No. I'm just saying I would rather lose than win with the politics of Blair. Although not that it really matters as theses centrist lot are useless now.
Just find the nostalgia a tad odd.
Last edited:
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Just find the nostalgia a tad odd.
Tend to agree with much of this. I really don't get the Corbyn hate, especially when those that were trying to get rid of him agreed with his policies. Seems like as soon as he was about to/became leader, there was a massive media attack on him and to be honest not much of it was to do with his policies.
And this isn't only the case with Labour either. From centre-left to centre-right the electorate was getting a diminishing return on many of the questions/challenges of the present era. Worst still, they weren't even exploring any.
I was listening the the latest episode of Politics Weekly yesterday, and the opinion of one contributor was that it will take defeat in Stoke before MPs are shocked out of their complacency.
Last edited:
This would be pretty extraordinary. This would make his position completely untenable.
Mandelson in the house
“I don’t want to, I resent it, and I work every single day in some small way to bring forward the end of his tenure in office. Something, however small it may be – an email, a phone call or a meeting I convene – every day I try to do something to save the Labour party from his leadership.”
Nah definitely no conspiracy against Corbyn
“I don’t want to, I resent it, and I work every single day in some small way to bring forward the end of his tenure in office. Something, however small it may be – an email, a phone call or a meeting I convene – every day I try to do something to save the Labour party from his leadership.”
Nah definitely no conspiracy against Corbyn
This is a bizarre, blinkered opinion, considering the alternatives we've had in the last 40 or so years. It's easily been the best government in my lifetime, warts and all. Iraq was a colossal feck up, but the Corbynite faction's inability to separate it from anything else New Labour did is faintly ridiculous, and the kind of thing that gets the left accused of ideological naivety.
Last edited:
Not contesting about best or not, but it wasn't just Iraq.
If you've read a single post by Nick in the CE, ever, you would have it branded onto your brain that Blair's govt took to NHS privatsiation in a big way. There are also various quotes and actions from Brown and Blair related to deregulation and income inequality that added fuel to the fire for what eventually happened in 2008.
In short, 2 of the major short-term problems in the world right now: an extended flatlining of the economy since 2008, and absolute chaos in the ME, and the most pressing domestic issue - the falling standards at the NHS - can somewhat be blamed on Blair. If you believe Nick, Blair also caused Brexit and Scottish independence.
Of course not... Its clearly all Blairs fault
Blair's reign is now like a sweet fairytale even with the Iraq war. Simply down to the increasing incompetence of each PM following him.
Agree that the Blair years were the best I've known politically and by far. Still gutted that he got into bed with Bush.
He'd have to go if that's anything other than a Labour victory. Stoke-on-Trent Central has been Labour since its creation.
They are up against Paul Nuttall as well FFS.
I know, the man is a walking disaster. He'll lead UKIP into obscurity if allowed, and now I worry if Corbyn will do the same to Labour.
These type of things never seemed to bother you during the Brexit campaign.
Which is not to say that the Tories wouldn't have been similarly culpable for much of the above, considering the prevailing cultural patterns of the time. Labour were the ones in power however, and bear the responsibility.
I was only a kid back in 97, if a somewhat of a nerdy type even then, but it was the second term where many fateful forks in the road were met (the tripartite system had its origins earlier IIRC).
Can i no longer post news on this forum without certain individuals questioning my validity to do so? And what others might have believed to be justifiable in campaigning, shouldn't negate my feelings on the EU.
I'm sick and tired of people like you posting all this shite on here to justify your blatantly far right populist views.
Nick voted Green in 2015. He's not far-right.
Well, he must be schizophrenic then because for the past year he's been spouting some scary right wing views.
If I was being critical of his views I'd say he's more contradictory than anything else; I strongly disagree with his optimism regarding Brexit and I'm not all too sure he's provided consistent reasoning as to why it's a good thing but he's been heavily critical of elements of the Tories for a while, doesn't support UKIP or any other far-right party, and favours control over immigration as opposed to an outright ban. He isn't far-right, and labeling him as such is fairly counter-productive to discussion.
Why did he post all this nonsense about how damaging immigrants are to the U.K. when the facts prove the opposite is true?
Immigration is damaging to the UK in plenty of ways its just beneficial in plenty more, there's nothing wrong with discussing the negative elements such as pressures on housing, services.
I've never seen anything overtly far right from Nick on the subject, mostly discussing how open borders is impractical.
