Is there any point discussing it on here?

Nope

Well that’s disappointing, I thought who wins the next general election hinged on who won an argument on some obscure MTB forum that most people have never heard of.

You mean I’ve been wasting my time?

don’t fool yourself Binners – its an obvious piece of dog whistle racism intended to tell the racists that he was on their side.  Previously I posted the quotes to you and you agreed.

classic playing of the race card

YOu really cannot see the dogwhistle in this?

Burnham claimed that the large influx of EU migrants was “not working for the most deprived areas of our country” and suggested that it had “made life more difficult where it is already hardest”.

He added that the European left must “break out of its paralysis” on talking about immigration due to “the fear of being labeled as pandering”.

Not only do I not think it’s not even remotely dog-whistle, I agree with every word of that

He’s spoken extensively on this and similar issues, ie: asylum seekers being sent en Masse to the most deprived areas of the country.

It’s the ridiculous reaction that even. brokering this subject has with anyone on ‘the left’ (which you are so helpfully illustrating here) that paved the way for Brexit and the rise of the right

I also notice your refusal to engage with the free pies issue

Oh dear BInners  open your eyes

its very carefully written to allow plausible deniability but its such an obvious call to racists ” I am on your side”  Thats the whole purpose of it – he was stuggling in the mayoral campaign at that point and to bolster his vote made that clear dogwhistle speech

I

I’m not convinced Andy Burnham is or was a racist and it’s been done to death on here. It’s possible to be have concerns about mass migration without being racist. There is obviously a lot of overlap though.

He’s a much more plausible and authentic leader than Starmer though. Starmer is trying to fight the election of 25 years ago and looking increasingly dishonest as he shifts further and further to the right and away from what he claimed to be to get elected – meanwhile the centrist electorate he’s after seems to be hugely underwhelmed.

I’ve gone from wanting Labour under Starmer to succeed to actively wanting to see them implode – he’s either a charlatan or he’s being spinelessly led by charlatans.

This constant straw man about how us ‘lefties’ (yes, Labour voters use that as an insult now) want a communist revolution was tired the first 350 times I heard it but now it’s just self parody from those who keep repeating it.

Well that’s disappointing, I thought who wins the next general election hinged on who won an argument on some obscure MTB forum that most people have never heard of.

You mean I’ve been wasting my time?

Well, tbf, the poster I responded to was talking about “discussion” which, as you have pointed out, isn’t really what’s happens here, which is arguing. Or more accurately, taking turns to shout opinions.

If you value that as a valid way to spend time, crack on.

Grum

I am not saying Burnham is raxist.  I am pointing out a clear playing of the race card deliberately telling racists he was on their side

Its a political tactic as old as the hills and this is a shameless example

Burnham is no leader.  He is a wethervane and never had an original idea in his life

Jeepers i can’t wait to get independence to get away from this

If you value that as a valid way to spend time, crack on

I won’t rest until binners joins me in denouncing the petty bourgeois and reactionary opportunitist clique which controls the Labour Party.

Time well spent I would say.

And to be fair I think I’m almost there.

You get to enact your policies

You’re getting there, slowly.

I am pointing out a clear playing of the race card deliberately telling racists he was on their side

When you have literally hundreds if not thousands of your constituents telling you that they feel at the very least unsettled by the pace and scale of immigration, and the high concentration of immigrants in v poor areas with poor public services and little government support etc – what are you supposed to do as an MP?

Just tell them all they are racists and their concerns are BS?

What’s incredible uncle Jezza is that having had it pointed out to you on numerous occasions, when you raise this subject – and it is always you that raises the subject – you can’t accept what has been pointed out to you time and time again

This isn’t racism in any recognised definition of the word. But the fact that you’re prepared to hysterically declare that it is is what’s lead to anyone to the left of Farage being terrified of engaging with the topic, let alone seriously addressing what are perfectly legitimate concerns for a lot of people

This has played a huge roll in delivering both Brexit and the loss of so many Labour seats in the North to opportunists and genuine racists who are more than happy to raise the topic

I know you’d rather the frightful subject wasn’t raised at all, but would you rather have Burnhams version, which you decry as ‘playing the race card’ or this…

Because them’s your choices in this country at the moment. Wake up FFS! We’ve Priti Patel as Home Secretary. Who weaponises increasingly simplistic thinking. She’s…. You know… brown… isn’t she?

