Channel 4 Dispatches - Momentum Party

In a poll earlier this week the majority were in favour of keeping free movement.

We are making the assumption that people will vote for a party that reduces immigration.

We know that to cut immigration will undoubtedly harm our economy in many sectors, and to do so would leave many businesses without the skills and workers they so badly need.
We know that it is a myth that the immigrants put too much pressure on our services, that in fact immigrants are net contributors to our economy and so we benefit in receiving tax, vat etc.

Now ask yourself.

Would it make more sense to cut immigration because there is an assumption that the vote will come flying in, or

Refuse to play the populist game and do what is best for the UK economy, and in doing so use everything in your power to re-educate the voting public

You are the last one to speak of respect for freedom of speech anniebach. You are constantly attacking people with whom you disagree through the use of insult, ridicule and innuendo. I have asked you several times what you are hoping to achieve by repeatedly predicting the Labour Party's demise - you ignore that reasonable enquiry and instead say that I, and others, would be more at home in Russia.

Given that you, like me, voted to remain in the EU, you presumably were not concerned about the free movement of labour from EU countries and I believe you expressed dismay about the resulting vote to leave. Corbyn is merely sticking to the principle of free movement of labour which underlies continuing membership of the EU, which both you and he voted for.

Why not be critical about the real enemies, the ones in the Tory party?
Controlling the borders and restricting movement is a simplistic argument that will inevitably appeal to the lowest common denominator of thought.
However it will damage the UK economy if employers cannot get the expertise they need. The problem lies with the lower paid jobs and the construction industry.
I think Corbyn's analysis of the lower paid jobs is right - however it's a much more sophisticated message and Miliband for one, did not manage to convince people that the answer lies in cracking down on exploitation.
The construction industry is problematic. It may be the only one in which wages (for subcontractors) are pushed down by uncontrolled immigration - but because of the fluctuations in the construction industry and the relative lack of training in the UK, it may be the industry that most benefits from free movement.
Most construction companies tend not to employ many people directly - its all subbies because of the temporary nature of the big projects. So any legislation that says you have to have a job first, will not meet with their approval.

so freedom of movement has the full support of this forums Corbynites but freedom of speech does not , you would be st home in Russia

Indeed Annie if you are going to keep on saying that Labour can't win you are playing into the hands of the Tories.
Increasing the minimum wage, to a proper living wage, as McDonnell suggested, and catching those who do not pay it, is another way to reduce immigration. There are lots of permanent residents who can't afford to take those bottom end of the market jobs because they will lose their benefits and incur all the costs of going to work (child care, travel etc etc).

Just spent a happy two hours watching some of the Labour party speeches and must admit I've been pleasantly surprised. I truly hope that Labour can get its act together and take its messages to the 'man on the street' (and woman).

I agree with you, Eloethan, and those messages need to get out there.

Nick Hewer and Margaret Mountford did a TV programme a couple of years ago called 'Too many immigrants?' (I think), which contrasted the attitude of immigrants and anti-immigrants. I think the immigrants showed up those who thought there were too many of them. There should be more in the media like that.

Well perhaps anniebach you'd also like to a have a go at compromising by, if not feeling you can give your backing to the Labour Party, then at least refraining from constantly proclaiming that Labour is unelectable and that those who voted for Corbyn are a morally suspect and altogether disreputable bunch.

Beammeupscottie I think Corbyn should be given a chance and I am not part of a "mob".

I notice the "man in the street" isn't too concerned about immigration when he is getting his extension built quickly and cheaply by Eastern European builders and when his health and elderly care needs are met by workers from all over the world.

As Corbyn has already said, if proper action was taken against employers who underpay and exploit workers from abroad and against landlords who cram their houses to bursting point with people and charge them exorbitant rents, that might be a more effective way of preventing the undercutting of wages and the inflating of housing costs.

Thank you Beam, just trying to share my experiences of fifty years as a Labour activist and trying but failing to get across the fact that whilst rigid ideals can be admired there are times when compromise must play a part , reaching out to the country and getting out of our comfort zone

Thank you Annie; as expected! May I congratulate you on continuing your fight for common sense in the PLP against outdated views that will destroy labour. Take a bow.

Corbyn is against controlled immigration , he is fully for free movement

I foresee the the man-in-the-street, experiencing cuts in benefits et al, will shift blame to Immigration; historically, always the way. Therefore the Party who makes entry to this Country harder will be the winner. Can't, offhand, think what Corbyn,s mob think of controlled immigration, but will, doubtless, be told.

