The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[chrisp65]

I know at least one thing where I specifically disagree with Corbyn. I don't believe we should have an early exit from NATO. On another point, I'm utterly flumoxed by nuclear weapons and what we should do about Trident.

 

As for the other candidates, I don't know a single point where I would disagree with them on anything. But that's more down to them not actually having said anything. Other than Andy Burnham would like some sort of yeah, you know, not opposed in principle, in the long term if it looked popular, we could look at something or other to do with trains.

[OutByEaster?]

I accept that there are a core number of left wingers on this site that find favour with Corbyn but do not make the mistake in believing that the general public at large share that opinion in the majority.  They do not.

 

No matter what they say when asked?

[Rodders]

always difficult to ascertain, if you live and associate with one or another political grouping you'll see plenty of people around you who support your viewpoint with the other being more minimal. I live in an area and see plenty of enthusiasm for Corbyn esque policies - or at least strongly anti Austerity viewpoints raised. I work in a sector that is demonised by the current climate. So I accept I have an environment that is conducive to Corbynism. 

 

I don't think it's over the top to extrapolate that there are many others ( going on the level of support JC has in his talks across the country ) for at the very least something different, and a rejection of the status quo. What the actual answer is I don't know. I'd add that the rise of the Kippers - a group with whom I disagree a lot - also suggests dissatisfaction on the other side with political discourse.  

 

But we're both guessing so I'll agree to disagree at this point, as I think we both come from very different starting points on this!

[Awol]

I know at least one thing where I specifically disagree with Corbyn. I don't believe we should have an early exit from NATO. On another point, I'm utterly flumoxed by nuclear weapons and what we should do about Trident.

 

As for the other candidates, I don't know a single point where I would disagree with them on anything. But that's more down to them not actually having said anything. Other than Andy Burnham would like some sort of yeah, you know, not opposed in principle, in the long term if it looked popular, we could look at something or other to do with trains.

Of all the candidates Burnham has come across as the least able to maintain a position on anything for longer than an afternoon. Besides if he got elected I think the Tories would launch an inquiry into the NHS Mid Staffs death factory which of course happened on his watch as Health Minister. Labour would be mad to elect him. In fact, much as I don't think they can win in 2020 with Corbyn the others are utterly dire. Kendall anonymous, Cooper is Ed Balls with lady lumps. A Corbyn win seems inevitable.  

[HanoiVillan]

To suggest that there is a section of the voting public apathetic and looking for something else is very plausible and something i'd agree with

 

To then extrapolate that what they are looking for is Corbyn policies I'm afraid is a huge jump and not something that I think the majority would agree with

 

I accept that there are a core number of left wingers on this site that find favour with Corbyn but do not make the mistake in believing that the general public at large share that opinion in the majority.  They do not.

 

Leaving your final line aside, which seems to be a] both a statement of the obvious, and b] not related to the first two sentences. 

 

I think you're likely to find there's quite a large overlap between apathetic non-voters and potential Corbyn supporters. There are two reasons for this - firstly, there has been a clear shift to the right in Labour's politics in the 27 years from 1983-2010, which has barely been moved back the other way, and this has had a clear impact on turnout at elections, with generally left-leaning voters increasingly staying away from the polls. Secondly, there is a widespread anti-politics and anti-politicians sentiment in the country, which Corbyn can tap into to a certain extent, at least in the short term, by talking about how much he defied the whips, how unpopular he was with his own party leadership etc. 

 

These groups - (predominantly young) frustrated lefties and anti-politics cynics are those who haven't been voting, and they're likely to find something they like in Corbyn. Unfortunately, they are also the least reliable voters, so it may not do him that much good in the long run, but we'll see. 

[chrisp65]

To suggest that there is a section of the voting public apathetic and looking for something else is very plausible and something i'd agree with

 

To then extrapolate that what they are looking for is Corbyn policies I'm afraid is a huge jump and not something that I think the majority would agree with

 

I accept that there are a core number of left wingers on this site that find favour with Corbyn but do not make the mistake in believing that the general public at large share that opinion in the majority.  They do not.

 

The majority don't have to share that opinion though. Just 38 / 40% of the population in the right geographical areas.

