Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corb Blimey!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Corb Blimey!

    yeah this is bollocks. Migration is a crucial weapon in the fight against an aging population, and since migrants are substantial net contributors towards public services, and in many cases the providers of public services, they are a crucial part of maintaining the current standard of services that the UK has.

    The left needs to grow a pair of balls, and armed with the truth, and with economic facts point out that the issues to do with public services, and the low productivity of the UK economy have absolutely nothing to do with migrants, and everything to do with thatcherite, and thatcher influenced underinvestment in the public service. and that in many cases they are a key part of the solution. Getting rid of migrants won't shorten housing queues. Building council houses will. but building council houses is harder without the tax income generated by migrants.

    Comment


      Corb Blimey!

      I really couldn't care less what Stephen Kinnock says. Stephen Kinnock is not going to be leader of the Labour Party. No one remotely like him is.

      I'm sceptical about E10's idea that the answer is to remorselessly pointing out the lies and bigotry of UKIP. That's just going to piss the people that are voting for them off. We've literally just seen all this happen across the Atlantic.

      Comment


        Corb Blimey!

        E10 Rifle wrote: But Kinnock isn't talking about wages there is he? He's talking up a nebulous form of UKIP-lite nationalism and forcing the foreigns to "integrate".

        And we should be talking about low wages as a concern. They are a concern. But they're a concern for migrants and locals alike. And yeah we should be making the case that it isn't immigration that drives them down, but bad bosses and a weak labour movement. Fat chance of Kinnock doing that.
        He's talking rubbish about multiculturalism. It's never meant separate communities living by different standards. But as Lucy says, he's never going to be leading anything.

        McDonnell mentioned these concerns about immigration driving down wages in his conference speech. You've got to tackle it in those terms, as rubbish (with a small number of exceptions), whatever the power of unions or the laxness of the labour market. I haven't seen him do that.

        Comment


          Corb Blimey!

          It's not about whether Kinnock himself will ever be leader, but he's saying those things to be noticed, as part of a strategy from a well-resourced and highly audible part of the Labour party to move policy in that direction. He wouldn't have said it if he didn't hope or think it would have an impact. An influential chunk of the Labour right want a tough-on-immigration strategy to counter UKIP. Other 'centrists', as well as the left, should be telling them that it's a dead end.

          Comment


            Corb Blimey!

            Other centrists and the left should be evolving a strategy to counter UKIP that works. Achieve that, and people like Kinnock won't have any need to talk bollocks.

            Comment


              Corb Blimey!

              Lucy Waterman wrote: I really couldn't care less what Stephen Kinnock says. Stephen Kinnock is not going to be leader of the Labour Party. No one remotely like him is.

              I'm sceptical about E10's idea that the answer is to remorselessly pointing out the lies and bigotry of UKIP. That's just going to piss the people that are voting for them off. We've literally just seen all this happen across the Atlantic.
              I think that's a bad analysis of the US election. The problem isn't calling Trump racist, it's doing so while not actually offering any sort of alternative politics.

              If you're all on about how UKIP is racist without actually addressing the fact that Labour supports very similar policies (essentially maintaining racist, militarised borders) you're making the argument about tone, rather than policies.

              As in, you're saying it's OK to condemn people to their deaths or lock them up in concentration camps or whatever so long as you wring your hands while you're doing it.

              Labour should be honest about the realities of immigration. That should include talking about destitution caused by NRPF, and talking about how the criminalisation of migrants forces them into dangerous and unsanitary housing, exploitative work and, increasingly, being gatekept from healthcare. They should talk about Yarls Wood and Colnbrook and the stories of the horrors that go on in there. They should talk about the deportation of rough-sleepers. They should talk about the public health crisis triggered by this destitution and gatekeeping. They should talk about immigration raids and the disruption they cause to the communities in which they take place.

              Then when they've done that they can link all that to the struggles that other people face. Benefits sanctions, gatekeeping at the housing office, exploitative employers, parasitic landlords. And they should demonstrate that those problems should be tackled together - that the interests of the working-classes with secure immigration status are the interests of migrants.

              Comment


                Corb Blimey!

                Sounds like Corbyn's continuing his good work at PMQs. May spouted this:

                One policy that would not deliver is Labour’s to increase borrowing by £500bn. It would lead to doubling income tax, doubling council tax, doubling vat and doubling national insurance.
                This is absolute bollocks- the governments own infrastructure plan is only £17bn less. But you don't help yourself when you stick out scary numbers like McDonnell.

