but in others it stood in for Labour.

The Brexit vote was precisely because so many of us have become disenfranchised, I think if Corbyn successfully pulls them together, they could become more than just a protest vote, lots of kids love what he's saying.

Could that article not be summed up by the sentence "I told you this would happen, you muppets?"

Yes. However during the leadership election last year Corbynistas made it clear they didn't care.

Folk are not stupid

The Working poor have been starved of representation here for years, whatever anyone says

So the introduction of the minimum wage, tax credits, massive investment in decaying neglected infrastructure in Labour constituencies, SureStart etc, etc, etc was an assault by Tory-Lite Nu Labour on the working poor?

I'm afraid that thats just yet another example of the selective memory of most Corbyn supporters who only ever want to talk about Iraq, and won't give the Blair government any credit for anything. Which is just juvenile. People on this thread have stated that having a Tory government for the Blair years would have been no different to Nu Labour. Which is frankly one of the most stupid assessments I've ever heard.

The Labour party has lost support in its 'heartlands' for one reason only. Its complete refusal to even engage with the genuine concerns of their core vote about immigration. The Gordon Brown 'bigotted woman' comment being the perfect example of the disconnect. The irony is that the uber-PC Corbyn is even less likely to address this issue than any of his predecessors. So if they think that their present policies will win back that lost support thats gone to UKIP, in places like Middleton, they're in for a pretty harsh reality check.

I think if Corbyn successfully pulls them together, they could become more than just a protest vote, lots of kids love what he's saying.

Filling a room with a few thousand sixth formers, waving placards, isn't going to win you a general election.

Binners I won't I agree with you or that will discredit your Labour credentials, which is exactly the problem the party faces. Anyone who disagrees with Corbyn is a [insert today's term of abuse]

Folk are not stupid

There's a few hundred thousand that disprove your theory.

Damn, beat me to it.

I'm inclined to the opposite view, I'm finding this whole media attempt to discredit Corbyn is having precisely the opposite effect.

Indeed, they should leave him alone - he and Militant dont need help in that regard

lots of kids love what he's saying.

But its adults who vote and they dont -if the polls are to be believed - his colleagues aren't too keen either.

So if they think that their present policies will win back that lost support thats gone to UKIP, in places like Middleton, they're in for a pretty harsh reality check.

We've been here before. Are you saying that labour's only chance of power is to pander to racists? If so then that really isn't worth winning power for and the Corbyn supporters are dead right.

binners - Member
Which is just juvenile

ROFL

The Labour party has lost support in its 'heartlands' for one reason only. Its complete refusal to even engage with the genuine concerns of their core vote about immigration. The Gordon Brown 'bigotted woman' comment being the perfect example of the disconnect.

What would you have Labour's policy be? Now or in the past? Corbyn would have done a better job than Brown or Milliband.

Anyone know what that 'bigotted woman' actually said BTW?

pander to racists

And there's the problem.

Being interested in/concerned about immigration doesn't mean someone is racist. Or bigoted.

Just dismissing the whole issue as "WAYCISTS! EVIL WAYCISTS EVERYWHERE!" really doesn't help.

We've been here before. Are you saying that labour's only chance of power is to pander to racists? If so then that really isn't worth winning power for and the Corbyn supporters are dead right.

You see, you've just done exactly what the labour party has been doing for years.

Being sceptical about the benefits of immigration does not make you a racist. You've just assumed that anyone who's opinion is different to yours is one. They're not. There are genuine issues here. Dismissively labelling everyone who has concerns about mass immigration as racists simply drives them to UKIP. Having casually had that toxic accusation levelled at them, they're hardly then going to vote for you, are they?

If you believe that immigration is a net benefit, then you have to say that. Make your case, and persuade a sceptical electorate that isn't necessarily seeing or feeling any of those benefits. (competition for scarce jobs, rather than a cheaper Polish builder to put in your new conservatory) Labour has always point blank refused to do this, and adopts your tone instead, to shut down debate. Think thats a vote winner? Just dismissing peoples genuine concerns as mere bigotry, from a lofty PC position?

Ed Millibands official policy on this issue when it was brought up on the doorstep was to 'move the conversation on'. To convince people of your policies you actually have to have a conversation in the first place. What message does it send to a public with a ultra-low opinion of politicians when you refuse to even talk about a policy you support? The implication being that if you have concerns with it, thats because you're bigotted/stupid?