So like so many on the left, maybe check your virtue signalling and engage with reality

I am sorry for you Binners you cannot see this for what it vclearly was

I tell you 3 times.  I do not believe Burnham is racist.  That statement is not racist,  what it is is clearly signally to racists ” I am on your side”  Thats playing the race card and its a perfect example – and last time I gave you that quote you agreed

“what are perfectly legitimate concerns for a lot of people” no they are not .  those concerns are based on lies and racism.  They are not legitimate.

so you think its acceptable for him to pander to racists in his speeches to get elected.  I want nothing of that.  Everything he says in that speech is bogus.

Grum -= he should be a leader.  He should have principles.  He should tell the truth. Explain that immigrants bring prosperity to the country.  Explain the benefits.  Like Sturgeon has done which led to scenes where the local community in a poor part of glasgow mobilised to prevent illegal deportations of asylum seekers.  thats the sort of community cohesion we need.  thats the sort of political leadership we need.  Brave, principled, founded on the truth

“what are perfectly legitimate concerns for a lot of people” no they are not . those concerns are based on lies and racism. They are not legitimate.

So presumably Gordon Brown is also a racist on your world TJ?

If Burnham’s comments are considered racist then Gordon Brown’s “British jobs for British workers” must surely also be considered racist.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/jan/30/brown-british-jobs-workers

In fact since the entire hierarchy of the last Labour administration accepts that huge mistakes were made in relation to immigration policy it is presumably fair to say that they have all pandered to racism, Burnham is no exception.

Former Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw, for example :

https://news.sky.com/story/straw-admits-spectacular-immigration-mistake-10428153

“what are perfectly legitimate concerns for a lot of people” no they are not . those concerns are based on lies and racism. They are not legitimate.

Do you think migration and more importantly any form of integration has worked well in this country or do you think (as in pretty much every country) immigrants go to areas which already have an ex-pat community and it just keeps increasing whatever the impact or ability for an area to absorb it. Many of those areas are deprived so the mismanagement of the increasing population in those areas causes problems for those already living there.

Guessing that is what Burnham was reflecting and I would agree it is an issue. Some issues appeal to racists more than others.

Its only an”issue” because of repeated lies from the likes of Farage that lets others like Brown to pander – and yes thats the same dogwhistle

Ernie – IIRC you are a child of immigrants are you not?

Pandering to racists, making dogwhistle statements makes the situation worse not better.

Making statements like Burham and Brown did just legitimises racists like Farage and makes their goals more likely to be achieved.

Look to the difference in voting patterns north and south of the border to see what leadership does.  Scotland voted 2:1 against brexit.  Sturgeon is unashamedly pro immigration and makes it clear.  Racist twonks get no traction here.  UKip highest share of the vote in any election was 7%.

If you had leaders with a shred of her integrity you would be in a better place

Yeah, Ernie. Move to Glasgow. It’s like a Bennetton advert up in the Utopia north of the border.

A world free of toxic nationalism

Oh… hang on a minute…

I used to live right where that attempted eviction protest happened. Interesting area. TBF I would argue that compares to the rest of the UK Glasgow is pretty welcoming to immigrants but like many things it often splits along sectarian lines.

Massive generalisations coming up which I’ll probs get slated for but there have long been links between Irish republicanism and socialism, and support for international ‘underdogs’ – see the Palestinian flags at Celtic games for instance. I know a few people who were at that eviction protest and they were mostly middle class people from England though 🙂

Things that Nicola Sturgeon says may have some impact but I doubt it has a big influence on underlying attitudes tbh.

I’m with TJ on this one. Of course there are tensions in Scotland, but political discourse and voting isn’t driven by anti-immigration issues in the same way they are this side of the border. That is down to political leadership (and rejecting easy opportunism as regards living with people born elsewhere) over a long period of time.

Now the LP is ‘pro-business’ I wonder if Starmer will be pleading for unpaid overtime as with ‘I’m backing Britain’ of 1968? I also wonder what he thinks will happen to the anti-apartheid/muslim vote? I noticed quite a few Palestine flags in urban areas last summer.

 Scotland voted 2:1 against brexit.  Sturgeon is unashamedly pro immigration and makes it clear.

