Caroline Flint doing her best Enoch Powell impression.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b088k0jz/newsnight-10012017
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b088k0jz/newsnight-10012017
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Get your immigration mugs out, for the lads!
Bloody hell....i assume non-british means non-white here then?
Corbyn had a good PMQs today, he does seem to have improved in some areas.
I'll have to listen to it in context, but that transcript didn't seem particularly noteworthy.
It has to be what she saying doesn't it. Pretty disgusting stuff and the news night presenter was hardly any better.
As for Corbyn I've sort of given up after yesterday mess.
Watch the link, clearly it's racist.
Last edited:
Labour will lose a lot of voters if they go all UKIP, especially young voters.
It's pathetic how labour change their stance on anything if they feel it will gain them a few more votes to get back to power. The truth is the majority of people they are trying to pander to would never vote for them anyway and they have now lost another demographic. I hate the tories but at least they are consistent about being cnuts. Labour are a desperate joke!
She's equating non-white to non-British. Quite clear in that transcript.
Watched it - sorry, what am i missing here?
Stephen Kinnock was talking about the immense feeling about immigration in this country. Yet, those feeling are strongest in areas that have experienced little of it. Very sad, labour seem to be bowing to it. Thought they were above that. thought wrong.
She equating non-white to mean non-British and that the increase of non white people into these small towns has been a problem. There's also the more slight bigotry when the presenter brings up ''cultural differences'', which is not only a completely empty term but used in the negative sense, that migrants and people of colour are completely incompatible with the people of the nation - white british people.
Basically something that cnut Powell would have agreed with.
Even Shami Chakrabarti has come out and said it's not racist to fear immigration. How times have changed. Funny how making someone a baroness and letting them inside the club quickly changes their view's!
One of us getting the wrong end of the stick here. Could well be me.
What she says is that in 1999, 99.5% of people in her constituency were white. By which she means white-british, presumably? I don't see what else that could mean.
Then she says that, now, its 5% non-British. By saying non-British she makes the point that a) it includes white people from other countries (eastern Europe presumably) but that b) it doesn't include non-white people who are British.
That seems to be the correct terminology doesn't it? How else would she put it?
She prob didn't mean how she said it tbf but the point being made to you isnt hard to understand.
The parallel between whites and non-british rather than british and non-british. In other words she said white as thats what those bigots actually mean and then crossed the terms to non-british as you cant get away with any other term.
This rural racism you encounter isn't acceptable and shouldn't be pandered to. I was in a village pub not so long back, a 99.5% white community and the locals piped up about the Pakistanis moving in (one family) followed by their best racist impressions. I'm white, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't dare have that conservation but thats the group we have to pretend are only concerned about 'overpopulation'.
Pretty much what @Smores said, it's pandering to a racist viewpoint.
She brings race into this ''debate''(A debate which is only talking negatively about immigration) and also implies that it's a problem her constituency is now less white. And then there was also of talk cultural differences and globalisation which at least in the UK is almost always aimed at people of colour - mostly Muslims. Add in the lie that immigration = loss of jobs and it's pretty horrible stuff.
Tbh that's just not how I view it. I saw her start out as saying "white", because using white to describe people who are white british is a totally standard expression, particularly when referencing a group of people from 20 years ago. However she then realised that using "non-white" wouldnt be accurate because it was about the accession countries who were white European, so said non-british to include any migrants from that period. Its very harsh to consider that as even casually racist, particularly in a live TV context when subtle potential misunderstandings can't be considered.
Anyway, its also worth pointing out that she was saying that her constituents had told her they were concerned about changes to their community because of this, not that she was.
I know Corbyn has decided to take a more "populist" line including on immigration, but surely campaigning on white flight isn't his/his team's plan? Is the MP a known Corbynite?
Doncaster immigration is split 2.9% EU and 3.0% Outside of the EU, immigration in Doncaster is not only white Europeans.
She's a Blair Babes(That term was actually used by the press). So on the right wing of the Party.
Last edited:
Makes no difference, non-British is still the correct term in that context. I was just making the point that they were discussing the Accession countries in particular at that moment.
New Labour aren't really above anything. Kinnock at least is on the other wing of the party to Corbyn. And for all his failing I can't see Corbyn being okay with the narative of 'too many ethnics'.
It's disengenouis debate. 'Donnie' for the last 30 years, maybe longer, has been considered a shithole, not just by southerners but by it's fellow Yorkshiremen. The fact that it's a shithole now after it's had a HUGE 5% immigration compared to 1999 when it was just as much of a shithole means little. Now the NHS/Educational services have dwindled in that time.
But the problem in the debate is the focus is on immigration and not 'health/education spending per capita'.
So are British blacks and Asians are 'white' in this new UKIP era or just not real Britains?
But the problem in the debate is the focus is on immigration and not 'health/education spending per capita'.
So are British blacks and Asians are 'white' in this new UKIP era or just not real Britains?
I'd have thought it self evident that if you describe a community of people as white, that means there are no black or asian people included, no?
Confused since when is saying white a standard term for white british? And why is it important white is emphasised.
I mean I've heard people probably using white as they don't consider white immigration to be 'real immigration' but I don't see how the terms relate.
Even if she meant nothing by her poor choice of words (it happens people mispeak) the interview is still stoking the immigration witch hunt.