He certainly shouldnt be hounded for the fact he's one of one of a few in the CE forums who doesnt sit in the echo chamber on all issues.
Last edited:
Oh dear. I don't know if I was just blissfully unaware but the way that the left seem so intent on screeching about islamophobia at every opportunity seems like a new - and extremely counter-productive - phenomenon.
This is exactly what I mean. I'm sick & tired people making statements as if they are factually correct when they aren't. Back it up with facts & arguments.
The reason for the pressure on housing and other services is because of decades of neglect by governments. Take the NHS for example. The UK simply can't afford a national health service anymore and it should be abolished ASAP for the good of the country and its civilians. Yet, there now seems to be some kind of alternative truth whereby immigration for example is being blamed for the pressure on the NHS. It's complete bull. The problem is that there's no political party who has the guts to tell the population the truth about the NHS in fear of losing votes. So the impression is given that pressures such as that from immigration are to blame and people like Nick are all to willingly jumping on the bandwagon.
Here's the thing. Net migration contributes around 50% of our population growth (the other 50% is births exceeding deaths - i.e increased longevity). EU migration is about half of that again.
In terms of factually dealing with the housing challenge the answer was clearly to take advantage of the incredibly low cost of government borrowing to engage in massive house building program. Instead of which we have taken a path that will do nothing to actually reduce immigration numbers, will make the country and it's inhabitants poorer and even less able to confront these genuine problems.
(Side note: Councils are currently buying a huge amount of commercial property, to take advantage of low borrowing costs. Essentially many local authorities are operating as banks to shore up their funding positions. It's a great example of how Governments are as much driven by incompetence as ideology. The Conservatives wanted to shrink the state and public ownership, especially for the first 5 years, but they are overseeing a large scale nationalisation of commercial properties)
You seem to be excluding immigration as the primary cause therefore excluding it completely.
Immigration pressures exist, thats a non-debtable point it doesn't need evidencing just as your statement of goverment neglect doesn't. The fact there are other causes including primarily goverment neglect does not mean the point should not be debated, that attitude has led to Brexit and has allowed alternatives truth to prosper.
There's questions to be answered and not ignored thats usually the point Nick has made.
For example what needs laying out to the public is whether the pressures on housing and the NHS are best resolved via reducing immigration or whether the benefits immigration brings are actually a net gain that can help resolve those funding issues. That should not be hard to answer but how often do you see it discussed?
The actual solutions are really not anything to do with immigration but its a very visible peice of the pie so it needs discussing.
Prove to me that immigration pressure exits and what the immigration pressure exactly is. Because over the past year I've read a lot about it on the Caf but I haven't seen one iota of proof to back up the argument.
All the evidence (facts & numbers) I've actually seen on here points towards the fact that immigration brings a net gain that can help resolve those funding issues. But hey, if you're unemployed, white and live in a shit hole like Stoke ,then you probably don't what to hear about the benefits of immigration and much rather prefer to blame the Paki's across the road for your troubles.
You need me to explain why more people equals more pressure on services?
The net gain discussion is exactly the point im making but you're shouting people down for raising one element of it. Pressures on schools exist, you quantify the net GDP gain against increasing class room sizes and the difficulty of building new schools. Its not possible unless you look at every element.
Its a complex issue and you cant just shout net gdp gain at people and expect them to say alrighty then.
The fact of the matter is if we can't expand services (and its upto the goverment to justify that) then future immigration needs to be controlled. Now that's a very different debate to the immigrant blaming you're trying to make it out to be.
I can see this subject means a lot to you. Like you said, I didn't quote you or make this a response to you or anyone in particular. But I am interested to know if you won't vote labour, then who? No politician will ever get 100% agreement on all policies from anyone, why is it impossible to vote labour with Corbyn in charge, when, if you are even slightly left of centre, I doubt you'd agree with even half of May's policies.
My analysis could hardly be described as a glowing endorsement of Corbyn. It just seems to me that he is being held to so much higher standards than everyone else, just because he doesn't act like the normal Westminster politician. For me, he is a great deal closer to what I would like to see in a leader. The world should be about cooperation, not competition. Compromise, not war.
People lead in different ways. If we, as a country, can only handle someone who can regurgitate platitudes without substance to be our PM, then that is just sad and needs addressing before we all end up living in Idiocracy.