That would be a legitimate point to make if Scotland had voted to remain because they’re pro-immigration. This article suggests that only a 6% difference in voting intention was based on immigration worries. Mostly, it goes on to say, Scots voted to remain on economic fears

Further, somewhat fewer (50%) felt that immigration would be lower, than did so in England and Wales (56%)

I think the issue for politicians of all stripes trying to discuss immigration can easily fall into elephant traps of bigotry and racism, and regardless of what context they use, racist and bigots will cherry pick what they want to hear anyway, and repeat for their own purposes. It’s the same reason flying the St George cross is so fraught, it has been captured by bigots. Labour have admitted that they were taken completely by surprise by the amount of European immigration when the borders were opened in the noughties. Communities (like Boston for instance) were completely unprepared for what happened. Street signs for banking at Lloyds in Polish suddenly appearing, receptionists at the newly built GP surgery with badges indicating what European languages they spoke, Polish foods appearing on the shelves of Tesco. Taken as a whole they changed the way that these folks saw themselves and their community at a pace of change that lots of people just couldn’t cope with, and there was no support, no help, just the condescending view (from London MPs) of “Well, just get on with it, if you don’t want Romanians living here, you must be a racist”.  It’s unhelpful. That’s what Burnham was talking about.

Now the LP is ‘pro-business’

Why shouldn’t the Labour party be pro-business? The vast majority of businesses in the UK are small and independent, employing one or two people only. 3.2 million of the 5.6 million businesses in the UK are sole proprietor. It would be insanely short sighted not to offer these folks something to vote for in the next election, no?

People do need help accepting kabanos on shop shelves (mmmm… yum), but politicians that aren’t offering “help” just “acceptance” of fear of immigrants, that play along to the idea helping someone born elsewhere is at the expense of those born here, are very much part of the problem.

Sure, but in the absence of “normal” politicians fearing to tread into the murky depths of immigration, and lets not forget that Labour were very reluctant to admit that the policy of unlimited immigration was ill-thought out. Other parties will fill that void, and once that happens you’re on the defensive about it, and as is so often true in politics; as soon as you have to explain, you’ve already lost.

That’s why on the face of it, Burnham actually talking about it appears to be racist…as it’s the sort of thing only the racists were saying. Most of the Labour front bench were unhelpfully looking the other way.

“Well, just get on with it, if you don’t want Romanians living here, you must be a racist”. It’s unhelpful. That’s what Burnham was talking about.

There is another way.  explain the boon that immigration is.  Explain how it enlarges the economy and makes everyone richer.  explain that immigrants contribute more and take less out of the country

counter racism with the truth .

pandering to racists and legitimising racists like Burnham did makes the problem worse.  Statements like Burnhams legitimize the likes of Farage and makes it harder to router Farages racism

I have seen the same people on here that are defending Burnham castigating Patel for the same sort of statements

This is the problem with weathervane politicians like Burnham and much of the  current labour leadership.  By following rather than leading they end up standing for nothing and they legitimise the racism

BTW – look out for anti immigrant rhetoric coming soon from Cooper.  She plays the same game

Burnhams statements were very carefully written to give plausible deniability and too many of you fell for it

he was in trouble with the mayoral campaign at the time and the tories were using anti immigrant rhetoric to garner support so he just followed them down that nasty path

Look to the difference in voting patterns north and south of the border to see what leadership does. Scotland voted 2:1 against brexit.

Which demonstrates what exactly?
As always the UK social attitudes survey is worth a look and it doesnt support your case and neither do most other research.
The claimed superiority of Scotland seems mostly based around the brexit vote but it can just as easily be read as that the bigots in Scotland were convinced to blame England/Westminster/tories (they often seem to have difficult separating the three) whereas the ones in England were convinced to blame the EU since its always handy to have an external party to blame.

Most of the Labour front bench were unhelpfully looking the other way.

Not really. Most commented on it but what they didnt do is go for the dogwhistle “we arent allowed to talk about what we are all shouting about loudly”.

It’s an interesting one. The claim was immigrant labour does not reduce wages but when all the E European drivers went off to WFH drivers’ pay started creeping up. I imagine similar wages drift occurring in other industries like building. I’m not being anti-immigrant but it’s how the system exploits cheap labour.
It would be wrong to confuse sole traders etc with the sort of big business/landlords etc that back Starmer, many small business people are objectively members of the working class who in the past would have been more likely to work off the books/on the lump.
Owners of capital use it to exploit labour to accumulate more capital. It’s a game (like football) with two sides, if won side wins the other loses. Starmer is on the capitalists’ side.

explain the boon that immigration is.  Explain how it enlarges the economy and makes everyone richer.  explain that immigrants contribute more and take less out of the country

I don’t want the Lloyds that I’ve always banked at to suddenly send my letters in Polish, Romanian and English,

I want my old GP surgery back,

I don’t want to talk to a Spanish dentist,  I don’t understand half the thing he says to me. 

I was helping to set up a two GP and dentist NHS centre at Boston, and those were the things that the mostly older folks were worried about, not whether Boston would be richer, (lots were already pensioners anyway) or what the benefit to the economy was going to be. The shape of their town was changing, and for a lot of them, in ways they didn’t like.

