What should Jeremy do?

[al_yrpal]

I am one of those who thinks the British government should be able to regulate net immigration. This fella doesnt. His solution is another handout.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... e_btn_link

Al

[tyreon]

One has to admire people like JC...well,sorta. He can and will outargue anyone who puts anything against his view...for hours and hours....and hours and hours...and hours and hours(do I need to go on?)No matter how hard I should train,no way are you going to alter,change,challenge this bloke. I think in any discussion I would end up saying...'I gotta get out o here' and run screaming from the room(preferably to a motorway where I could throw myself under a speeding lorry) This training(to sit and argue for hour upon hour going round and round,evading any pointed clarification)must deserve some recognition,surely. An Olympic gold? But then what spectator could sit thru it all without being committed? Well,if they could,another gold this time awarded to the spectator?

I heard that JC regarded such meetings as one of his pleasures,alongside cycling and allotment holding. Shish!

I heard him just now on BBC R4(08.10). He appeared quite relaxed about current levels of immigration: this man is not for changing! He would argue Thanet dry. For obstinacy and tenacity I can only liken him to Dogen Zenji who sat before a wall for 14 years to realize...well,all and nothing,I suppose.

Sir,JC,I salute you. At lesser meetings I just gave in and left the room.

[pwa]

I heard Jeremy saying that current levels of immigration are not a problem. That alone will alienate half the people who voted Labour last time. He's not listening.

[bovlomov]

I heard Jeremy saying that current levels of immigration are not a problem. That alone will alienate half the people who voted Labour last time.

You're probably right about that. But he's only saying what, for decades, every PM and Home Secretary has believed. The difference is, most of them were saying the opposite. It seems many people would prefer to be told comforting lies.

I'm getting heartily sick of ministers talking tough about immigration while implementing policies that bring more immigrants in - and talking tough about illegal immigration while removing staff from the borders.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

I dont have problems with Corbyns utopia policies other than abandoning the nuclear deterrent and repeal of the Trade Union Acts. Its the fact that they would mean massive tax rises and increased national debt or national meltdown accompanied by the sort of lunacy and strife we saw in the 1970s. Labour need to get real.

Al

Balls and Red Ed admitted in the end that cut backs and savings were needed.
Investment has to come from somewhere and you need to show that you can balance the books, JC needs to do that instead of flipping out cards to get voters attention simply with contemporary issues.
Yesterday JC said get rid of austerity and invest in the same sentence.............Oh and raise taxes IIRC.

"Austerity is a set of economic policies implemented with the aim of reducing government budget deficits. Policies grouped under the term 'austerity measures' may include spending cuts, tax increases, or a mixture of both,[1][2][3] and may be undertaken to demonstrate the government's fiscal discipline to creditors and credit rating agencies by bringing revenues closer to expenditures"


When I predicted JC would go I never thought he would still be there a year later, Labour have been going backwards and will continue to do so until he goes, Tory need do nothing for a daily increased boost at no expense to there coffers.....................

[bovlomov]

Yesterday JC said get rid of austerity and invest in the same sentence.............Oh and raise taxes IIRC.

I haven't been studying Corbyn's proposals, so I'm guessing...
Isn't the idea that an investment pays back? So short term losses for longer term gain.

For example, it has been suggested that money to bail out the banks would have been better used investing in infrastructure. I'm sure the bankers here will tell me why that's a mistaken view.

[horizon]

I am one of those who thinks the British government should be able to regulate net immigration. This fella doesnt. His solution is another handout.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... e_btn_link

Al

Al: the Guardian is also running this article showing why claiming to cut or to be able to cut immigration is a nonsense:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... mmigration

But politicians of all parties (except Corbyn it seems) are quite willing to pander to people's misconceptions. The Tories had long enough to deliver on their promise to cut immigration to tens of thousands but they never did.

[pwa]

The Tories are already saying that Corbyn wants unlimited immigration. If he does not shake that off before the next election he will have trouble hanging on to "safe seats". He will not be able to buy people off with promises of money for the NHS, schools, etc. If he goes with "no limit to immigration" he will be holed below the water line. Again.

[blackbike]

I am one of those who thinks the British government should be able to regulate net immigration. This fella doesnt. His solution is another handout.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... e_btn_link

Al

Al: the Guardian is also running this article showing why claiming to cut or to be able to cut immigration is a nonsense:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... mmigration

But politicians of all parties (except Corbyn it seems) are quite willing to pander to people's misconceptions. The Tories had long enough to deliver on their promise to cut immigration to tens of thousands but they never did.