 

Perhaps a bit of proportional representation would stop any one third of the population having undue influence and offer a platform for the 'others' to actually be heard. Be it the hippies, liberals, kippers or whoever.

 

After all, I'm sure you'd accept, the majority of people did not vote conservative, yet that's what they got.

[Richard]

 

I accept that there are a core number of left wingers on this site that find favour with Corbyn but do not make the mistake in believing that the general public at large share that opinion in the majority.  They do not.

 

No matter what they say when asked?

 

When faced with the actuality of having to vote for him at a general election? No chance he'll be elected and the result would be catastrophic for the party

[Awol]

always difficult to ascertain, if you live and associate with one or another political grouping you'll see plenty of people around you who support your viewpoint with the other being more minimal. I live in an area and see plenty of enthusiasm for Corbyn esque policies - or at least strongly anti Austerity viewpoints raised. I work in a sector that is demonised by the current climate. So I accept I have an environment that is conducive to Corbynism. 

 

I don't think it's over the top to extrapolate that there are many others ( going on the level of support JC has in his talks across the country ) for at the very least something different, and a rejection of the status quo. What the actual answer is I don't know. I'd add that the rise of the Kippers - a group with whom I disagree a lot - also suggests dissatisfaction on the other side with political discourse.  

 

But we're both guessing so I'll agree to disagree at this point, as I think we both come from very different starting points on this!

Sorry for ranging around a few different issues in this thread but you raise a really interesting point here.  

 

IF Corbyn offers a mature policy platform as Labour leader that presents a genuine alternative, I wonder if the same could then happen to the Tories?  More a "Family, God, Country" grassroots movement to oppose the "Big Capital, Big Corporations, EU loving" neo-liberal agenda the Tories are currently pursuing? I wonder how Cameron and his party would react to a small "c" conservative insurgency from below? 

[HanoiVillan]

Anthony Wells, 'Can Polls Tell Us How Well Corbyn Would Do In A General Election?'

 

'With the window for taking part in Labour leadership election closing and ballot papers going out there were several polls over the weekend asking about the leadership candidates, though no fresh polling of people voting in the actual contest. ComRes, Opinium and Survation all had polls asking about the general public’s perception of the candidates. While the polls weren’t presented that way, I’ve seen various people writing about them as evidence of which candidate would actually do better as leader. In particular the Survation poll had Jeremy Corbyn ahead among the public after they were shown video clips, so was taken as a sign that he may not be as damaging electorally as the commentariat widely assume.

 

Questions about how well different leadership candidates would do in a general election are always popular and sought after, but extremely difficult if not impossible to make meaningful. Asking the general public who they think would do better or worse is perfectly reasonable, but is a different question. Who people think would do better is not the same as who would do better, it’s just asking the public to answer the question for you and a poll is not a Magic 8 Ball. Asking the general public who they prefer doesn’t answer the question either, it contains the views of lots of committed Labour and Conservative voters who aren’t going to change their vote anyway, and preferring is not necessarily the same as changing your vote.

 

If you ask how people would vote with x, y or z as leader, or if people would be more or less likely to vote Labour with each candidate as leader then you are getting a little closer, but the problem is still that people are expected to answer a question about how they would vote with the candidates as leader when the general public know hardly anything about them. A fair old chunk won’t even know the candidates names or what they look like, the majority will have little real idea what policies they will put forward. None of us really know how they will work out as leader, what the public, press and political reaction will be, how they will really operate. How can respondents really judge how they would vote in a hypothetical situation with so little information? They can’t.

 

Some polls try to get round that by giving respondents a little more information about each candidate: a run down of their main policy positions perhaps, or in the case of the Survation poll a little video clip of each respondent so people could see what they looked and sounded like. This is better, but it’s still a long way from reality. It’s like the famous market research failure of New Coke – in market research tests people liked the taste, but release it out into the real world and people wanted their old Coke back. A video clip or a list of policies won’t factor in the way the media react, the way the new leader is reported, how they actually handle leading, the way their party and their opponents react. There is no really good way of answering the question because you’re asking respondents something they don’t actually know yet.