                Comment


                  Corb Blimey!

                  And UKIP get an easy ride from their opponents really – that Farage is a con-man, a grasping trouserer of European wages and expenses, a proven bully within his own party, a man of immense elite privilege, isn't something that's aired often in the scheme of things.

                  Comment


                    Corb Blimey!

                    I think that's a bad analysis of the US election. The problem isn't calling Trump racist, it's doing so while not actually offering any sort of alternative politics.
                    What's your basis for thinking that? Or is my analysis just bad because it doesn't draw the same conclusions that you do?

                    The rest of what you say is sound and really the only thing Labour can do now. I think it's futile, but so's what Kinnock et al are doing.

                    Comment


                      Corb Blimey!

                      E10 Rifle wrote: And UKIP get an easy ride from their opponents really – that Farage is a con-man, a grasping trouserer of European wages and expenses, a proven bully within his own party, a man of immense elite privilege, isn't something that's aired often in the scheme of things.
                      It has been pointed out a lot, but Kippers don't care about that sort of stuff. It all ties in with the idea "they're all as bad as each other".

                      But beyond their core, it should be a problem.

                      Comment


                        Corb Blimey!

                        This was pretty interesting and depressing in equal measure. I remember people like Mountford from student politics, and they were hateful, hateful people back then. As much as the Labour right are a bunch of shits in Brighton, electing someone like Mark Sandell from the frankly Grade A pack of absolute toxic cultish goons that is AWL did make me think that the Momentum left had shot itself in the foot to an astonishing degree letting such a person take such a role.

                        Comment


                          Corb Blimey!

                          Sorry about formatting of the link. Can't get it to work. Bloody useless site. Basically, is the reason for hardly posting here. Hey ho.

                          Comment


                            Corb Blimey!

                            Owen Jones has this.

                            All this was foreseeable, though people were howled down for saying so at the time. I don't mean just me, but also Tom Watson for example.

                            Comment


                              Corb Blimey!

                              Lucy Waterman wrote: Owen Jones has this.

                              All this was foreseeable, though people were howled down for saying so at the time. I don't mean just me, but also Tom Watson for example.
                              Sort of, though I still think it's been overblown. There aren't enough Trots to realistically have a big impact, and articles like Jones's (and Watson's knee-jerk warnings) either give the AWL etc more publicity than they deserve, or frighten people away from Momentum (which is more likely to be Watson's aim than Jones's). Fwiw, I can testify that most of the local (Brighton) Momentum activity is working to influence CLP activity, running some events, and planning The World Transformed. It's actually fun. The Trots barely figure.

                              Except in one case - as NHH mentions - Mark Sandell. I don't know how toxic he is, having only met him at a couple of meetings some months ago - I did, however, vote for him at the annulled AGM; partly as he was on the Momentum slate and partly because he gave a good speech beforehand. He does seem a bit lacking in energy since though.

                              Comment


                                Corb Blimey!

                                Not impressed with the failure to vote against May invoking Article 50 at a time she pulled out of her arse on Andrew Marr. Lib Dems, SNP, Green, Plaid and Ken Clarke all did. Plus about 25 Lab.

                                It isn't the leadership''s fault, because there's all sorts of Kipper rubbish on the backbenches. But I reckon a leader who got Brexit better and was respected in the PLP might have knocked heads together and got reasonably united opposition. But I wouldn't go further than "might".

                                Lib Dems and all already making hay with Labour voting with the Tories.

                                Comment


                                  Corb Blimey!

                                  Fucking Lib Dems. Just when you think you've stamped them out for good, they find a way to mutate into electoral viability again. They're the political equivalent of norovirus.

                                  Johnr - I dunno anything about Sandell individually, but presumably he thinks the same as everyone else in the AWL, because that's one of the points of being in the AWL. The cynic in me thinks they'd only be interested in Momentum to try and get hold of Lansman's database, but then again I've come across a couple of AWLers who fantasise about being at the helm of a popular movement and might think this is their time.

                                  Comment


                                    Corb Blimey!

                                    johnr wrote:
                                    Originally posted by Lucy Waterman
                                    Owen Jones has this.