1. Pressure on NHS exits not because of immigrants, but because of an aging population and increased medical costs. In fact, in theory immigrants should decrease the pressure on the NHS because they are the least likely use its services. It's the OAP's, of which a large majority voted Brexit ironically enough, who are the ones most likely to use its services and demand ever more expensive medical treatment.
2. The vast majority of immigrants arrive in the UK whithout children. Again in theory immigration should decrease the pressure on education. And again here we see the enormous toll that government cuts have had on its services, teachers being made redundant and thus forcing increased class sizes upon schools, combined with decades of neglect & lack of investment in school infrastructures.
To conclude, the current immigration levels in the UK do not cause a significant increase of pressure on public services. Decades of lack of investment, lack of foresight and complete incompetence do increase the pressure on public services.
Diminishing returns is a good way to put it. As for the future I have very little faith that even if Labour were to lose Stoke anything would change and thats for both wings of the party. A big problem is that the Labour Party is just well......rubbish. Both Corbyn victories should have been lifeline for the party but it's doing it's best to completely feck it up(That includes Corbyn). Which is very disspointing as there are plenty of people who actually want Labour to succeed, so this country can be a better place for everyone.
Iraq isn't the only example, but it always needs to be brought up as the people connected with that government(Most notable Tony Blair)don't seem to understand what a colossal feck up it was. Although it seems most MP's today still fail to grasp this.
But heres a few things
.The privatisation of services. NHS privatisation flourish under New Labour, School privatisation was pushed by New Labour and the privatisation of the Underground.
.The parachuting of Labour MPs into safe constituencies. Not only stopping local democracy and a feeling that people could change their local area through politics but with such greats as Angela Eargle, Tristram Britain’s least popular MP Hunt, David Miliband(You know the one who couldn't beat Ed)and feck they even tried it with ******* Harman's husband, New Labour actively push forward the resentment that all politicians are the same and none of them give a shit about their constituencies.
.New Labour stance on Immigration. While one of the criticism(From the right) of New Labour was that they were pro immigration and multiculturalism, it's worth going back and listening to some of the things New Labour were saying at the time. Blair speech on Immgration and Race which was held(And I'm not making this up)on the White Cliff Of Dover, a question from a jurno after the speech ''Why were all the faces behind you white for a speech about race ?'", Gordon Browns ''British Jobs for British People'' being another example.
This article from 2004 gives some lowlights of New Labour immigration policy.
So yeah I'm not much of a fan.
Last edited:
Former MP for Stoke On Trent - Labour MP Tristram Hunt(Britain’s least popular MP - 19 per cent of constituents voted for him)
http://novaramedia.com/2016/09/26/how-did-tristram-hunt-get-to-be-an-mp-anyway/
Hunt entered parliament in 2010, having being selected for the safe seat Stoke-on-Trent Central by the Labour national executive committee (NEC) – not by the local constituency Labour party (CLP). The NEC had taken over the process and imposed three non-local candidates (Hunt was London-based and was born in Cambridge, and his father, a Cambridge university fellow, was made a Baron by Tony Blair in 2000). The local Labour party, which had expected local candidates to be put forward, demanded a new shortlist, but this was ignored and Hunt won the ballot. In protest, the former CLP secretary changed his name to ‘Gary Labour Candidate Born in Stoke-on-Trent Elsby’ and ran as an independent, subsequently receiving legal threats from the Labour party because he used red on his rosettes.
In 2008 Peter Mandelson was made a Lord so he could return to government as business secretary, and in 2010 he was charged with coordinating the general election campaign. Downing Street described the imposition of Hunt on Stoke as a ‘Mandelson ask’. Mandelson had previously done similar when he successfully pressured for Jonathan Reynolds’s placement on the shortlist for Stalybridge and Hyde (also a safe seat) even though the NEC had already prepared a shortlist that favoured a Brownite Unite official.
The motivations for this were clear. Mandelson expected to lose the general election he was overseeing – a fact he himself admitted in his memoirs. As he had completely written-off Brown as a prime minister, he was eager to give power to the new generation of Blairites clustered around David Miliband. Reynolds and Hunt were brought into parliament to grow this generation and to aid Miliband by supporting the campaign to be Labour leader that would inevitably follow the general election defeat. They duly nominated him in the 2010 leadership contest.