 

Is there anything polls can really tell us about how the leadership contenders would do? Well, firstly I think we can be reasonably confident in saying the polls don’t suggest any of the four candidates is any sort of electoral panacea, the most positive net rating in the ComRes poll is Andy Burnham and just 19% think he would improve Labour’s chances, 14% that he’d damage them (Corbyn gets more people saying he’d have a positive effect (21%) but much more saying he’d have a negative effect (31%). None of them have obvious election-winning magic like, say, Blair did in 1994.

 

They can also tell us some things about people’s first impressions of the candidates, something that shouldn’t be underestimated (people probably made their minds up pretty quickly that Ed Miliband didn’t look Prime Ministerial, for example, or that there was “something of the night” about Michael Howard. Those early impressions are hard to shift.). On that front the Survation poll is pretty positive about Jeremy Corbyn with people saying he came across as more trustworthy and in touch than his rivals (though such polls are always a bit tricky because of the choice of clips – Survation tried to iron out any potential biasing effect by having clips from each candidate being interviewed on the Marr show, so they were all interviews, all the same setting and same interviewer… but even then you ended up with two candidates defending their position on the welfare bill, one talking about the EU referendum and one talking about rail nationalisation. It’s almost impossible to do such things and have a truly level ground).

 

The argument against Corbyn isn’t about his personal image and manner though, it’s that he’d put the Labour party in a ideological and policy position that wouldn’t win votes, that the Labour party itself would risk ripping itself apart under a leader with little support among the Parliamentary party and a long history of rebellion. On individual policies I’ve seen Corbyn supporters taking succour from polls showing, for example, that a majority of the public support rail nationalisation or much higher taxes on the rich and drawing the conclusion that there is a public appetite for much more left wing policies. Be careful – look atthis YouGov poll which shows a majority of people would support renationalisation of the utilities, increasing the minimum wage to £10 and the top rate of tax to 60%… but also a total ban on immigration and benefits for anyone who turns down a job, making life mean life with no parole in prison sentences and stopping all international aid. There are some policies to the left of mainstream public debate that are popular and some to the right that are popular, it no more means that the public are aching for a far-left political party than for a far-right one. Essentially you can pick a list of appealing sounding policies from almost any ideological stance, from far-left to far-right, and find the public agree with them. In reality though policies require trade-offs, they need to be paid for, they are attacked by opponents and the press. They are judged as a package. In terms of how well the Labour party would hang together under Jeremy Corbyn, polling of the public can’t really tell us – a poll of Labour MPs perhaps!

 

Bottom line? There is no way of doing a simple poll that will give you a ready packaged answer as to how well or badly a potential party leader will do, and the things that Jeremy Corbyn’s detractors worry about are not things that are easily tested in a poll anyway. My own guess is that those who think Jeremy Corbyn would struggle electorally are correct, though it does depend on whether the Conservatives also pull themselves to shreds after the EU referendum. I am a little wary about arguments about parties not winning because they are too left or too right. While putting yourself broadly where most voters are is sensible enough, those voters themselves don’t necessarily see things as ideologically left and right and specific policies aren’t really that important in driving votes. However, broad perceptions of a party, its perceived competence and the public’s views on how suitable its leader is to be Prime Minister are incredibly important. It will be an extremely hard task for Labour to succeed if it is seem as taking up a risky and radical route, if it’s trying to rebuild a lack of public confidence by selling an approach that is radically different from what a normally risk-averse public are used to, if it is seen as being riven by internal dissent and splits, if their leadership patently doesn’t have the support of its own MPs. Maybe he’ll surprise us, but I wouldn’t count on it.

 

On other matters, the ComRes poll also had voting intention, their first online VI figures since the election (rather to my surprise. Their online polls for the Independent on Sunday dried up during the election campaign itself and I’d wrongly assumed they’d come to halt as part of ComRes moving their phone contract from the Independent to the Daily Mail. I’m pleased to see I was wrong, and the ComRes/Indy on Sunday relationship continues!). Topline figures are CON 40%, LAB 29%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 4%, and ComRes have adopted the same socio-economic based turnout model for their online polls that they have started using in their telephone polls.'

 

Basically, TL:DR: he'll probably do very badly, but there's no real way of knowing yet, and he might surprise people. Seems a fair summary to me.