                                    All this was foreseeable, though people were howled down for saying so at the time. I don't mean just me, but also Tom Watson for example.
                                    Sort of, though I still think it's been overblown. There aren't enough Trots to realistically have a big impact, and articles like Jones's (and Watson's knee-jerk warnings) either give the AWL etc more publicity than they deserve, or frighten people away from Momentum (which is more likely to be Watson's aim than Jones's). Fwiw, I can testify that most of the local (Brighton) Momentum activity is working to influence CLP activity, running some events, and planning The World Transformed. It's actually fun. The Trots barely figure.

                                    Except in one case - as NHH mentions - Mark Sandell. I don't know how toxic he is, having only met him at a couple of meetings some months ago - I did, however, vote for him at the annulled AGM; partly as he was on the Momentum slate and partly because he gave a good speech beforehand. He does seem a bit lacking in energy since though.
                                    Actually, on Watson, IIRC the majority of the stick he got was cos he originally called Momentum a 'rabble', and had to row back on it later. For the life of me I can't think why he didn't initially say 'this is fucking great - all these new members and a new organisation that aims to mobilise them too!', but there you go.

                                    There's a lot of people saying 'it was all foreseeable/told you so/ the left always argue etc', with the underlying attack being 'Momentum are doomed, and pointless anyway' - by implication, any alliance of the left is also doomed, and by further implication, that anyone involved in Momentum, or enthusiastic about it, are naive muppets. But I don't think anybody is under any illusions that the 'extreme left' - I wish I could get away from using these descriptions - wouldn't try it on with Momentum - and if they did they'd be disabused by the myriad folk trying to flog us their papers outside every meeting. But there is nowhere near enough to make a big difference.

                                    The flip side is the funding - and thereby influence - of Saving Labour and Progress, but those folk - from Reg Race to JK Rowling, to Lord Sainsbury etc - never seem to 'infiltrate', just 'support'.

                                    Comment


                                      Corb Blimey!

                                      Lucy Waterman wrote: Fucking Lib Dems. Just when you think you've stamped them out for good, they find a way to mutate into electoral viability again. They're the political equivalent of norovirus.
                                      Indeed; I saw a headline the other day that Farron would consider a Tory coalition again, but didn't click to read it as I'd then have punched the person next to me on the train...

                                      Comment


                                        Corb Blimey!

                                        johnr wrote:
                                        Actually, on Watson, IIRC the majority of the stick he got was cos he originally called Momentum a 'rabble', and had to row back on it later. For the life of me I can't think why he didn't initially say 'this is fucking great - all these new members and a new organisation that aims to mobilise them too!', but there you go.
                                        Well, it was kind of unclear what Momentum was. It still is, tbh, which is kind of what this is all about - is a democratically-organised means of mobilising new members, or a means of mustering enough votes to support AWL-backed slates to influence the direction of the Party?

                                        There's a lot of people saying 'it was all foreseeable/told you so/ the left always argue etc', with the underlying attack being 'Momentum are doomed, and pointless anyway' - by implication, any alliance of the left is also doomed, and by further implication, that anyone involved in Momentum, or enthusiastic about it, are naive muppets.
                                        I think any alliance of the left has to be carefully structured in such a way as to prevent this sort of thing from happening. I don't think people who end up being used as the AWL, having their enthusiasm somehow claimed as a mandate for Trotskyism, are "naive muppets". That's victim blaming.

                                        The flip side is the funding - and thereby influence - of Saving Labour and Progress, but those folk - from Reg Race to JK Rowling, to Lord Sainsbury etc - never seem to 'infiltrate', just 'support'.
                                        I think it's a stretch to compare Progress with the AWL, and I'm not fond of either.

                                        Comment


                                          Corb Blimey!

                                          Lucy Waterman wrote: Fucking Lib Dems. Just when you think you've stamped them out for good, they find a way to mutate into electoral viability again. They're the political equivalent of norovirus.
                                          I'm sure the Lib Dems wouldn't be recovering in the polls if only Labour actually advocated for the kind of EU-Internationalism that 48% of the country backs. But instead having a mixture of 70s-throwback protectionism and Blairite quisling appeasers saying that "Well, 52% went for Brexit so we should just go along with giving foreigners a kicking", does leave a rather large hole in the political spectrum for a party that actually supports the EU.

                                          Comment


                                            Corb Blimey!

                                            Oh yeah, the Lib Dems have realised Labour are fucked faster than Labour have, for sure.

