Jeremy Corbyn

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:

And you wonder why UKIP are making ground, at the expense of Labour in the North? Not rocket science, is it?

WHilst its clear not all Brexiters are racist its also clear that the racists voted Brexit

Any racist able to spell his name would realise being in the EU limits immigration to predominantly white Christian background Europeans. Being out means many more of the not white Muslim types.

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

You house people where it's cost effective surely ? Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has built council housing outside London.

As I have posted before Labour should look at Font Nationale in France, they are taking votes from the left with attractive left leaning polciies on supporting workers matched with strong anti-EU rhetoric. FN are strongest where it was previoisly the socialists like north (ex mining areas) and South (typically working class) where local councils previously run by the far-left have gone FN.

Labour really don't unserstand why they are losing voters. They never halted the slide in Scotland and they are not going to do so in England and Wales

And would the FB be considered open-minded or narrow-minded Xenophobes?

Only really thick racists.