Edited August 18, 2015 by HanoiVillan

[snowychap]

To suggest that there is a section of the voting public apathetic and looking for something else is very plausible and something i'd agree with

 

To then extrapolate that what they are looking for is Corbyn policies I'm afraid is a huge jump and not something that I think the majority would agree with

I read Rodders post as suggesting that it may be something that they (or at least some of them) are looking for.

The point being that the repeated nonsense (from politicians, media, Westminster bubble and others) about the only way one can win elections is with more of the very similar ignores that sizeable chunk of the disenchanted and disenfranchised, what the possibilities might be there, and the concept of the Overton window.

 

...do not make the mistake in believing that the general public at large share that opinion in the majority. They do not.

You're qualified to speak, definitely, on behalf of the majority of the general public at large? Edited August 18, 2015 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

 

 

I think you're likely to find there's quite a large overlap between apathetic non-voters and potential Corbyn supporters. There are two reasons for this - firstly, there has been a clear shift to the right in Labour's politics in the 27 years from 1983-2010, which has barely been moved back the other way, and this has had a clear impact on turnout at elections, with generally left-leaning voters increasingly staying away from the polls. Secondly, there is a widespread anti-politics and anti-politicians sentiment in the country, which Corbyn can tap into to a certain extent, at least in the short term, by talking about how much he defied the whips, how unpopular he was with his own party leadership etc. 

 

These groups - (predominantly young) frustrated lefties and anti-politics cynics are those who haven't been voting, and they're likely to find something they like in Corbyn. Unfortunately, they are also the least reliable voters, so it may not do him that much good in the long run, but we'll see. 

 

 

I was at an event on the weekend and whilst this is wholly unscientific and loaded with all my own personal bias, there was something striking about the whole thing.

 

There were representatives of every little niche offshoot group going, the full gay miners in support of nicaraguan vegetarians squad. They all rubbed along together, Plaid Cymru chatting to the Greens, the RMT talking to Food Not Bombs, LBGT South Wales Police exchanging contact details with a Choir Co-operative. You get the picture.

 

Anyway, Labour were also there, but didn't mix with the others and contented themselves with handing out stickers that said 'I've never kissed a tory'. That was their message for the day, 'Labour, we're not the tories'. Hell of a slogan.

 

Edited August 18, 2015 by chrisp65

[Richard]

 

To suggest that there is a section of the voting public apathetic and looking for something else is very plausible and something i'd agree with

 

To then extrapolate that what they are looking for is Corbyn policies I'm afraid is a huge jump and not something that I think the majority would agree with

 

I accept that there are a core number of left wingers on this site that find favour with Corbyn but do not make the mistake in believing that the general public at large share that opinion in the majority.  They do not.

 

Leaving your final line aside, which seems to be a] both a statement of the obvious, and b] not related to the first two sentences. 

 

I think you're likely to find there's quite a large overlap between apathetic non-voters and potential Corbyn supporters. There are two reasons for this - firstly, there has been a clear shift to the right in Labour's politics in the 27 years from 1983-2010, which has barely been moved back the other way, and this has had a clear impact on turnout at elections, with generally left-leaning voters increasingly staying away from the polls. Secondly, there is a widespread anti-politics and anti-politicians sentiment in the country, which Corbyn can tap into to a certain extent, at least in the short term, by talking about how much he defied the whips, how unpopular he was with his own party leadership etc. 

 

These groups - (predominantly young) frustrated lefties and anti-politics cynics are those who haven't been voting, and they're likely to find something they like in Corbyn. Unfortunately, they are also the least reliable voters, so it may not do him that much good in the long run, but we'll see. 

 

Last line does relate to the first two as it's a commentary of the opinion on here that Corbyn would have large support in the country which I am saying is based purely on the fact that some on here are left wing and believe that opinion is shared wider outside the VT bubble than it actually is.