Mandelson joked with cabinet colleagues that the election campaign should be based around the ‘three Fs’: futile, finished, and fecked. For the Labour right the purpose of the 2010 election was a regenerative defeat. Tristram Hunt was forced on his constituency to pack the parliamentary Labour party (PLP) with young Blairites untainted by the 1997-2010 government. With this in mind, when people like Hunt attack the Labour left’s ‘threats’, they’re not doing it as a point of principle. Party democracy is not particularly sacred to them, and the imposition of candidates was a complaint directed at Blair since the first years of his leadership. Instead, they represent a faction far to the right of the Labour party which possesses a bleak and racist social vision that will entrench poverty and inequality, and they strongly believe this vision is the only one that can and should be implemented.
The context of Hunt’s selection in 2010 therefore illustrates why there are no moral arguments against deselection. If anti-Corbyn Labour MPs, members and supporters think ‘Mandelson asks’ were fine – examples of normal politicking that people have to be realists about – then they also have to accept that similar moves by so-called Corbnyites are also fine. If Mandelson can force candidates on CLPs in authoritarian gestures from the top of the party, then surely Corbynites can similarly replace candidates through democratic processes coming from the bottom.
On the other hand, if those MPs, members and supporters think the top-down interventions of the Blair years were wrong, then to be consistent they must be in favour of more democratic control. This may well require them to accept Corbynite majorities in elections, CLP meetings and ultimately votes for parliamentary candidates.
Constituency-led selection is an inherently democratic way of choosing candidates; the way Hunt was selected was not. If the Labour members in Stoke want to choose a local candidate who better represent their politics, then that is their right. It will likely be revealed that for a number of anti-Corbynites party democracy is the problem, and that candidates should be imposed by the ‘realist’ right of the party – who should also form its leadership. To effectively defend themselves from the next onslaughts from the Labour right, members on the left should emphasise this discrepancy between the professed principles of figures like Hunt and their own pasts.
Hunt entered parliament in 2010, having being selected for the safe seat Stoke-on-Trent Central by the Labour national executive committee (NEC) – not by the local constituency Labour party (CLP). The NEC had taken over the process and imposed three non-local candidates (Hunt was London-based and was born in Cambridge, and his father, a Cambridge university fellow, was made a Baron by Tony Blair in 2000). The local Labour party, which had expected local candidates to be put forward, demanded a new shortlist, but this was ignored and Hunt won the ballot. In protest, the former CLP secretary changed his name to ‘Gary Labour Candidate Born in Stoke-on-Trent Elsby’ and ran as an independent, subsequently receiving legal threats from the Labour party because he used red on his rosettes.
In 2008 Peter Mandelson was made a Lord so he could return to government as business secretary, and in 2010 he was charged with coordinating the general election campaign. Downing Street described the imposition of Hunt on Stoke as a ‘Mandelson ask’. Mandelson had previously done similar when he successfully pressured for Jonathan Reynolds’s placement on the shortlist for Stalybridge and Hyde (also a safe seat) even though the NEC had already prepared a shortlist that favoured a Brownite Unite official.
The motivations for this were clear. Mandelson expected to lose the general election he was overseeing – a fact he himself admitted in his memoirs. As he had completely written-off Brown as a prime minister, he was eager to give power to the new generation of Blairites clustered around David Miliband. Reynolds and Hunt were brought into parliament to grow this generation and to aid Miliband by supporting the campaign to be Labour leader that would inevitably follow the general election defeat. They duly nominated him in the 2010 leadership contest.
Mandelson joked with cabinet colleagues that the election campaign should be based around the ‘three Fs’: futile, finished, and fecked. For the Labour right the purpose of the 2010 election was a regenerative defeat. Tristram Hunt was forced on his constituency to pack the parliamentary Labour party (PLP) with young Blairites untainted by the 1997-2010 government. With this in mind, when people like Hunt attack the Labour left’s ‘threats’, they’re not doing it as a point of principle. Party democracy is not particularly sacred to them, and the imposition of candidates was a complaint directed at Blair since the first years of his leadership. Instead, they represent a faction far to the right of the Labour party which possesses a bleak and racist social vision that will entrench poverty and inequality, and they strongly believe this vision is the only one that can and should be implemented.
The context of Hunt’s selection in 2010 therefore illustrates why there are no moral arguments against deselection. If anti-Corbyn Labour MPs, members and supporters think ‘Mandelson asks’ were fine – examples of normal politicking that people have to be realists about – then they also have to accept that similar moves by so-called Corbnyites are also fine. If Mandelson can force candidates on CLPs in authoritarian gestures from the top of the party, then surely Corbynites can similarly replace candidates through democratic processes coming from the bottom.