Seriously? So if i said that, for example, my next door neighbour was white, you wouldnt assume I meant white British?
So therefore it's a problem if black/asian people move into said geographic area? Also the 'community' narrative is slightly bollox isn't it?
Did you watch the clip? She was talking about a community of people in Doncaster in the mid 90s. So yeah, we are talking literally about everyone being white, not just using the term white instead of British.
I didn't watch the clip, but I consider her considering 'the dilution of the white race' to be disgusting, despite the fact it's for popular appeal. Hopefully she gets some aggressive backlash.
The thing about Labour getting properly tough on immigration is that...well, who's really going to buy it? They're too late if it's their intention to appeal to such a demographic. Kind of like in Scotland...all the talks now of federalism, and working properly for Scotland's interests etc have fallen on deaf ears, because the party has fallen into political irrelevance. No one really cares now - anyone who feels Scotland has been disenfranchised or not represented properly has stopped voting Labour.
I suspect anyone who genuinely, properly has massive qualms about immigration to the point where they won't vote Labour because of it has probably already stopped voting for the party. Of course, I still think it's right for the party to pay attention to the issue and engage with voters on it, but if they intend to take a hardline stance then it's not going to reap them many rewards. If they do they'd have to abandon support of freedom of movement and thus any support for a softer Brexit, and would thus cede voters to the Lib Dems on mass. Probably a lot more than they'd gain back from UKIP in constituencies they already hold.
I imagine any move towards this would be to stop the rise of UKIP in the north...but I also don't think the situation up there is anywhere near as dire as a lot of people seem to think. It's being treated similarly to the SNP situation but the SNP has already been a reasonably sized political force for decades in Scotland and always did alright...even in plenty of constituencies Labour dominated. Then they took Holyrood by force in 2011 and translated that to Westminster last year.
That's not really happened with UKIP yet...who in spite of their growth up north still don't have any core bases/areas, and according to recent polling are still a fair way off suddenly taking the north by storm. It could suddenly flourish and happen in an instant, but I'm not even sure a hollow change in tone from a party who have long been championed as liberal, pro-EU and multi-cultural, with a leader who's said he's fairly keen on open borders, is going to do much.
I suspect anyone who genuinely, properly has massive qualms about immigration to the point where they won't vote Labour because of it has probably already stopped voting for the party. Of course, I still think it's right for the party to pay attention to the issue and engage with voters on it, but if they intend to take a hardline stance then it's not going to reap them many rewards. If they do they'd have to abandon support of freedom of movement and thus any support for a softer Brexit, and would thus cede voters to the Lib Dems on mass. Probably a lot more than they'd gain back from UKIP in constituencies they already hold.
I imagine any move towards this would be to stop the rise of UKIP in the north...but I also don't think the situation up there is anywhere near as dire as a lot of people seem to think. It's being treated similarly to the SNP situation but the SNP has already been a reasonably sized political force for decades in Scotland and always did alright...even in plenty of constituencies Labour dominated. Then they took Holyrood by force in 2011 and translated that to Westminster last year.
That's not really happened with UKIP yet...who in spite of their growth up north still don't have any core bases/areas, and according to recent polling are still a fair way off suddenly taking the north by storm. It could suddenly flourish and happen in an instant, but I'm not even sure a hollow change in tone from a party who have long been championed as liberal, pro-EU and multi-cultural, with a leader who's said he's fairly keen on open borders, is going to do much.
Dilution of the white race? That's a pretty serious accusation considering you haven't seen it.
Watch the clip, I'd be interested to know if you still think that's what she's saying.
Yeah that's the problem in a nutshell.
Whats odd is that electing Corbyn was supposed to be the end of this vote chasing and triangulation. The idea was that, as per the welfare reform bill, popular or not, the party would always champion what it thought was right and try and change the conversation rather than follow the votes.
And yet on Brexit we're doing just the opposite, we're trying to find a non existent happy medium because we don't want to lose votes to either UKIP or the Lib Dems. In doing so we risk losing votes to both.
Last edited:
Even with losing their charismatic figurehead, I find it surprising that they've gained literally no ground at all since the 2015 election despite the absolute madness that has occurred since then.
Great way to shake off the liberal elite stereotype, also it's Duck Dynasty you nob.
Well, there's good news.
And some not so good news
And some not so good news
Corbyn the gift that keeps on giving.
So if polls are to be believed over half feel Jeremy's idea of a wage cap is a good one .And some on here laughed at it as the thoughts of a mad man.
It's not far from the tweet I posted.
The full speech here - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/stella-creasy/stella-creasy-fabian-society_b_14169866.html?. The speech is a bizarre set of buzz words and internet references.
Last edited:
That's pretty far off the tweet. It wouldn't have grabbed your attention if it was quoted verbatim.
To be fair, Mrs Brown's Boys is shit, and anyone who enjoys it is a moron
I thought it was a decent speech, though it's one thing to argue for new ideas and ways of thinking, it's quite another to come up with some. Do you disagree with the point about cultural isolation and seperation? I think it's a real worry, though it may just be that this has always been the case. I'd be interested to find out.
Good point too that the focus on income inequality is the wrong target. Wealth inequality is what means that different sections of the country have such different life opportunities.