 

" there has been a clear shift to the right in Labour's politics in the 27 years from 1983-2010"   agreed and it is no coincidence that that occured at the same time as their greatest election successes.  1983 went well didnt it? that enabled them to get the sense that left wing ,  radical left wing policy as of the type expoused by Corbyn,  was dead and buried and they needed that shift to regain power.  1983 happened you know ,  Labour at the moment are looking like a party failing to accept that.  Or at least not sure why they lost this year and retreating to the safe comfortable home turf of left wing hoping that will give them salvation

 

"Secondly, there is a widespread anti-politics and anti-politicians sentiment in the country" dont disagree but to go from that to then believing that it means people support a left wing approach is anothe rmatter altogether.  When faced with the policies the man supports,  the actual nitty gritty of what he wants to achieve they will not support it.

[Condimentalist]

 

 

 

 

 

The amount of people I hear seemingly equate immigration with criminality is worrying.

Are you hearing people conflating immigration or illegal immigration with criminality? One plainly isn't, the other plainly is.

No, I'm hearing people talk about bog standard immigrants as if being an immigrant is itself criminal (I'm not using the word in a strictly legal sense btw). The shite peddled by the right has had a rather alarming cumulative effect i.e. it now seems perfectly acceptable to slight people who come here to make better lives for themselves for no other reason that they aren't from here. It's dangerous.

Fair enough. It's quite remarkable how the UK has gone from a country that prided itself on being a haven for asylum seekers (certainly how I remember things being described to me as a young kid in the 80's) to a country that is far less self assured and confident in it's identity.

I would agree that the media had a role to play in that but I think the broader change in attitudes is down to two bigger factors: 1) the sheer weight of numbers of immigrants since the mid-90's, and 2) the awareness that we still have no effective border control and are powerless as a country to alter that without radical political change - i.e. Leaving the EU.

On the first point it is undeniable that the demographics in certain parts of England have changed beyond all recognition in a very short space of time. I'm thinking about areas in cities like London or Brum, or even whole towns like Luton where it can feel like you are in a foreign country surrounded by a foreign culture.

I think it was easier for people who felt more comfortable and secure with the homogeneity of their communities to welcome refugees. When those same people have watched the entire character of their home towns changed beyond recognition in 20 years then perhaps what once seemed exotic now appears more like an invasion, particularly if the incomers self segregate, have a totally different culture and often seem to live parallel lives in a shared space - multiculturalism.

I don't think it's racism, but more the removal of the continuity of their home towns and surroundings that is causing unease. Undoubtedly that perception is fed to an extent by the media but then you also have real world examples like the seemingly endless child sex rings abusing vulnerable girls on an industrial scale, while being covered up by the authorities in the name of community cohesion. It makes people angry and fearful, generating a knock on effect of further polarization.

Meanwhile on the six o'clock news more migrants are threatening lorry drivers in Calais to board their vehicles or storming the fences. Yes there are undoubtedly some poor little kids mixed in but the majority are young, fit fighting age males, dressed in the same clothes that are appearing more and more often on the local high street...

I don't think people got meaner per se, I think they got increasingly sick of being told to celebrate a diversity they neither asked for nor wanted. The UK has seen a scale of demographic change since 1994 that has no historical parallel. Some people genuinely welcome it and that's fine, but it would be sensible to recognize that many quite legitimately take a different view and simply calling them nasty names* isn't going to help anything.

*I'm not suggesting that you, CED, are guilty of that.

Unfortunately though, Awol, this is the modern world. The reason so many immigrants want to come here is because we have a good way of life, and have benefited enormously from firstly colonialism, and secondly a global economic order which is massively skewed in our favour. The price of that for us is a 'pull' factor from the rest of the world. The price of it for them is far worse, it actually pushes them away from their homes and friends and families, sometimes in circumstances of all out civil war.

I understand peoples concerns about immigration and yes, they may not have asked for it, but they've certainly benefited from the factors that drive it. A little bit more appreciation of that in the discussion might make people a little bit less angry.

I don't really buy in to the default "ah but colonialism" line that is often used as a rebuttal to the questioning of mass immigration.

First, the majority of people currently trying to gain illegal entry to the UK are from countries we had no imperial connection with such as Syria, Eritrea and Somalia. Other European nations such as Germany or Sweden with little or no history of colonialism are also now facing domestic push back for allowing in so many migrants, like with us it is not about the inevitability of the "modern world we live in", it is about the deliberate policies of governments to enable mass migration for ideological or economic reasons - cheap labour is good for business.

