Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[The Don]

Because the policy will get Labour far more supporters so that the party can form a government.

I'm not sure how this works.

They adopt a policy which runs counter to 2/3 of their supporters (and 50% of the population as a whole) in an attempt to woo Leave voters, the majority of whom are not Labour supporters (and many of whom would never vote Labour).

Nope, still not getting it.

 

[Airfix]

They adopt a policy which runs counter to 2/3 of their supporters (and 50% of the population as a whole) in an attempt to woo Leave voters, the majority of whom are not Labour supporters (and many of whom would never vote Labour

Evidence for that ?

Btw, there was a time when most Labour supporters were anti EEC.
The party received 8,456,934 votes in 1983 the pro EEC faction, the SDP only received 3,521,624 votes, which is less than UKIP in 2015.

Lord Owen who was a member of the gang of four now admits he had been wrong about the EEC. It's time for Labour to realise that it had been right about the EEC in 1983, it was only their timing that was off.
No Labour leader, not even Tony Blair could have returned Labour to office that year, because the memory of the 1978 strikes were still fresh in people's minds.

 

[The Don]

Evidence for that ?

For which part ?

That 2/3 of Labour supporters voted to Remain ?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/

That the majority of Leave voters were not Labour supporters ?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/

That there are Leave voters who would never vote Labour ? There are ardent Conservative party supporters who would never vote Labour (in the same way that there are Labour supporters who would never vote Conservative.

Btw, there was a time when most Labour supporters were anti EEC.
The party received 8,456,934 votes in 1983 the pro EEC faction, the SDP only received 3,521,624 votes, which is less than UKIP in 2015.

You'd have a point if that was the only basis in which the vote was made but there were a lot of Labour Party loyalists (like my mother and maternal grandparents) who were very pro-EU and voted Labour in that election.

Lord Owen who was a member of the gang of four now admits he had been wrong about the EEC. It's time for Labour to realise that it had been right about the EEC in 1983, it was only their timing that was off. .

That's what you say but 2/3 of Labour supporters and roughly 1/2 of the UK population disagrees with you.

No Labour leader, not even Tony Blair could have returned Labour to office that year, because the memory of the 1978 strikes were still fresh in people's minds.

so what ?

 

[Tolls]

It wasn't an anti immigration poster, it was an anti EU poster showing that the EU as an institution was at breaking point in it's ability to handle illegal immigration mostly coming from human trafficking.

Balls.

The tag line was about taking back control of our borders.
It was all about immigration and clearly intended to imply that that mass of people in the poster were heading towards us.

Again, rather similar to the section of film it bears a resemblance to (where it talks about them flooding Europe's cities after the war). I can't believe it was intentional, but you have to question your position somewhat when your propaganda starts to look like WW2 German propaganda.

 

[Craig B]

It wasn't an anti immigration poster, it was an anti EU poster showing that the EU as an institution was at breaking point in it's ability to handle illegal immigration mostly coming from human trafficking.

That's nuts. If the EU is at breaking point because of illegal immigration caused by humsn trafficking, and you're against that, then you're against immigration. But that is very "disingenuous". The Brexiteers want out of the EU, and want immigration from within the EU to stop. But migration from within the EU is legal.

That doesn't stop Brexiteers xenophobes from abusing Poles and Slovaks, taunting them: go home, we voted to throw you out. So they did indeed. They wanted to turn legal into illegal immigration. That's what this is all about, as I'm sure you know. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-poland-incidents-idUKKCN0ZD19V

 

[Airfix]

That the majority of Leave voters were not Labour supporters ?

Why would Euroskeptics vote for a party that wished to remain in the EU ?

That there are Leave voters who would never vote Labour ?

Why would a leave voter vote for a remain party, especially in an election in which the leader of the time (Ed Miliband) had refused to offer an in/out referendum.

There are ardent Conservative party supporters who would never vote Labour (in the same way that there are Labour supporters who would never vote Conservative.

However, if you look at the numbers of those people, the support of members alone is not enough to win an election.
To win, you have to draw in floating voters and get broader support.

You'd have a point if that was the only basis in which the vote was made

It was enough to keep Labour out of power last year. It was enough to keep me from voting Labour in every EU election.

but there were a lot of Labour Party loyalists (like my mother and maternal grandparents) who were very pro-EU and voted Labour in that election.