Why shouldn’t the Labour party be pro-business?

He was advocating trickle-down economics recently – do you agree with him?

many small business people are objectively members of the working class

So Starmer probably should promote policies that appeal to 3.2 million sole traders or the additional 1.4m businesses that employ fewer than 5 people then, as these folks are “objectively” his core voters.

He was advocating trickle-down economics recently – do you agree with him?

No, trickle down is bollocks, but I do think that folks who say; Open a hairdressers and employ a couple of apprentices, or are actively trying to get the pub in the village back up and running should have the support of the Labour party. Shouldn’t they?

Ernie – IIRC you are a child of immigrants are you not?

Well unless there comes a point in your life when you cease to be an immigrant I am an immigrant myself. My mother was actually born in Barrow-in-Furness although both her parents were immigrants.My father was double bad, not only was he an immigrant but he was also Argentine.

How is any of this relevant? Are you suggesting that I should oppose all immigration controls? That Andy
Burnham somehow stands out in the Labour Party as someone who panders to racism in a way that others don’t?

A little while back I had a conversation with someone that I know very well and could fairly be described as on the very far left of the Labour Party, she was formerly in a small Maoist party.

She said that she believed Britain should scrap all immigration controls. The whole conversation became bizarre as explained to me that an inability to pay the fare to the UK was all that was needed to stop millions of Bangladesis, for example, coming to UK.

I was frankly gobsmacked. Firstly the tragic reality of desperate people dying in airtight containers or drowning in the English Channel in their desperate attempts to get to the UK, proving the extreme lengths people will go, was lost on her.

And secondly here was someone who claims to be some sort of communist/socialist arguing that ability to pay was the only criteria needed for entry into the UK.

When I pointed out the obvious unfairness of excluding those who can’t afford the fare to the UK by saying “well if they can’t afford the fare we should pay it for them” her response was “oh no you couldn’t do that”.

She is actually a senior lecturer at Goldsmiths so not, on paper at least, an idiot. I just think she gets a little carried away with her extreme politically correct wokeism.

The claimed superiority of Scotland

I am NOT claiming superiority just difference.

Its really funny ‘cos when people claim you say things you did not to discredit your argument then it merely shows the paucity of their arguement

many small business people are objectively members of the working class

Really?  Under no definition I know of

Ernie – surely you can see the hypocrisy of a child of immigrants being anti immigration – says the “white settler in Scotland” 😉

Plumbers? Kitchen fitters?

Ernie – surely you can see the hypocrisy of a child of immigrants being anti immigration – says the “white settler in Scotland” 😉

You are not paying attention TJ. My mother wasn’t an immigrant, I am, and my dad was.

And you obviously don’t understand the difference between being in favour of immigration controls and being anti-immigrant.

I don’t know why, it’s not exactly a difficult concept to get your head round. And it has ALWAYS been Labour Party policy to have immigration controls but not be anti-immigrant.

Not only do I not think it’s not even remotely dog-whistle, I agree with every word of that

I doubt Burnham is a racist but he’s something that’s just as bad: A weather vane politician who will say and do anything to court popularity to boost his career. Even if that means courting racists and bigots. He’s very good at it too when you look at the ‘King of the North’ bollocks. Starmer is no different, except he’s utterly shit at it.

There’s only one political grouping who’ve ever had a realistic solution to the immigration issue. Instead of stroking the racist and bigoted underbelly of the UK public with barely disguised ‘send the buggers back’ blasts on the dog whistle, Starmer, Cooper, Burnham et al would do much better throwing their weight behind a £15 minimum wage and and end to zero hours contracts etc. The only way to stop people feeling like they’re being undercut is to provide work that pays.

Its really funny ‘cos when people claim you say things you did not to discredit your argument then it merely shows the paucity of their arguement

Its implicit in what you say and its also wrong.
The fun thing is we can actually go and find a proper study of opinions and find you arent supported at all.
A proper review

The shape of their town was changing, and for a lot of them, in ways they didn’t like

The large Tesco where I used to work had an aisle labelled “Polish”, I overheard 2 old dears complaining there was no Mr Sheen there!

It’s not the attitude and language of the public that’s different north of the border, it’s the attitude and language of the politicians. It is the political leadership that is different. You can make negative views of immigration a key voting concern anywhere in the world if that’s the way you want to win power… it takes courage to chose a different route.

It’s not the attitude and language of the public that’s different north of the border

The claim being made was that the leadership gives better outcomes which is clearly not the case.
Could also consider the minor detail that she has a handy alternate “other” to target which those other politicians do not.