                                            Comment


                                              Corb Blimey!

                                              Lucy Waterman wrote:
                                              Originally posted by johnr
                                              Actually, on Watson, IIRC the majority of the stick he got was cos he originally called Momentum a 'rabble', and had to row back on it later. For the life of me I can't think why he didn't initially say 'this is fucking great - all these new members and a new organisation that aims to mobilise them too!', but there you go.
                                              Well, it was kind of unclear what Momentum was. It still is, tbh, which is kind of what this is all about - is a democratically-organised means of mobilising new members, or a means of mustering enough votes to support AWL-backed slates to influence the direction of the Party?

                                              There's a lot of people saying 'it was all foreseeable/told you so/ the left always argue etc', with the underlying attack being 'Momentum are doomed, and pointless anyway' - by implication, any alliance of the left is also doomed, and by further implication, that anyone involved in Momentum, or enthusiastic about it, are naive muppets.
                                              I think any alliance of the left has to be carefully structured in such a way as to prevent this sort of thing from happening. I don't think people who end up being used as the AWL, having their enthusiasm somehow claimed as a mandate for Trotskyism, are "naive muppets". That's victim blaming.

                                              The flip side is the funding - and thereby influence - of Saving Labour and Progress, but those folk - from Reg Race to JK Rowling, to Lord Sainsbury etc - never seem to 'infiltrate', just 'support'.
                                              I think it's a stretch to compare Progress with the AWL, and I'm not fond of either.
                                              I'm not sure how to respond to quotes piece by piece, sorry. Re Progress, I was only pointing out that there's always, always a different narrative when describing 'right' and 'left' supporters, with the left always being portrayed as more sinister - yet in practice they're generally a lot less powerful.

                                              It is indeed unclear what Momentum is; it takes a bit of time to decide on responsibility and accountability (and I wish it'd move faster), I guess what I'm saying is that I've seen a lot of 'told you so' , when in actual fact this is exactly the process that, I would imagine, many of us involved would expect, in order to get to the 'democratically-organised means of mobilising new members'. We might fail, but we didn't expect it to be a smooth happy-clappy ride to socialist Nirvana. Although I did hope it would be...

                                              Comment


                                                Corb Blimey!

                                                Lucy Waterman wrote: Oh yeah, the Lib Dems have realised Labour are fucked faster than Labour have, for sure.
                                                Do you mean fucked as in more than the Tories, the LibDems, the Greens and UKIP? And by which measure(s)? (This isn't a dig, just interested to know, as I see it a lot BTL.)

                                                I know I'm an eternal optimist, but it seems to me that all parties are 'fucked', in that nobody knows wtf is/has been going on. The Tories have a horribly thin majority, and are tearing up; the LibDems have under a dozen MPs. UKIP are nearly bankrupt, and poison drips throughout their ranks. The Greens don't seem to be getting anywhere.

                                                It's all up for grabs. I hold (cling?) to the 550000 members making a difference when it matters, but we'll see.

                                                Comment


                                                  Corb Blimey!

                                                  San Bernardhinault wrote:
                                                  Originally posted by Lucy Waterman
                                                  Fucking Lib Dems. Just when you think you've stamped them out for good, they find a way to mutate into electoral viability again. They're the political equivalent of norovirus.
                                                  I'm sure the Lib Dems wouldn't be recovering in the polls if only Labour actually advocated for the kind of EU-Internationalism that 48% of the country backs. But instead having a mixture of 70s-throwback protectionism and Blairite quisling appeasers saying that "Well, 52% went for Brexit so we should just go along with giving foreigners a kicking", does leave a rather large hole in the political spectrum for a party that actually supports the EU.
                                                  "Blairite" might be an improvement. I don't think he's ever been too bothered by immigration for work. He did some decent work encouraging it in his honeymoon period.

                                                  Comment


                                                    Corb Blimey!

                                                    The Blairite thing was not about immigration, but about quislingite "triangulation" that doesn't even triangulate, but just takes on the bad aspects of your opponents. These days it's giving the Euro-foreigners a kicking. In Blair's day it was agreeing to whatever the US government wanted, and giving the muslim-foreigners a kicking.

                                                    Now they can say "Hey, we're not soft on Europe" the same way the Blairites could say "We're not soft on terror", forgetting that they're throwing out anything of value that they might once have stood for.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X