It's also worth noting that countries that the UK took over governance of (we only colonized a very few and African outposts aside they have become some of the most successful countries in the world) we were eventually kicked out off. Turns out the great unwashed in these places weren't much impressed by the infrastructure and institutions we built, they just wanted their countries back and the foreigners out - what did the Romans ever do for us?! Let's hope that's not a sign post for Europe's future, but after 60 or more years of independence, in resource rich nations and with several trillion in foreign aid support it seems that in balance Africa would rather move to London. While flattering, it is not entirely practical.

As for the pull factor of being a successful country economically, yes of course that is true. It is also true of China and Japan and South Korea where immigration is strictly controlled, these migrants aren't drowning themselves to move there. I would suggest the more obvious reason is our very generous welfare system - to someone from Sub Saharan Africa the concept of free money seems insanely generous.

I'll close this with an anecdote that people can accept or reject as suits. I have a very good friend and colleague in Oman who is Somali on a UK passport. He moved to London from Mogadishu as a boy, got a passport then went back to Mog, married a local and returned her to London. 3 kids later they have all been raised by the British tax payer and he is now trying to move his second wife (Saudi Arabian) and a further 2 kids to London from UAE. Why? The eldest needs to start school and in UK it will be free. I've asked him whether he feels he's taking advantage of Britain and he was very honest about it, "you let us do it so why wouldn't we. All my friends from Somalia do the same". His only complaint is that Cameron banned the importation and sale of Khat to the UK, disturbing their home - from - home routine in London. I don't blame him for taking the piss, I blame the people in power who have enabled it.

I just don't feel the same level of sympathy that you do for the large number of freeloaders accompanying those who are genuinely fleeing to the UK from persecution.

 

 

Parts of this I agree with Awol, other parts not so much. 

 

I don't really buy in to the default "ah but colonialism" line that is often used as a rebuttal to the questioning of mass immigration.

 

Whether you buy it or not, relationships with the commonwealth have provided the underpinnings of our immigration system and are a major driver as to its present character. That's not to say it can't be reformed, but to look at present trends in immigration without recourse to what has gone before and the institutional arrangements that we have with countries like Pakistan, India and Nigeria is to miss the point. The vast majority of non-EU migrants still come from these countries, not from Eritrea. 

 

You mention Germany and Sweden. Germany has its own political and cultural reasons for not wanting to discriminate based on ethno-nationalist grounds - although that may be changing slowly as Germany is now taking on far more migrants than we are, so the pace of change is quick for them as we are used to this by now. Sweden and much of Scandinavia are simply very ethnically homogenous places which leads to a kind of cultural conservatism. Sweden is not an anti-immigrant country though either. 

 

like with us it is not about the inevitability of the "modern world we live in", it is about the deliberate policies of governments to enable mass migration for ideological or economic reasons - cheap labour is good for business.

 

That's true, cheap labour is good for business and its good for plugging holes in the economy as well. Again, we've benefited from this more than we've suffered, although of course it is different for different communities in the UK.

 

urns out the great unwashed in these places weren't much impressed by the infrastructure and institutions we built, they just wanted their countries back and the foreigners out - what did the Romans ever do for us?! Let's hope that's not a sign post for Europe's future, but after 60 or more years of independence, in resource rich nations and with several trillion in foreign aid support it seems that in balance Africa would rather move to London. While flattering, it is not entirely practical.

 

I think we should be a little bit coy about these great institutions that we built. For the most part we left Africa to corrupt dictators who we supported so long as they didn't mind signing deals with Western multi-nationals for their resources. You scratch my back I'll scratch yours. And the 'trillions of foreign aid support' are nothing in comparison with the lost tax revenues from these countries, which are quantifiably worth many many times what we hand out in aid - and that's not even getting started on the protectionist economic measures which essentially lock countries and producers out of the system - or at least being able to compete on any kind of level playing field.

 

Also, for what it's worth, three times as much capital flows into Africa from the West from African migrant workers by way of remittances to support their families and communities. Would you prefer we build fences and lock them out (which doesn't work anyway)? Because if we want to avoid more humanitarian crises that's going to require even more aid money, and we'll also lose out the tax revenue to help finance it. 