Corbyn is even less likely to engage with this issue, as he showed with his disappearance during the EU referendum.

& binners what would you have Labour do?

Which of you is it?

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-passionate-about-saying-hes-a-socialist-20160922114201

I would have them vocalise the reasons for their support of their policy. As I would with any other policy they advocate. Immigrants are net contributors to the economy. All the stats back that. Not to mention the contribution they make culturally. We have an ageing population that we need mass migration to support.

You see, I've just said that. Why won't anyone in the Labour party? What does it look like when you refuse to even discuss it? It looks like you won't justify it because you can't. Where this simply isn't the case.

Its not hard to make a case for immigration, should you want too. You just have to want too. And that takes more than shouting RACIST! at anyone who questions it. Which has been the Labour parties approach so far

Great I'm glad you support Corbyn on at least that policy.

Alex thanks for link but,not Ken Loach's best work. Sfruggled through 30 mins. Only 11,000 views

Panorama

Dispatches

Whilst you are pretty much on the money Binners, I can't see either Blair the return, or Chuck Umuna charismatically explaining the joys of immigration to certain regions, the place is just too crowded these days and like it or not but not enough English is being spoken in some of these areas.

I tend to agree with you on the need for immigration being part of that huge baby boomer generation that is going to need its health care and pensions funded, but it needed to be more controlled and valued. Immigrants should know the language or learn as soon as possible, at the upper end of the demographic, I'm talking city boys here of which my entire acquired family in law are immigrant workers from various origins, they talk the talk and work the work, but down at the other end of the spectrum, the gang workers often on £2 per hour picking mussells or whatever have not been controlled and as to the black market of casual in the building trade, I'll leave that to your imagination.

So, that's what we have, what can be done about it?

Can you see the Torys acting in the interest of the bottom end of the market?

I can't.

Being sceptical about the benefits of immigration does not make you a racist.

Totally agree. But coming from a town which has an out-and-proud branch of the national front, and knowing what I know about places like Middleton, Rochdale, and villages up in Newcastle where I grew up, I can categorically say that a lot of the interest in immigration from those places is driven by racism. The interesting bit is that fact that this racism is mostly borne of ignorance and desperation, rather than an actual hatred of people based on skin colour or origin. That's what the labour party should be tackling, but you can't do that if you attempt to meet it halfway.

If you believe that immigration is a net benefit, then you have to say that. Make your case, and persuade a sceptical electorate that isn't necessarily seeing or feeling any of those benefits.

Isn't that what the Corbyn policy is?

As some are reporting its another corbyn win then really there are 2 choices for the plp. Shut up and follow or resign. Then tackle the issues, they can't stand up on stuff while they are all so conflicted.

I absolutely agree with you rosscore. If you think immigration needs control, then say so. But the labour party policy isn't this. Its an open door policy. Mind you - so was the Tory policy under Dave

My problem isn't with the policy. My problem is the refusal to communicate or defend your policy, and just expecting people to go along with it, or then accusing them of being racists. Its a pretty low blow, and certainly won't win you any votes in constituencies where a well organised and rather less scrupulous party in UKIP are your main opposition, and are happily blaming immigrants for pretty much everything

Isn't that what the Corbyn policy is?

I don't know. Is it? He's hardly communicated it, has he? Despite an EU referendum where it was the main subject, we still don't know what he thinks.

And we're back to basic competence agin....

Anyway, on that note I'm off for a meeting with 2 of my local Labour councillors about trying to keep our library open amongst other things. I'll ask them about St Jezza. Though I think I know their opinions of him already 😉

A lot of Labours traditional core support is lets say a bit anti-foreigner. You know those 'chavvy families' that are p*ssed up on the plane on the way to get burnt and drunk for a week in the Costa del Sol, well they are often the typical Labour working class voter. If Labour want to keep them as voters, then they need to show that they can make their lives better and are on their side and also that foreigners aren't a threat but have a positive effect.

Labour also needs to think in a post-industrial world how it connects with the working people who aren't part of a large company, but work for themselves or at an SME. Labour seems to have little to say to them, in fact a times it's hard to see what Labour have to offer to anyone outside the public sector.

But binners you're talking about the PLP not Corbyn aren't you? Corbyn has publicly defended immigration.