The Guardian is a loss making vanity project of an organisation which uses business profits to ensure its survival.

It has a tiny readership,was on the losing side in the referendum, and is now a major manufacturer of gloom and doom stories about the consequences of Brexit.

Restricting immigration is perfectly possible. We do it already for foreigners in non-EU countries which make up 93% of the world's population, and leaving the EU will enable us to do it for EU nationals too.

Our forthcoming exit from the EU will also enable us to control immigration so it benefits the country more than the current arrangements. We can choose to let in skilled people from India, the US or anywhere else and choose not to let in lots of unskilled people from newer EU countries who come here to escape the poverty, unemployment and less generous benefits in their homelands.

[al_yrpal]

I agree, the Tories failed abysmally IMO and they are still failing. Immigration has benefitted the country but when services and housing cant keep up and life gets unpleasantly overcrowded thats when it should be controlled.

A Labour spokesman is on the telly now saying that their criteria for immigration is - if a person comes it must benefit the country ie Labour are going to qualify the immigrants - if too many come (like at the moment) Labour will stop them coming because that won't benefit the country ??? Thats different to what the Guardian is saying! I am confused - over to Jeremy… .we'll see what he spells out?

Al

[pwa]

I agree, the Tories failed abysmally IMO and they are still failing. Immigration has benefitted the country but when services and housing cant keep up and life gets unpleasantly overcrowded thats when it should be controlled.

A Labour spokesman is on the telly now saying that their criteria for immigration is - if a person comes it must benefit the country ie Labour are going to qualify the immigrants - if too many come (like at the moment) Labour will stop them coming because that won't benefit the country ??? Thats different to what the Guardian is saying! I am confused - over to Jeremy… .we'll see what he spells out?

Al

Yes. If he talks about limited "beneficial" immigration he is on to a winner. If he talks about unlimited immigration he is on to a loser. My expectation is that he is aiming towards the latter. I hope not.

[meic]

Our forthcoming exit from the EU will also enable us to control immigration so it benefits the country more than the current arrangements. We can choose to let in skilled people from India, the US or anywhere else and choose not to let in lots of unskilled people from newer EU countries who come here to escape the poverty, unemployment and less generous benefits in their homelands.

So you keep saying but "we" could always choose what to do about non-EU immigration and it exceeded the EU immigration. Almost certain that post Brexit "we" will choose to carry on with immigration just as if we had not left. Because "we" actually chose the EU immigration policy in the first place, didnt "we" ?

[blackbike]

Our forthcoming exit from the EU will also enable us to control immigration so it benefits the country more than the current arrangements. We can choose to let in skilled people from India, the US or anywhere else and choose not to let in lots of unskilled people from newer EU countries who come here to escape the poverty, unemployment and less generous benefits in their homelands.

So you keep saying but "we" could always choose what to do about non-EU immigration and it exceeded the EU immigration. Almost certain that post Brexit "we" will choose to carry on with immigration just as if we had not left. Because "we" actually chose the EU immigration policy in the first place, didnt "we" ?

Once we have left the EU our elected government will be able to do as it likes on immigration from the EU and the rest of the world.

And we can get rid of it at election time if it doesn't do what we want.

That is an improvement on the current arrangements because at the moment we have to abide by EU freedom of movement rules whichever government we elect.

Do you have a problem with our elected government having full control over our immigration rules?

I don't. I respect the views of the Great British electorate.

[bovlomov]

I respect the views of the Great British electorate.

That electorate has voted to be governed by people who want to see high levels of immigration, but who tell the electorate the opposite. That's unlikely to change, in or out of the EU.

[pwa]

I respect the views of the Great British electorate.

That electorate has voted to be governed by people who want to see high levels of immigration, but who tell the electorate the opposite. That's unlikely to change, in or out of the EU.

A lot of Labour voters opted to leave the EU, in defiance of the Party Leadership, because of concerns over the high level of immigration. Is Jeremy listening to them? To me it looks like he is sticking two fingers up to them. He can carry on with the message they have already rejected, namely that immigration is a good thing and the high numbers don't matter. Or he can listen. He can really alienate people on this one. And that is what I expect him to do.