The next Labour Leader

[pwa]

My point is if we are to treat all from overseas in the same way after Brexit then either the Indian Visa regs will have to apply to people from France or be dropped altogether. If we were to have a non discriminatory policy then entry requirements for nationals of all countries would have to be similar.


Trump is a problem??? I thought Brexiters were relying on him to do a quick and favourable trade deal with the UK.

We already discriminate between nationals from different countries. How we do that in the future is up for debate. What we can agree on is that race, religion and ethnicity should have nothing to do with it. Perhaps the relative wealth of nations is what it boils down to. If you come from a wealthy country you are less likely to overstay. Is it your belief that entry requirements should be uniform for nationals of all countries outside the EU?

Of course Trump is a problem and I hope to God that he doesn't get re-elected, but I'm not confident.

If there is to be a non discriminatory entry policy then it has to be the same for all. Once Britain has left the EU people from it will have no special status will they?
I don't know if differences are entirely due to wealth , for example Qatari citizens require a Visa to enter the UK.

How do they decide on the criteria? I don't know. I do know that discrimination between nationals from one nation and another does happen and will presumably continue. I can't see a way round that. By not discriminating I meant, of course, on grounds of ethnicity, race and religion. "Unfair discrimination" if you like.

[pete75]

We already discriminate between nationals from different countries. How we do that in the future is up for debate. What we can agree on is that race, religion and ethnicity should have nothing to do with it. Perhaps the relative wealth of nations is what it boils down to. If you come from a wealthy country you are less likely to overstay. Is it your belief that entry requirements should be uniform for nationals of all countries outside the EU?

Of course Trump is a problem and I hope to God that he doesn't get re-elected, but I'm not confident.

If there is to be a non discriminatory entry policy then it has to be the same for all. Once Britain has left the EU people from it will have no special status will they?
I don't know if differences are entirely due to wealth , for example Qatari citizens require a Visa to enter the UK.

How do they decide on the criteria? I don't know. I do know that discrimination between nationals from one nation and another does happen and will presumably continue. I can't see a way round that. By not discriminating I meant, of course, on grounds of ethnicity, race and religion. "Unfair discrimination" if you like.

Discrimination on grounds of nationality or perceived wealth is just as unfair.

[pwa]

If there is to be a non discriminatory entry policy then it has to be the same for all. Once Britain has left the EU people from it will have no special status will they?
I don't know if differences are entirely due to wealth , for example Qatari citizens require a Visa to enter the UK.

How do they decide on the criteria? I don't know. I do know that discrimination between nationals from one nation and another does happen and will presumably continue. I can't see a way round that. By not discriminating I meant, of course, on grounds of ethnicity, race and religion. "Unfair discrimination" if you like.

Discrimination on grounds of nationality or perceived wealth is just as unfair.

So you would have the same documentation requirements for people coming from Middle Eastern war zones (Yemen, Syria) as for people coming from Norway?

[pete75]

How do they decide on the criteria? I don't know. I do know that discrimination between nationals from one nation and another does happen and will presumably continue. I can't see a way round that. By not discriminating I meant, of course, on grounds of ethnicity, race and religion. "Unfair discrimination" if you like.

Discrimination on grounds of nationality or perceived wealth is just as unfair.

So you would have the same documentation requirements for people coming from Middle Eastern war zones (Yemen, Syria) as for people coming from Norway?

In the run up to Brexit leave campaigners were saying it was discriminatory to have easier entry/residence requirements for EU citizens than for people of other countries. By that logic post Brexit you should want the same requirements for all. You can do that any way you want be it make it easier for some or harder for others.
Why do you think discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, race and religion is unfair but not so on the basis of nationality or perceived wealth ?

[pwa]

Why do you think discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, race and religion is unfair but not so on the basis of nationality or perceived wealth ?

Because the risk posed by nationals from one nation may be perceived to be different to the risk from nationals from another nation. Because nationals from very poor nations are likely to be tempted to overstay. One would want this sort of assessment to be done on a rational basis, but it has to be done. But you are avoiding saying how you would like it to be done. Free and easy entry for all EU nationals but tight control for other nations? That is discriminatory if you want to call it that. Or free and easy entry for people from all nations? How do you think it should be done? I'm interested.

(Better not go on too long with this excursion off topic)

[pete75]

Why do you think discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, race and religion is unfair but not so on the basis of nationality or perceived wealth ?