 

As for the pull factor of being a successful country economically, yes of course that is true. It is also true of China and Japan and South Korea where immigration is strictly controlled, these migrants aren't drowning themselves to move there. I would suggest the more obvious reason is our very generous welfare system - to someone from Sub Saharan Africa the concept of free money seems insanely generous.

 

China is a successful country economically only to a point. It's still largely a low-wage economy, so the pull factor is not the same, although there are also plenty of migrant workers in China, not least Indians. Japan and South Korea are geographically fairly remote nations, certainly a long way from Africa, and have a long history of cultural isolationism - Japan in particular. To compare them to the UK is entirely misleading.

 

 I would suggest the more obvious reason is our very generous welfare system - to someone from Sub Saharan Africa the concept of free money seems insanely generous.

 

If you think most people are moving to the UK fundamentally to scrounge then you have a very negative view of humanity, and I doubt you can back it up. For what it's worth I completely agree with the steps that are being taken to prevent people claiming welfare without having been working here for a set period first. 

 

I'll close this with an anecdote that people can accept or reject as suits. I have a very good friend and colleague in Oman who is Somali on a UK passport. He moved to London from Mogadishu as a boy, got a passport then went back to Mog, married a local and returned her to London. 3 kids later they have all been raised by the British tax payer and he is now trying to move his second wife (Saudi Arabian) and a further 2 kids to London from UAE. Why? The eldest needs to start school and in UK it will be free. I've asked him whether he feels he's taking advantage of Britain and he was very honest about it, "you let us do it so why wouldn't we. All my friends from Somalia do the same". His only complaint is that Cameron banned the importation and sale of Khat to the UK, disturbing their home - from - home routine in London. I don't blame him for taking the piss, I blame the people in power who have enabled it.

 

I just don't feel the same level of sympathy that you do for the large number of freeloaders accompanying those who are genuinely fleeing to the UK from persecution.

 

It's not about having sympathy for freeloaders, its deciding that most immigrants are just freeloading that I have an issue with. Some are, no doubt, I should think most people want a better life obtained through hard work - perhaps that includes your friend. 

 

I'm not suggesting that the UK's immigration procedures aren't flawed, and I'm not suggesting that we can have open season on immigration, but what I do take issue with - which was CEDs original point - is the miserly, nasty and fundamentally uninformed nature of the discourse that surrounds it. 

[Awol]

Decent post Patrick, I'm sure we can/will return to this on a more appropriate thread and pick this up again.

[tonyh29]

Watching BBC world just now and they interviewed some migrants at Calais and the reporter asked them "why England" probably a loaded question and she was waiting for the we heard about the benefits response ... Instead the reply she got was " I can speak English and so I have a better possibility of getting a job there than I can in France or Germany whose languge I don't speak "

Could it be as simple as that ...

[Condimentalist]

Definitely a factor Tony, although in Germany you don't really need to speak German to get a job - just look at all the British creatives heading out to Berlin.

[chrisp65]

Yep, agree with both posts above. I have a couple of days work in Berlin in a 'german' office environment coming up in October and I've been specifically told I don't need to speak German as most of their business is already conducted in english anyway, whether I'm there or not.

 

As it happens, I've got the absolute basics, I can count to a hundred, order a sausage and ask for duct tape and plastic sheeting so I've got that in reserve if needed.

Edited August 18, 2015 by chrisp65

[Condimentalist]

Yep, agree with both posts above. I have a couple of days work in Berlin in a 'german' office environment coming up in October and I've been specifically told I don't need to speak German as most of their business is already conducted in english anyway, whether I'm there or not.

 

As it happens, I've got the absolute basics, I can count to a hundred, order a sausage and ask for duct tape and plastic sheeting so I've got that in reserve if needed.

 

In case you need them, kartoffel = potato and auspuffgas = exhaust pipe. 

[HanoiVillan]

 

 

To suggest that there is a section of the voting public apathetic and looking for something else is very plausible and something i'd agree with

 

To then extrapolate that what they are looking for is Corbyn policies I'm afraid is a huge jump and not something that I think the majority would agree with

 

I accept that there are a core number of left wingers on this site that find favour with Corbyn but do not make the mistake in believing that the general public at large share that opinion in the majority.  They do not.