The EU did not exist until the Maastricht treaty. In 1983 Britain was a member of the EEC.

That's what you say but 2/3 of Labour supporters and roughly 1/2 of the UK population disagrees with you.

Last years results prove that 2/3rds of Labour supporters or 48% of the population's feelings about the EU are not enough to win an election.
Leave campaigners feel more strongly about this and withheld their votes from Labour.

Labour Europhiles lost the 2015 election.
The Labour IN camp lost the referendum.
Now it's Europhiles are spitting feathers instead of accepting the inevitable Brexit.

Corbyn accepts Brexit (and his brother voted for Brexit). Because of this the PLP is trying to oust him. This infighting is doing great harm to the party.

 

[Tolls]

The Labour IN camp lost the referendum.

For which a large amount of blame rests on Corbyn's feeble campaigning.

 

[Airfix]

That's nuts. If the EU is at breaking point because of illegal immigration caused by humsn trafficking, and you're against that, then you're against immigration.

Look. I am against illegal immigration caused by human trafficking.
People have DIED because of human trafficking and the organised criminal gangs attached to human trafficking.
There was a murder of an illegal immigrant near my home committed by one such gang.

It doesn't mean I am against the Indian doctor or the Afro Carribean nurse, or the shopworker, or the cleaner who is an immigrant.

It means I don't want organised crime exploiting human misery with fatal consequences.

But that is very "disingenuous". The Brexiteers want out of the EU, and want immigration from within the EU to stop.

Wrong again. There was never any call for immigration from within the EU to stop, there was a call for "control" i.e. case by case basis determined by the individual's skills.

But migration from within the EU is legal.

Yes it is, and anyone legally here is legally here, and is welcome to stay.

That doesn't stop Brexiteers xenophobes from abusing Poles and Slovaks, taunting them: go home, we voted to throw you out. So they did indeed. They wanted to turn legal into illegal immigration. That's what this is all about, as I'm sure you know. http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-poland-incidents-idUKKCN0ZD19V

Excuse me, the majority of Brexiteers have not abused Poles or Slovaks.
Legal immigrants are legal immigrants.
They are welcome to stay.

The Leave campaign suggested that future migration should be put to a points system, so that people with the highest skills are prioritised.
They also suggested a quota.

That is not xenophobic and any Brexiteer who does want to close the border can get stuffed. The country did not vote for xenophobia.

 

[Airfix]

For which a large amount of blame rests on Corbyn's feeble campaigning.

No, the blame lies with the EU for being awful.
There was nothing to campaign for.

 

[The Don]

However, if you look at the numbers of those people, the support of members alone is not enough to win an election.
To win, you have to draw in floating voters and get broader support.

True, but if in the process you drive away 2/3 of your existing supporters chasing 50% of the UK population many of whom would never vote for you then it makes no sense.

OTOH being Remain, retaining the 2/3 of your supporters and attempting to recruit from the other 50% of the UK population who are more inclined to vote for you seems to make sense.

 

[3point14]

Why would Euroskeptics vote for a party that wished to remain in the EU?

Is this a serious question? Do you only vote for parties whose manifesto exactly matches your desires?

I think that if that's the case, you'll never vote at all.

 

[Craig B]

Look. I am against illegal immigration caused by human trafficking.
People have DIED because of human trafficking and the organised criminal gangs attached to human trafficking.

The migration is caused by people's desire or need to move from one country to another. Because this is not a straightforward process, criminals have taken advantage of the opportunity to exploit this demand. In the same way, during prohibition of alcohol in the USA, bootleggers took advantage of people's continuing desire to drink. But it was not the criminals who caused people to want to drink, any more than traffickers cause people to want to live in the UK.

It's a different thing from the traffickers who transported slaves in the eighteenth century. Left to themselves, these Africans would not have travelled to the Americas to be unpaid labourers. But left to themselves, traffickers apart, many Syrians and others would desire to enter the EU. So the "I want to suppress immigration because I want to suppress human trafficking" is manifest balderdash.

 

[Tolls]

No, the blame lies with the EU for being awful.
There was nothing to campaign for.

This is not a reply.
Corbyn was supposed to be campaigning to remain in the EU, as that was his party's stance. He failed to pay more than lip service to that.

 

[ceptimus]

True, but if in the process you drive away 2/3 of your existing supporters chasing 50% of the UK population many of whom would never vote for you then it makes no sense.