On the other hand, if those MPs, members and supporters think the top-down interventions of the Blair years were wrong, then to be consistent they must be in favour of more democratic control. This may well require them to accept Corbynite majorities in elections, CLP meetings and ultimately votes for parliamentary candidates.
Constituency-led selection is an inherently democratic way of choosing candidates; the way Hunt was selected was not. If the Labour members in Stoke want to choose a local candidate who better represent their politics, then that is their right. It will likely be revealed that for a number of anti-Corbynites party democracy is the problem, and that candidates should be imposed by the ‘realist’ right of the party – who should also form its leadership. To effectively defend themselves from the next onslaughts from the Labour right, members on the left should emphasise this discrepancy between the professed principles of figures like Hunt and their own pasts.
We can actually sort of blame this one on Blair/Blairism.
You're still discussing majority
blame rather than accepting immigration is a contributory factor worthy of discussion. If you honestly believe there isn't a significant factor then you're blinkered by your idealism.
I'm at work so can't source just yet so ill throw in a couple and come back . The below does not factor in immigration by way of increasing the population adds to the elderly count.
Again showing they're not net contributors even if you factor in the less use of services as you've tried to do to discount it. Increasing our population of people who are a net drag on the public purse (thats the majority of natives obviously) is not a benefit and its okay to say so.
There's a point where immigration could become an issue or do you deny that and think it'll always be a benefit?
Immigration is a tricky one. It definitely brings a net gain to the economy. Any (sensible) economist will tell you that. Let's not ignore the word "net", though. There are upsides and downsides, with the upsides dominating and providing an overall economic positive for the country as a whole. They aren't distributed equally, however. There will be segments of society (and geographic regions) who primarily experience the downside (typically the poor and disadvantaged) while others are more likely to reap the benefits (typically employers and landlords)
It can be very hard for someone who is mainly experiencing the downsides of immigration to listen to rhetoric about "net benefits" when that's not been your personal experience. It's the refusal of the left to acknowledge this phenomenon that has added fuel to the Brexit/Trump fires IMO.
This speech makes the point (very well) that phrases like net benefits or America is already great or white privilege are counterproductive: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/trump-black-lives-racism-sexism-anti-inauguration/
I don't believe the left has ignored this issue. I think they are the ones constantly trying to get more money for the NHS education and housing. It's the right that had been preventing any tax rises on big business and the super rich.
It's all well and good encouraging mass immigration with the many benefits that can bring(even Cameron refused to cut it). But not to use the resultant increase in gdp to provide the services required is clearly, to me at least, the origin of so many of our problems right now. Couple that with the systematic selling off of anything of value and I firmly blame the tories. Even if it has been made too easy for them at times.
You're still discussing majority
blame rather than accepting immigration is a contributory factor worthy of discussion. If you honestly believe there isn't a significant factor then you're blinkered by your idealism.
I'm at work so can't source just yet so ill throw in a couple and come back . The below does not factor in immigration by way of increasing the population adds to the elderly count.
Again showing they're not net contributors even if you factor in the less use of services as you've tried to do to discount it. Increasing our population of people who are a net drag on the public purse (thats the majority of natives obviously) is not a benefit and its okay to say so.
There's a point where immigration could become an issue or do you deny that and think it'll always be a benefit?
Neither chart proves that immigration is a significant factor in increased pressure on services, in fact the first chart shows that immigration is only a very small part of the additional cost pressure (whatever that might say about the NHS). But, we can let each poster make up their mind I guess. Anyway, I look forward to studying the data on the effect that immigration has on the UK's public services, tax revenues and the economy in general, as well as the figures on government spending and its effect on public services.
Btw, although I believe in social justice, tolerance and equality, I do not think that immigration is always beneficial and I'm not against control of immigration per se. The point I'm making is that people argue against immigration based upon prejudice and lies, it's all based on emotion and not on the facts & figures. Immigrants have become the cause of all of Britain's problems, or so it seems.
I'm not really trying to blame anyone. There's no doubt that more investment in the NHS, education and housing would mitigate the negative effects of immigration being experienced by the poor. And this will be a neverending challenge. Less of an issue when the economy is booming but much harder to implement during a recession.
My main point is that it feels as though the refusal to even acknowledge that, yes, immigration does pose a lot of of challenges to certain sections of society that has lost votes for Labour and gained votes for UKIP. Which is a shitty state of affairs.