 

Leaving your final line aside, which seems to be a] both a statement of the obvious, and b] not related to the first two sentences. 

 

I think you're likely to find there's quite a large overlap between apathetic non-voters and potential Corbyn supporters. There are two reasons for this - firstly, there has been a clear shift to the right in Labour's politics in the 27 years from 1983-2010, which has barely been moved back the other way, and this has had a clear impact on turnout at elections, with generally left-leaning voters increasingly staying away from the polls. Secondly, there is a widespread anti-politics and anti-politicians sentiment in the country, which Corbyn can tap into to a certain extent, at least in the short term, by talking about how much he defied the whips, how unpopular he was with his own party leadership etc. 

 

These groups - (predominantly young) frustrated lefties and anti-politics cynics are those who haven't been voting, and they're likely to find something they like in Corbyn. Unfortunately, they are also the least reliable voters, so it may not do him that much good in the long run, but we'll see. 

 

Last line does relate to the first two as it's a commentary of the opinion on here that Corbyn would have large support in the country which I am saying is based purely on the fact that some on here are left wing and believe that opinion is shared wider outside the VT bubble than it actually is.

 

" there has been a clear shift to the right in Labour's politics in the 27 years from 1983-2010"   agreed and it is no coincidence that that occured at the same time as their greatest election successes.  1983 went well didnt it? that enabled them to get the sense that left wing ,  radical left wing policy as of the type expoused by Corbyn,  was dead and buried and they needed that shift to regain power.  1983 happened you know ,  Labour at the moment are looking like a party failing to accept that.  Or at least not sure why they lost this year and retreating to the safe comfortable home turf of left wing hoping that will give them salvation

 

"Secondly, there is a widespread anti-politics and anti-politicians sentiment in the country" dont disagree but to go from that to then believing that it means people support a left wing approach is anothe rmatter altogether.  When faced with the policies the man supports,  the actual nitty gritty of what he wants to achieve they will not support it.

 

 

'Occurred at the same time as their greatest election successes'

 

1983-2010 is a long period (27 years) containing 7 elections, so obviously they weren't all successes. In fact, Labour really only had one truly successful election in this period, which was 1997, in which they gained nearly two million votes, but even then their gain was outweighed by the Tories losing 4.5 million votes. From 1997 on, New Labour lost voters (nearly 3 million just in the 4 years to 2001) until eventually in 2010 they couldn't lose any more voters without losing power. New Labour's popularity was huge, but dwindled very quickly. 

 

'1983 happened you know'

 

It did, and it was a disaster, but one of the main features of 1983 was the SDP split. The liberals generally gained 3.5 million votes on their total from 1979, almost exclusively from Labour. This suggests that the main danger for a Corbyn Labour party is that of a major split. Indeed, that's possible, and I know you think it's likely, but it isn't a certainty. 

 

'to go from that to believing that it means people support a left wing approach is another matter entirely'

 

I don't believe it means people support a left wing approach. Indeed, my use of the terms 'anti-politics sentiment' and 'anti-politics cynics' should suggest that I don't see these people as lefties waiting to be shown the light. However, these people may cast a vote for Corbyn, or at least it's a possibility. Why? Well, there are a lot of low-information voters out there. One pollster did a poll last week asking supporters of other parties which Labour candidate they liked best, and amongst UKIP voters, Corbyn polled highest. There's no reason for this to be the case based on their respective policies - it suggests that there are a significant number of voters willing to vote for an 'anti-establishment' pose, more than anything else. 

 

EDIT: graphs showing election results 1979 - 1997, and 1997 - 2010, illustrating the first point, taken from gapingsilence.wordpress.com

 

 

Edited August 18, 2015 by HanoiVillan

[PongRiddims]

Why, and I'm not a politics expert so please break it down into child speak if necessary, isn't socialism considered a alternative to the British public? Are there other countries that support a socialist model of similar ilk to us? Is it more a traditional British way of thinking that we are the ruled by the emperors and the empire and thus will vote that way?