You are also correct to say that people are angry that their concerns were not addressed ( about immigration) and haven't been for the last 30 years,which of course gives out and out racists an 'in'. Governments have just ridden rough shod over the views of people in various parts of the country for quite a while.

ddil I was agreeing with your posts, saying never mind Joe Soap in Accrington etc, didn't mean that the ordinary voter didn't matter ( matters more than anything!) but I was pointing out that it isn't just the man in the street ( in Accrington) but that most of the PLP didn't want ( a lot of) the policies and don't want Corbyn either.

Well, I'm confused now Daphne.
I thought that a representative democracy meant that MPs took a decision on our behalf (as would have happened if they had voted over EU membership) and that holding a referendum and bypassing the views of MPs, and forcing them to carry out the wishes of the electorate meant that the MPs became mere delegates.

Like most social liberals who isn't affected much by immigration, it isn't high on my agenda. I challenge bigotry and have witnessed real fascism first-hand. Nevertheless, it troubles me that my virulent anti-racism/xenophobia is possibly in itself a form of bigotry.

I read on a blog about a Labour MP who was knocking on doors in an ex-mill town Northern constituency (can't remember which). The MP knocked on the door of a staunch Labour voter in her 80s and got talking to her. She said she was lonely. She'd lived in the same street all her life and used to have friends nearby and could pop into the local shop for a chat, but gradually the street had been taken over by Bangladeshis, as had the shop. Who am I to tell this lady that she should just put up with her new neighbours? Immigration control wouldn't help the situation, but it's understandable that this lady thought it would.

There are pockets of the country where high a number of skilled immigrants have driven down wages. There's no point telling people that it's the survival of the fittest and unskilled workers need to up their game if they're going to compete with the newcomers.

These are real people and their concerns are real. The unions were initially hostile to the new wave of immigrants with the Windrush. Multi-cuturalism is being challenged and the old prejudices have never entirely gone away. It's not enough for social liberals, like me, to say it doesn't matter and preach equality, because people are angry that it's not being addressed. Unfortunately, they're vulnerable to exploitation by real racists.

I agree with you, by the way. We need a government with intelligence and integrity. People have begun to distrust the integrity of MPs.

No, representative government landed us with Brexit. Delegated government would have left the decision to MPs, most of whom were in favour of Remain (quite correctly, in my opinion).

Daphne didn't delegated government land us with Brexit? I think UKIP's success has been due to people thinking that Nigel Farage represented their own views.
If we want a grown-up government, we need politicians who have the intelligence and integrity to identify correctly the problems we face as a society, devise solutions and policies to address those issues and the courage and honesty to present them to the electorate in a way that they can understand.
I realise that probably sounds very naive but I'm sick of sound bites and the cult of personality in politics.

I think Daphne was right when she said Joe Soap matters .

Also is it wise to think the young will carry the Labour Party to victory, look what happened to Clegg . The Tories went for the grey vote and won the young are idealistic , make one crack in their ideals and they turn away.

In relation to UKIP " when naive politicians ignore their people, they will turn to someone who will listen" Not my words, but something I read.

Corbyn refuses to consider controlled immigration yet the public want it , wise?

England has not had an election, Wales did in May. UKIP took seven seats , not wise to dismiss them so lightly , Wales has always been a labour stronghold .

I don't want a leader regarded as a phenomenon and I don't want a leader who needs to be protected from the public and the media . We hear much more from McDonald than Corbyn and it is fact that there is a fear that McDonald is preparing to be party leader . Too much going on in dark places .

If a party doesn't reflect the views of voters, whose views should it represent? Surely that's the way to autocracy. There's a dilemma here. I agree that government shouldn't become the tool of some kind of mob rule, which is why I hope there is never a referendum on contentious issues such as hanging, especially just after a serial killer has been prosecuted.

Somehow there needs to be a balance between a representative and a delegated government. I don't think the Labour Party has got to grips with that, especially on immigration.

Ukip doesn't need to sign up a mass membership. All it needs to do is target the seats where it has a chance of winning. It already has made made a difference with tactical voting in marginal seats. Ukip didn't win, but (in some cases) it prevented others from winning and a significant number of voters do agree with its values. Fortunately, it's experiencing its own internal problems.

How does my vote count, whitewave? I live in a constituency where the incumbent Conservative polled over 51% of the votes and that really isn't going to change. Apart from a couple of local elections, I have never in my life voted for the winner. The FPTP system means that my views are swept aside and I can only win by proxy, if other people outside my constituency vote for a party I want.