If Labour were to officially move more towards Euroscepticism, where do you think those 2/3 of existing supporters would be driven to? Do you think they would swap to Green, or a rejuvenated Lib Dem party, or just stop voting?

People don't only decide to vote Labour due to their EU policies, so the calculation of the effect of a changed policy has to take into effect how many new voters might be attracted compared with how many existing voters would be lost.

In any case, personally I am against making policy on the basis of its likely effect on votes. Politicians and political parties should say what they believe and if that loses votes rather than gaining them then so be it.

 

[Airfix]

This is not a reply.
Corbyn was supposed to be campaigning to remain in the EU, as that was his party's stance. He failed to pay more than lip service to that.

He made more appearances than the ex Prime Minister.
Blame David Cameron for his crazy scaremongering which turned people off.

 

[Airfix]

The migration is caused by people's desire or need to move from one country to another.

Not a good enough reason.

Seeking refuge is, having skills to offer and a job to go to is.
But simply wanting to come to Britain or another European country because "the streets are paved with gold", no sorry mate, not good enough, people will die in their hundreds if we allow that (and sadly they have).

What is needed is the development of the developing world, not the abandonment of it.

It really doesn't help when we hit such countries with protectionist tariffs.

Obviously we need to provide refuge for victims of war, but there's no reason why we should not work via the UNHCR with Lebanon, with Jordan and Turkey and come up with a system of asylum processing centres to come up with a global response to the refugee crisis to take the strain off Syria's neighbours and provide safe passage to safe countries and sanctuary until this awful war is over and Syria is rebuilt.

 

[Craig B]

... sorry mate, not good enough ...

I see. What's happened to the traffickers you were banging on about?

 

[Airfix]

Not a good enough reason.

Seeking refuge is, having skills to offer and a job to go to is.
But simply wanting to come to Britain or another European country because "the streets are paved with gold", no sorry mate, not good enough, people will die in their hundreds if we allow that (and sadly they have).

What is needed is the development of the developing world, not the abandonment of it.

It really doesn't help when we hit such countries with protectionist tariffs.

Obviously we need to provide refuge for victims of war, but there's no reason why we should not work via the UNHCR with Lebanon, with Jordan and Turkey and come up with a system of asylum processing centres to come up with a global response to the refugee crisis to take the strain off Syria's neighbours and provide safe passage to safe countries and sanctuary until this awful war is over and Syria is rebuilt.

 

[The Don]

If Labour were to officially move more towards Euroscepticism, where do you think those 2/3 of existing supporters would be driven to? Do you think they would swap to Green, or a rejuvenated Lib Dem party, or just stop voting?

In my case I will continue to vote but would likely swap to the Lib Dems or possibly Plaid. I would not, and could not vote for a Eurosceptic party not just because I happen to disagree with that single policy but because of the knock-on it would likely have for all parts of the economy.

People don't only decide to vote Labour due to their EU policies, so the calculation of the effect of a changed policy has to take into effect how many new voters might be attracted compared with how many existing voters would be lost.

You're correct. It appears however that the majority of Leave supporters hold political views a long way from the current Labour position - and if Corbyn moves Labour to the left even further from the future Labour position. I'd argue that it's easier for Labour to attempt to woo a centre-left Europhile Lib Dem supporter than it is for them to persuade a dyed-in-the-wool Tory Eurosceptic.

In any case, personally I am against making policy on the basis of its likely effect on votes. Politicians and political parties should say what they believe and if that loses votes rather than gaining them then so be it.

IMO there's a trade-off between being true to your beliefs and being electable.

 

[Craig B]

Obviously we need to provide refuge for victims of war, but there's no reason why we should not work via the UNHCR with Lebanon, with Jordan and Turkey and come up with a system of asylum processing centres to come up with a global response to the refugee crisis to take the strain off Syria's neighbours and provide safe passage to safe countries and sanctuary until this awful war is over and Syria is rebuilt.

So we've not in fact to permit refugees to enter, as you earlier suggested. There's to be asylum "processing centres" in some way associated with the UN and with Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. But no mobs trying to get into the EU or UK. They can be sent back to the "processing centres" to be dealt with by the aforementioned Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.

But where have the traffickers got to in all this? You've forgotten about them altogether, and are now advancing very different ways of keeping people out.