You missed the third - stay and enjoy the privileges that come with membership but regularly oppose the leadership from the back benchers. I'm surprised someone hasn't thought of that before.eee

If by oppose you mean vote with your conscience then great I wish every MP did this. If you mean undermine and criticise your party at every turn then that position is untenable.

The only thing I see missing from Labour or anyone else for that matter is a sensible Green set of policies, we are absolutely screwing this planet and so very little is being done to stop it, is it a vote winner? I would have thought so.

If you mean undermine and criticise your party at every turn then that position is untenable.

Unless you're in the labour party in which case you end up as leader.

not enough English is being spoken in some of these areas.

What the ****?

Totally agree. But coming from a town which has an out-and-proud branch of the national front, and knowing what I know about places like Middleton, Rochdale, and villages up in Newcastle where I grew up, I can categorically say that a lot of the interest in immigration from those places is driven by racism.

Is it driven by racism per se or asking possibly a valid question to someone who then just screams back "RACIST/BIGOT" - could see how that might alienate people slightly.

Don't get me wrong, I know a fair few parts of Newcastle and Sunderland are how you describe, as I imagine is repeated thoughout the country.

I think Labours issue to reuniting their party is that their voters are split into the beardy right-on hispter set in the sexy south and the proper working class in the naughty north. I suspect their, dare I say values, needs and wants are somewhat at odds with each other.

The Northern labour movement always voted Labour because it 'wasn't the conservatives'. And their parents voted that way. And their grandparents. Whilst I think and hope UKIP will fall away now their one reason for existence is finally enacted I think they've have easy pickings hoovering up Labour voters as they are still (ironically) 'not the Conservatives' too.

Newcastle and Sunderland

Anyway, on that note I'm off for a meeting with 2 of my local Labour councillors about trying to keep our library open amongst other things. I'll ask them about St Jezza. Though I think I know their opinions of him already

Speaking of Labour councillors, three of ours were suspended for the heinous crime of liking Jeremy Corbyn, and we all know what the NEC thinks about that. So as a result, they have now lost overall control of the city council.

Is it driven by racism per se or asking possibly a valid question to someone who then just screams back "RACIST/BIGOT" - could see how that might alienate people slightly.

So if I hear (as I have done many times) someone in Newcastle say something like, 'I'm not racist, but there are too many ****s here, white people don't get a look in any more'. What is the correct response? Please explain how you engage with this sort of thing without bringing up the subject of racism, because I'm at a complete loss. Sometimes I wonder whether people don't want to address issues of racism because they either don't want to admit there's a problem, or because they're too embarrassed or shy to bring it up.

In my experience, the people who tend to moan about there being too many '****'s' tend to live in areas with tiny ethnic populations, and the only immigrants they ever see are the ones doing service jobs they would never even contemplate. And they tend to vote Tory.

I do agree that there is a lot of ignorance, (rather than malice) but surely that's in large part due to political party's that decree it verboten to even bring the subject up. Hardly helping matters. is it? If you're too scared/PC to even challenge the UKIP narrative, you simply allow them to spout more bike?

Labours only recent electoral success was for London Mayor, where the tories ran a shamelessly racist campaign. So maybe there's some electoral advantage to be had by engaging with the issue.

Or so you'd think.

ctk - Member

But binners you're talking about the PLP not Corbyn aren't you? Corbyn has publicly defended immigration.

Binners doesn't actually care what Corbyn says, hadn't you noticed?

This goes far deeper than Jezza. This is (all factions of...) the labour parties Achilles heel. Until it addresses it, it's doomed, electorally.

But Mr Right On Is the least likely person in the party who's going to do that. As he proved during the referendum.

Andy Burnham is the only person I've heard vocalise the fact that would suggest he seems to have grasped this, but that ships already sailed...

Being sceptical about the benefits of immigration does not make you a racist.

In my experience, the people who tend to moan about there being too many '****'s' tend to live in areas with tiny ethnic populations

Exactly. It's racism borne of ignorance, just like the commonly held, and erroneous, view that immigrants get preferential treatment by the council. But we're not allowed to tell them they're wrong because that's tantamount to calling them racists. Instead we have to 'engage with their legitimate concerns about immigration' which as far as I can see is simply pandering to racism.

The classic Brown/Duffy meeting which in over 5mins of chat she made one reference to immigration, to which she was labelled a 'Bigoted Woman'.