Because the risk posed by nationals from one nation may be perceived to be different to the risk from nationals from another nation. Because nationals from very poor nations are likely to be tempted to overstay. One would want this sort of assessment to be done on a rational basis, but it has to be done. But you are avoiding saying how you would like it to be done. Free and easy entry for all EU nationals but tight control for other nations? That is discriminatory if you want to call it that. Or free and easy entry for people from all nations? How do you think it should be done? I'm interested.

(Better not go on too long with this excursion off topic)

I'm not really bothered if a few people overstay. Immigration is not one of my concerns or worries.
You're the one who wants to end free movement - how would you like that to be done? I'd prefer for things to stay as they are now as you've probably guessed.

[pwa]

Why do you think discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, race and religion is unfair but not so on the basis of nationality or perceived wealth ?

Because the risk posed by nationals from one nation may be perceived to be different to the risk from nationals from another nation. Because nationals from very poor nations are likely to be tempted to overstay. One would want this sort of assessment to be done on a rational basis, but it has to be done. But you are avoiding saying how you would like it to be done. Free and easy entry for all EU nationals but tight control for other nations? That is discriminatory if you want to call it that. Or free and easy entry for people from all nations? How do you think it should be done? I'm interested.

(Better not go on too long with this excursion off topic)

I'm not really bothered if a few people overstay. Immigration is not one of my concerns or worries.
You're the one who wants to end free movement - how would you like that to be done? I'd prefer for things to stay as they are now as you've probably guessed.

I know that, but you seem curious about my own idea of fairness at the border whilst being reluctant to reveal your own. You'd prefer things to stay the same but that includes extra requirements for people from India that don't apply people from some wealthier countries. I don't have easy answers to all of this and I suspect you don't either.

[Oldjohnw]

It appears that Ms Long-Bailey is in the lead. Chairs, rearranging and Titanic are words that come to mind. Is his the end of Labour?

[Tangled Metal]

Was it the end with Foot? Labour is as much an idea for people as anything. That idea gets forgotten occasionally in the name of political dogma ideology. Sooner or later it comes back to wanting power to actually help people in its own way.

No, labour will survive.

Imho conservatives and labour are two parties with a strength that survives periods of being dragged off course. Liberals it seems weren't such a party.

[al_yrpal]

It appears that Ms Long-Bailey is in the lead. Chairs, rearranging and Titanic are words that come to mind. Is his the end of Labour?

Doesnt surprise me, she has the backing of Momentum apparently, the folk who re elected Corbyn. And yes, it could be

Al

[Tangled Metal]

Didn't Nandy get big Len's backing? Starmer got was it unite or unison backing. GMB was looking at them all but I got the impression they'll go for Starmer for some reason.

The trouble with momentum is that they're not the force they were. I believe there's been a bit of a youth exodus to lots of smaller, splinter groups founded and run by the younger people themselves. I think you can only think of them as having the influence of a union now and not even the big three unions' influence neither.

If a continuity candidate is wanted I think Nandy is a better option. My prediction is she'll come out better than long bailey but won't get the job. Anyone else making predictions? Go on stick your neck out!

[PH]

It appears that Ms Long-Bailey is in the lead. Chairs, rearranging and Titanic are words that come to mind. Is his the end of Labour?

I also read that, it's from a Poll of Labour List members, they tend to be the most active in the party, I'm not saying the poll is wrong, but looking at one without also looking at who was polled lacks context.
My opinion is that the party is in transition and the next leader will be a transitional one, I don't think Long-Bailey is the right choice, but would vote for her over some of the others, the Labour party is far from finished.

[PH]

The trouble with momentum is that they're not the force they were. I believe there's been a bit of a youth exodus to lots of smaller, splinter groups founded and run by the younger people themselves. I think you can only think of them as having the influence of a union now and not even the big three unions' influence neither.

I think the influence of Momentum has always been over estimated, they have around 40,000 members out of the Labour Party's 485,000, so a bit less than 10%, that does make them a big group, but it doesn't mean they'll always get what they want.

[francovendee]

If Ms Long-Bailey gets elected as the new Labour leader she may or may not reunite the party but Labour will never get elected as government.
I think the last election showed what the voters thought of her politics in the vote for Corbyn.
In my view nothing has changed, the whole electorate has swung to the right and electing another Corbynite won't see the Labour party in power.

[PH]

I think the last election showed what the voters thought of her politics in the vote for Corbyn.

If you google "why did labour lose election" you get 19 million hits - polls, analysis, opinion pieces, editorials, blogs, conspiracy theories...
I haven't read them all, but of the sample I have, a tiny minority put all or most of the blame on the policies. Your interpretation of why labour lost the election isn't one shared by most commentators.