Lilico has proper lost it now. staggering number of tweets
that’s all it boils down to isn’t it. if we hadn’t raped and pillaged then a hun or a dago might have and we wouldn’t have been able to build the royals nice things.
Some of these pundits really do live in a fantasy world. Rentoul is one of the worst of the lot
So… Corbyn’s chat about immigration at the weekend:
Would anyone on here reconsider voting Labour at the next election as a result of the Leadership positioning on immigration? Not making a judgement on that either way myself, just intrigued as to the potential fissure between Corbyn and the Membership on this point (and the wider EU debate) and whether or not it will actually erupt into something.
Disappointing to see Stephen Bush not really looking at what Corbyn said, and instead going with the second-hand interpretations that sprung up on twitter.
Maybe it should have a bearing on the next election, but given that it’ll likely be after Brexit and the other options at the ballot box, I don’t think it will have much of an effect, especially as it’s the centrists within the party who are the most anti-FoM.
Doesn’t seem to me to be what he’s done there. And in any case - Corbyn walked straight into the whole “suppression of wages” idea, which there is no evidence to support.
Maybe FoM will be a buried issue by the time of the next election, but in any case it only takes a percentage or 2 from Labour to seep back to either the Greens or Lib Dems for them to still be short next time round. We’ll see.
This whole tuition fees nonsense seems to be stealing the column/tweet inches from this weekend anyway. Now that’s what I call a non-story.
Question requires clarification, pls. But the upshot is that I won’t be voting for Labour in Scotland in the foreseeable future (and if I were in England I’d be voting Green).
the “wholesale importation” of people from Eastern and Central Europe had been used to “destroy” the conditions of workers, particularly in the construction industry.
Hasn’t, though, has it? Employers should be held to account regarding workers’ conditions.
Corbyn matters because he provides electoral insurance against a position that Labour MPs are minded to follow anyway.
Not entirely convinced by this. He gave temporary shielding during the last election, but he’s on shaky ground with this line of thinking.
In short, New Statesman produces yet another shallow, pointless commentary about Labour being in a pickle. Same as it ever was.
I keep reading FoM as Fo,M.
Corbyn was talking about specific employers advertising roles in countries with low wages and bringing workforces across because they’re cheaper to employ than in the UK. That’s what he meant by ‘wholesale’.
That’s totally different to this, for example:
As for the tuition fees thing: well, quite. The Tories and the majority of the press are in lockstep on this one though, and so the BBC and ITV feel they have to follow.
Eh? The whole point of the piece is to say that Labour isn’t in a pickle over this.
Not sure what more clarification is needed - it was a question to LAB 2017 voters. Speaking personally - my time of supporting Labour has been doing so in spite of pretty much everyone saying “questionable” things on immigration. Corbyn doesn’t seem to me to deviate from this tendency, but I assumed a lot of his appeal was based on the fact he did…
they always come to exactly the dumbest conclusions and apparently this is fine.
Yes Corbyn’s talked about this specific point before, but what confuses me is why leaving the EU + Single Market + ending FOM is the solution to it. Seems to me that the policy levers one would need to pull in order to regulate such practice could be pulled tomorrow.
There’s a difference between the quote in the article there where he says immigration shouldn’t be abused by employers as a way of driving down conditions and the Milliband line which treated immigration as a problem in and of itself.
Now, both are to a certain extent different presentations of the same issue - immigration and living standards, but one looks to put the onus on the group that I think are actually abusing free movement and the other puts the blame on a group that I think are largely beneficial to our country, setting them against those who “deserve” to be here (or whatever the goal of normalising “concerns about immigration” is).
I’m not saying that Corbyn necessarily has a workable solution at the moment (I don’t know what, if anything he’s proposing), nor that there is a way of handling it with the approach he implies, but in principle I’m much more comfortable with his rhetoric than I was Miliband’s election campaigning that majored on things like immigrants coming here to claim benefits and “controlling immigration”.
It talks about Corbyn being a shield. On the one hand a positive, sure. But in the other hand, an(other) acknowledgement that there’s hardly harmony throughout the party. But to what party does that not apply? Also, from what @marckee days, the seems to have been an… editing and reframing(?) of Jezza’s full quote. I suppose, when it comes down to it, I just can’t abide the NS.
Re: the Q. Understood now.
Has Corbyn had a mug made up, yet. Maybe that would clarify?
That’s a fair articulation of the distinction. Think another point is that Miliband for instance didn’t really want to talk about immigration etc. and nor did he actually believe his own positioning on it. So you get a position which pisses everyone off. Also post-referendum you have this curious space in which Labour commit to ending FOM as its interpretation of the result, which is a bit more to the right than putting Controls On Immigration on a mug! Funny old world. In any case, any political leader on the left who can negotiate the immigration debate in this country and emerge the other side without damage to their electoral base is undoubtedly rather impressive (in a strictly political sense).
Can’t imagine their recent addition of Chris Deerin as Scotland Editor has gone down especially well amongst the Nats
Oh god, have they hired him?
He pops up in my twitter feed quite often when people draw attention to his appalling takes. He’s dreadful.
Yeah a few months ago now. Seems a bit odd - he’s pretty inflammatory towards Scottish Nationalists which doesn’t strike me as the most sensible appointment. I mean by all means appoint a Unionist but not HIM. Be the same as them getting that lad from Wings Over Scotland in on the other side.
And yeah I don’t like him much either - says something when you actually much prefer the Scotland Editor for The Spectator (Alex Massie) than the one for the NS…