You read the wrong papers. Propaganda eh. How did Priti Patal get the figure of 850,000 extra immigrants under Labour when details of the motion has not been finalised or confirmed as policy.
You bet your life that after the right wing press does their work it will be fact by the morning.
It's still not in the manifesto gf. There's a ' Clause V ' meeting on Saturday about what's going into the Manifesto as regards immigration.
If Len McCluskey gets his way it will be watered down.
Wouldn't mind being a ' fly on the wall ' when Abbott and McCluskey start chit-chat across the table..
Time to trash it / agree with it is when it's in the Manifesto, same goes for Tories Immigration policy.
Last edited by CASPER-64-FRANK; 15-11-2019 at 12:09 AM.
The article I copief is a report of conference written up on the Labour party website. Why not read it.
This relates to continuing free movement to the UK from EU countries after we leave the EU. You can say it relates to the rest of the world all you like but you are wrong.
@ roly, a question for you.
Three consecutive victories for Blair / Brown......who voted for them three times ?
They can't all have been neoliberal / Blairites that voted them in three times. Left-Wingers like Jeremy were in that Government as well even if he did vote against at times.
Last edited by CASPER-64-FRANK; 15-11-2019 at 06:25 AM.
We already have a progressive taxation system with the higher paid paying significantly more not the system (whilst almost certainly taking far less out). What you are proposing (and presumably selling on the doorstep) is that the public be asked' do you think that somebody other than you should pay more to fund the public services that you want to be better funded?' I can see why you like that question.
The problem with your question is that it is based upon a flawed and dishonest proposition, which is that there are enough wealthy people around to be able to tax to a sufficient degree to make a difference. There aren't. As I said, the clue is in the Labour catchphrase 'For the many not the few’.
I think that the major parties should start telling the truth, Raging. And if one won't do it the other should. I think that preferable to wringing our hands and saying ‘the electorate don’t like the truth so let’s sell then lies instead’.
Not sure which post this is aimed at, Roly.
I can tolerate people from across the political spectrum with the exception of the extremes, Roly. It is sad to read that you are so intolerant.
I tend to ignore gf because he is an irrelevance - background noise if you will - and I only tend to respond when he says something particularly stupid.
I agree that we need to wait for the Labour manifesto (I'll have a small wager that it will be very vague on immigration), but the conference motion tells you where the mood of the party is.
I don't agree that the motion referred only to the EU. How could you extend EU free movement? And why the reference to immigration detention centres, which are only used for higher risk illegal immigrants as opposed to EU citizens?
I'd personally prefer it if everyone over 20k would be in the picture for a progressive rise upwards to the suggested plans. But whenever that comes up, the media have historically used it to help persuade people to vote against it (even though the majority say they are willing to give it). I know you'll disagree and say that it isn't anything to do with the media, that people are making up their own minds but we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. So we have to find other ways.
Of course even these plans wouldn't be sufficient for what is needed. It's a quite modest rise in income tax that is being suggested and still well in line with local competitors. The rest will be up in the manifesto and it will be interesting to see how both parties plan to pay for their plans.
When you say that one party should start telling the truth, what would that look like? What would you suggest is a workable way forward, that is likely to succeed at the poll booth, that will be more successful in raising more money?
I cant speak for what delegates intend. However, we can make assumptions based on what we read. I posted up the report of the debate from the Labour Party website - that should hold more weight tham how its reported in Tory and anti Corbyn / Labour press.
The article opens with this (and its quite key to understsnding the context of the debate) - "On its final day, Labour conference has approved a radical policy motion advocating the extension of free movement, the closure of all detention centres and the awarding of equal voting rights to all UK residents."
It was a debate about the 2017 manifesto pledge that stated: “Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union.” In April, Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesperson confirmed that Labour policy was that freedom of movement would end with Brexit."
The vote was to change this policy - "But Labour conference delegates this morning voted against that policy, and in favour of both maintaining and extending freedom of movement as part of a range of immigration policy pledges proposed by Camberwell and Peckham CLP."
The reference to 'extend free movement' was beyond Brexit and refers to the EU - rather than to extend it to the rest of the world.
However, I do agree, the debate was more wide ranging as stated in the opening statement - nothing is hidden.
In part, it covered the right of immigrants to vote - "In the UK, full voting rights are currently limited to citizens of the UK, Ireland and Commonwealth countries. EU citizens living in the UK can vote in local and European elections, but not general elections.
The motion seeks to instruct the next Labour government to change the situation, such that non-EU and non-Commonwealth citizens are awarded the right to vote in all elections."
And the reference to immigration centres as follows - "The immigration motion approved supports the dismantling of the ‘hostile environment’ through a number of measures, from specific legislative moves to broader party campaign objectives."
"the closure of all detention centres" references the current method to hold asylum seekers and illegal immigrants (yoj described them as higher risk illegals).
Im not arguing for or against any of this. Just how sections taken out of context can be thought to mean something totally different. Propaganda eh.