Exactly. It's racism borne of ignorance, just like the commonly held, and erroneous, view that immigrants get preferential treatment by the council. But we're not allowed to tell them they're wrong because that's tantamount to calling them racists.

I just don't agree with that at all. Most people are pretty reasonable. Highlighting the facts, as opposed to the popular misconceptions wouldn't be construed as an accusation of racism? Why would it be? Unless you've already let it be known that thats what it is?

That attitude is just massively patronising! Saying there are racists is undoubtably true. But saying that a big chunk of the electorate is inherently racist, and therefore not worth engaging with, is not just insulting to your core vote. The results of that are that (somewhat obviously) less people are going to vote for you, as your campaigning seems to revolve around insulting them. Reckon thats going to work in winning general elections?

Or does that not matter? It would appear not. Again... perfectly illustrating what seems to be the view of the present Labour party leadership. Its all about wallowing in your own virtue, rather than actually trying to achieve anything.

In making that type of statement, you've perfectly illustrated the prevailing attitude within the Westminster Labour party, and what seems to be its culture of competitive virtue signalling which is far more prevalent the further left you go, and endemic within Momentum

Well Binners a simple question

Immigration played a large part in the recent Brexit vote
The arguments put forward by the BSers re immigration did not hold up to scrutiny
On what basis therefore do people reject facts on immigration yet still use it as a reason to vote out - ignorance or xenophobia (possibly extending to racism)? It can't be anything else.
Or is there something fundamental that I am missing?

What's the viewfrom up North?

Well apparently we're just a bunch of racists.

EDIT: Sorry Hurty - full (non flippant) answer....

I personally think that peoples reasons for voting out are many, and complex. I think there a multitude of reasons. But the press and politicians are looking (as always) for simplistic answers to complex problems.

For what its worth I think the main problem is people overwhelmingly feeling disenfranchised and ignored, and seeing a quick way to lash out at the establishment. You wouldn't believe the amount of people I've heard say "I voted out as a **** off, because there's no way I thought they'd win". A bit like UKIP winning EU elections.

But rather than the political class (of all hues, bearded and non-bearded) acknowledge that, and the problems that throws up, its much easier to dismiss it as racism

As I've already said, its patronising, and insulting, and the fact that its been dismissed as that just further fuels resentment. And in this respect, Corbyn (who, lest we forget, is just as much a political careerist as David Cameron) is equally complicit, and displays the same contemptuous attitude

It was a serious question!

What DAzH says- pretty much the only voice on here actually being sensible

No no.. there ARE legitimate concerns about immigration. Clearly you can't suddenly flood an area with people and expect everything to be fine.

However that's not what's really happening in the UK, despite what people think. But immigration is something that needs to be thought about, even aside from race. To be explicit, I'm in favour of free movement of people and labour and I think that people are pinning their problems on xenophobia when that's not the root cause.

Oh and Poles are the same race as us.

Hoping immigration doesn't exist as an issue or that UKIP is going to go away isn't a strategy for re-engaging with Labour voters who have deserted the party. In fact its the strategy which ensured they left.

Assuming Corbyn wins again. No one is going to resign their seat even if "deselected". The MPs who voted no confidence will continue on the backbenches. Labour will stumble on with an understaffed and underskilled Shadow Cabinet making no headway politically and struggling for media attention.

Are we going to get Mr Benn back?

Hi JY!

*waves*

Thank god the voice of reason has turned up 😀

So.... do you think its all just racism too? And if it is, then surely the logical conclusion is that, given that we're a nation of racists (despite an awful lot of evidence to the contrary) then the labour party should just knock it on the head as it won't 'pander to racists', so is therefore unelectable?

TMH I still think you miss the point about the data on immigration being a net positive. Clearly on an aggregate level it is, and even anecdotally it makes sense because we can all see the highly paid foreign workers in the City, or industrious Polish tradesmen. However there are pockets on a smaller scale where immigration is not a net positive, either because a depressed area has been chosen as a dumping ground for asylum seekers the government is too short sighted to care about, or where a disproportionate influx of low paid foreigners into a specific area (have you been to Boston Spa or Lincolnshire?) take jobs with poor pay and conditions (thank you unscrupulous employers of the UK).

