O/T - general election 2019

[WanChaiMiller]

Wrong.

The motion referred to everyone, the whole world.

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.

[great_fire]

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.

What do you think "maintain and extend movement rights" means?

Which is what was passed at conference.

And "maintain and expand free movement" as shown here?

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

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.

[WanChaiMiller]

What do you think "maintain and extend movement rights" means?

Which is what was passed at conference.

And "maintain and expand free movement" as shown here?

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.

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

We can agree on that gfire. Good summing up...

@ 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.

[KerrAvon]

Its a double pronged problem. Firstly that previous elections where a party has proposed that we all pay a penny more to fund services has tended not to be elected. Plus, as you say, even this penny or two wouldn't really cut it in solving the problem.

So what to do? We can ask the public if they're willing to fund it and take their answer on electing the party that doesn't offer to do this as a reason to do nothing and keep services underfunded.

Our we could ask if people democratically favour a progressive tax system where people that can afford it pay more than the present amount and enough to make a significant difference in creating the kind of towns we'd really like to live in. If we accept this as a democratic decision to actually do something different, instead of always getting more of the same, then the question is just how many do we collectively feel aye in scope? 80k 100k?etc. And how much?

I completely accept that this means that it is the majority are asking the minority to pay for improvement. Its not ideal and I wish that the majority could be pursuaded to elect a party where they also chose to pay a little more themselves. Most of us would be happy to do so but then wimp out somehow in the polling booth as you've said. But not sure we should abandon increased progressive taxation just because of this, simply as I don't see any other way of raising money, and that's for the tories spending plans as well as labour's.

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’.

[KerrAvon]

Not really Kerr. I can tolerate anyone who is centre/ left of centre on here.And as Pup said a lot of the Green party's policies are arguably more left than Labours. Blummin heck I even find myself agreeing with you at times partuicularly on issues of race but then you let yourself down by not challenging some of the views of people like gfire. You challenge my political views but not his for some reason and yet you don't appear to agree with him.You are a contrary Mary if I may say so!

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.

[KerrAvon]

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.

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?

[ragingpup]

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’.

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?

[WanChaiMiller]

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 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.