These issues cause real problems within established communities already under pressure, and have been consistently ignored by government. Hence plenty of people with a justification for voting the way they did, even if I don't agree with it.

Hoping immigration doesn't exist as an issue or that UKIP is going to go away isn't a strategy for re-engaging with Labour voters who have deserted the party.

You see Binns, there you go. This is what people say it, that there is a problem with immigration when their arguments are based in sand. Now when The Economist wrote their recent article in "The Art of the lie" they note that post truth politics works because "it allows people to forgo critical thinking in favour of having their feelings reinforced by soundbite truthiness."

They argued that to counter this, "mainstream politicians need to find a language of rebuttal." So what is that language. As we saw Brown was attacked for confronting a biggot and UKIP pander to their voters who share her false views. So do you take the moral high ground and lose or pander to the Xenophobes and racists who prefer the anti-immigration rhetoric?

I agree wi the disenfranchised comments BTW but see little solution in what is currently being served up by the political classes. On the contrary, people are taken in by the snake oils salesmen from yS, Brexit, Trump and yes, Corbyn. Non are the solution.

BB - I accept the micro argument eg Lincolnshire, but voting patterns show that this issue was much wider and did not correlate with the trends that you describe.

Free movement of labour would still work if the government protected the occupations of say, fruit pickers. If there were no incentive to employ foreigners then the employers wouldn't do it, and the Poles wouldn't come over because there'd be no guarantee of a job.

You can keep free movement and address issues without having to leave the EU. But that was never really discussed, was it? Remain didn't bother to address anything. Shit politics all round.

But then again we only had a few months of campaigning from a standing start, which was bloody stupid too. SNP have been working on the case for independence for decades, and when it comes to GEs we've been living with the parties since the war and watching them on the news every day.

Stupid stupid referendum.

I agree wi the disenfranchised comments BTW but see little solution in what is currently being served up by the political classes. On the contrary, people are taken in by the snake oils salesmen from yS, Brexit, Trump and yes, Corbyn. Non are the solution.

Couldn't agree more fella. It amazes me that apparently intelligent people are taken in by it, when the most cursory study of what they're proposing exposes what utter BS it all is, and that the sums just don't add up. All these populists are making it up as they go along, ultimately for their own ends, and are probably even more cynical than those they allege to be offering an alternative too

As I said - there's a problem of competence.

Or - post truth politics.

No incentive mol? The incentive was the gap between the demand for labour and its supply. That is why Johnny and his mates came in - to fill the gap that otherwise could not be filled. You causation seems to be the wrong way round.

Poles came over to fill the gap and from that create further demand for labour too - a rare win:win.

The incentive was the gap between the demand for labour and its supply.

Was it? Or was it the ability of Poles to undercut the locals? Are they even able to do that anyway? Fruit picking used to be piecemeal when I was a kid, does that put them outside minimum wage legislation?

If there is indeed a gap between supply and demand then there's no issue to even debate. I was working on the assumption that there was an issue i.e. unemployed British fruit pickers.

a depressed area has been chosen as a dumping ground for asylum seekers

who are not allowed to work ...

So do you take the moral high ground and lose or pander to the Xenophobes and racists who prefer the anti-immigration rhetoric?

I think this is the question I asked a few pages ago. I was told that there is no objective truth and I don't understand democracy, so I guess if the majority want to vote racist, that makes racism ok.

Its true. both Rochdale and Toxteth has more asylum seekers housed there than the whole South East of England.

The problem isn't immigration. The problem is that we have two countries. One of which the government gives a **** about. [url= http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/asylum-seekers-greater-manchester-cost-10874865 ]One it doesn't.[/url]

No political party, Corbyn included, is proposing to do anything about this.

And you wonder why UKIP are making ground, at the expense of Labour in the North? Not rocket science, is it? But its an awful lot more complicated than simple racism. Its about being treated as second class citizens because of where you live. Not that anyone (Corbyn included) will even think about acknowledging it,never mind doing anything to change it

do you think its all just racism too?

And if it is, then surely the logical conclusion is that, given that we're a nation of racists (despite an awful lot of evidence to the contrary) then the labour party should just knock it on the head as it won't 'pander to racists', so is therefore unelectable?

Can i reverse it - is your win at all cost mentality* prepared to engage with racist policies to win an election?

* i have no idea what your actual vows are and please dont mistake this as me asking :Wink: