Oh Jeremy Corbyn (2 Viewers)

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

why? What have you heard? Or more tellingly, where have you heard it?

Just look at his comments. He feels that the immigration policy is too strict and that targets should be abolished. That says to me only one thing.

 

---

[chiefdave]

As good a thread as any to drop this in.

 

[clint van damme]

Just look at his comments. He feels that the immigration policy is too strict and that targets should be abolished. That says to me only one thing.

read the last manifesto and tell me what you disagree with?

 

[Ian1779]

Guys, if we are going to have a decent debate at least try to be honest.

He doesn't want to scarp immigration quotas because he thinks the Tories are missing them, he wants to scrap them because he doesn't want it to be controlled at all. I'd love to be able to believe otherwise, but it's not the case.

People that are skeptical of voting for him due to thinking he wants to have an open door policy will hardly feel more relaxed when he comes out with stuff like this. There is nothing I have heard which makes me feel better about it I'm afraid. I wish there was, but there isn't.

You're gonna have to quantify this one.. because I'd love to know where you've got the idea he wants uncontrolled immigration.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

read the last manifesto and tell me what you disagree with?

All he said was that he wanted a fair policy, he didn't commit to getting the numbers down anywhere.

By saying the current model is too strict, it only points one way surely?

 

[Ian1779]

Just look at his comments. He feels that the immigration policy is too strict and that targets should be abolished. That says to me only one thing.

Again - what are we talking about? Is the idea of it being too strict based on the fact that the Home Office wanted 4 pieces of documentation a year since 1973 (or something like that?!) for the Windrush generation. Or something different?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

You're gonna have to quantify this one.. because I'd love to know where you've got the idea he wants uncontrolled immigration.

Where do you get the idea that he wants anything other?

He has never specified anything and his latest comments suggest any kind of target should be done away with.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Again - what are we talking about? Is the idea of it being too strict based on the fact that the Home Office wanted 4 pieces of documentation a year since 1973 (or something like that?!) for the Windrush generation. Or something different?

Prove to me Corbyn wants to be more strict on immigration than the Tories.

I'm not here to have an argument. I have concernes and nothing I have read have alleviated those.

 

[chiefdave]

For reference this is Labours immigration policy.

Labour offers fair rules and reasonable management of migration. In trade negotiations our priorities favour growth, j obs and prosperity. We make no apologies for putting these aims before bogus immigration targets.

Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union. Britain’s immigration system will change, but Labour will not scapegoat migrants nor blame them for economic failures.

Labour will develop and implement fair immigration rules. We will not discriminate between people of different races or creeds. We will end indefinite detentions and distinguish between migrant labour and family attachment and will continue to support the work of the Forced Marriage Unit. We will replace income thresholds with a prohibition on recourse to public funds. New rules will be equally informed by negotiations with the EU and other partners, including the Commonwealth.

Whatever our trade arrangements, we will need new migration management systems, transparent and fair to everybody. Working with businesses, trade unions, devolved governments and others to identifyspecific labour and skill shortages.

Working together we will institute a new system which is based on our economic needs, balancing controls and existing entitlements. This may include employer sponsorship, work permits, visa regulations or a tailored mix of all these which works for the many, not the few.

Labour will protect those already working here, whatever their ethnicity. Our National Education Service will raise the level of skills and training. We will take decisive actions to end the exploitation of migrant labour undercutting workers’ pay and conditions.

Labour will crack down on unscrupulous employers. We will stop overseas-only recruitment practices, strengthen safety-at-work inspections and increase prosecutions of employers evading the minimum wage.

Working with trade unions, we will end workplace exploitation.

Labour values the economic and social contributions of immigrants. Both public and private sector employers depend on immigrants. We will not denigrate those workers. We value their contributions, including their tax contributions.

For areas where immigration has placed a strain on public services we will reinstate the Migrant Impact Fund and boost it with a contributory element from the investments required for High Net Worth Individual Visas. Labour will restore the rights of migrant domestic workers, and end this form of modern slavery.

Labour will ease the underlying pressures in any areas struggling to cope with seven years of austerity by our programme of investments. We will not cut public services and pretend the cuts are a consequence of immigration.

Refugees are not migrants. They have been forced from their homes, by war, famine or other disasters. Unlike the Tories, we will uphold the proud British tradition of honouring the spirit of international law and our moral obligations by taking our fair share of refugees. The current arrangements for housing and dispersing refugees are not fit for purpose. They are not fair to refugees or to our communities. We will review these arrangements.

Labour welcomes international students who benefit and strengthen our education sector, generating more than £25 billion for the British economy and significantly boosting regional jobs and local businesses. They are not permanent residents and we will not include them in immigration numbers, but we will crack down on fake colleges.

 

[fernandopartridge]

All he said was that he wanted a fair policy, he didn't commit to getting the numbers down anywhere.

By saying the current model is too strict, it only points one way surely?

You're not thick. You know commitments to an arbitrary reduction in numbers miss the point completely, the Tories did that and we've ended up with Windrush. Corbyn actually said that Free movement will end after Brexit. How you can stick a number on that I don't know.

“I’m not going to put any figures on it,” he added. “Theresa May has done that for, this is now the third general election she has promised figures none of which she’s come anywhere near achieving.”

 

[clint van damme]

All he said was that he wanted a fair policy, he didn't commit to getting the numbers down anywhere.

By saying the current model is too strict, it only points one way surely?

not really, they've already said freedom of movement will end post Brexit, (not something I particularly agree with), I don't think the tories have committed to that so I don't think it does point one way.
Admittedly that stance on FOM could cause huge riffs in the party as it could among the tories.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Prove to me Corbyn wants to be more strict on immigration than the Tories.

I'm not here to have an argument. I have concernes and nothing I have read have alleviated those.

Tories are strict on immigration only in the sense of setting up silly targets to hoodwink idiots in believing they care about it, whilst at the same time cutting the Border Agency to the bone. They're shysters. None of their promises are ever compatible with their austerity objective.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

For reference this is Labours immigration policy.

Good. That's more like what I was looking for.

I don't agree with all of it, but it is much more of a detailed understanding than Corbyn ripping into immigration targets without explaining why. People can get the wrong impression especially given the fact that in previous years Labour were pretty loose with who they let in.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

You're not thick. You know commitments to an arbitrary reduction in numbers miss the point completely, the Tories did that and we've ended up with Windrush. Corbyn actually said that Free movement will end after Brexit. How you can stick a number on that I don't know.

Because people are concerned for many reasons. Firstly that our infrastructure won't cope, and also because they would like to know who lives next door to them. There should be some sort of numbering or publicly disclosed documentation on this.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Good. That's more like what I was looking for.

I don't agree with all of it, but it is much more of a detailed understanding than Corbyn ripping into immigration targets without explaining why. People can get the wrong impression especially given the fact that in previous years Labour were pretty loose with who they let in.

The worse thing Labour did was remove the primary purpose rule. It not only lessens the government's control of immigration, but has made far far worse the isolation and insularity of Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, taking them backwards really.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

not really, they've already said freedom of movement will end post Brexit, (not something I particularly agree with), I don't think the tories have committed to that so I don't think it does point one way.
Admittedly that stance on FOM could cause huge riffs in the party as it could among the tories.

Fair enough.

I've also said before I don't actually have so much of an issue with immigration from the EU (unless bad people are exploiting FOM which they do). I'm also not saying the Tories have got it right (they haven't). I just think Labour need to be a bit more firm in what they are trying to do. Not putting numbers on it smacks of blaise to me.

 

[clint van damme]

Because people are concerned for many reasons. Firstly that our infrastructure won't cope, and also because they would like to know who lives next door to them. There should be some sort of numbering or publicly disclosed documentation on this.

numbering!! Fucking hell mate, are you serious?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Tories are strict on immigration only in the sense of setting up silly targets to hoodwink idiots in believing they care about it, whilst at the same time cutting the Border Agency to the bone. They're shysters. None of their promises are ever compatible with their austerity objective.

I don't disagree with you on that. If Labour are going to put peoples minds at rest and win them over, saying they won't have targets is not going to do that I feel.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

numbering!! Fucking hell mate, are you serious?

Yes, why would we not keep a record of the figures?

We should know the numbers coming into the country shouldn't we? Or just let a million in, but don't keep a record and tell the public it was 10?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Fair enough.

I've also said before I don't actually have so much of an issue with immigration from the EU (unless bad people are exploiting FOM which they do). I'm also not saying the Tories have got it right (they haven't). I just think Labour need to be a bit more firm in what they are trying to do. Not putting numbers on it smacks of blaise to me.

What do you mean firm? The number is just a whitewash, it's a PR headline for Cameron. Behind it is nothing, apart from the pernicious Windrush debacle. The Tories couldn't even be arsed to use EU rules on managing FOM. They don't care, they just like to pretend they do to get votes. Most Tories will not even experience any of the sorts of immigration you and I do.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

The worse thing Labour did was remove the primary purpose rule. It not only lessens the government's control of immigration, but has made far far worse the isolation and insularity of Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, taking them backwards really.

Maybe so, but there are a lot more reasons to isolation than just that.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

What do you mean firm? The number is just a whitewash, it's a PR headline for Cameron. Behind it is nothing, apart from the pernicious Windrush debacle. The Tories couldn't even be arsed to use EU rules on managing FOM. They don't care, they just like to pretend they do to get votes. Most Tories will not even experience any of the sorts of immigration you and I do.

Right. A lot of UK citizens have concerns about immigration (generally not found on this thread). By being lapse on immigration, Labour will not win many Tory voters back.

Again, I'm seeing very little to suggest numbers will be controlled.

 

[Ian1779]

There does also have to be a clear distinction between someone who is an immigrant and those who are refugees. We should not be accepting less refugees as a result of trying to control immigration.

 

[clint van damme]

Yes, why would we not keep a record of the figures?

We should know the numbers coming into the country shouldn't we? Or just let a million in, but don't keep a record and tell the public it was 10?

well I'd imagine there are records, I thought you meant something else.
Illegal immigration isn't going to be recorded though is it and you're not going to control that while simultaneously stripping customs and border control to the bone.

 

[skybluetony176]

All he said was that he wanted a fair policy, he didn't commit to getting the numbers down anywhere.

By saying the current model is too strict, it only points one way surely?

Just because someone has told you a number that you want to hear what makes you think that they’re committed to reaching it?

 

[Grendel]

For reference this is Labours immigration policy.

What did the manifesto say about the customs union?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Just because someone has told you a number that you want to hear what makes you think that they’re committed to reaching it?

I don't think that they're commited to reaching it.

I just feel like Labour not commiting to anything is also concerning and ambiguous.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

well I'd imagine there are records, I thought you meant something else.
Illegal immigration isn't going to be recorded though is it and you're not going to control that while simultaneously stripping customs and border control to the bone.

Jesus Clint, you have low expectatons of me!

You hurt my feelings now.

 

[skybluetony176]

I don't think that they're commited to reaching it.

I just feel like Labour not commiting to anything is also concerning and ambiguous.

But they could change nothing in the immigration department and do the same figures and the only difference would be that they haven’t given you a number you want to hear that they won’t achieve.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

But they could change nothing in the immigration department and do the same figures and the only difference would be that they haven’t given you a number you want to hear that they won’t achieve.

It's coming away from the point.

Everyone knows the Tory policy is not good enough. Labour could have a chance to win a lot of voters on this subject but instead they do the bare minimum to put people's minds at rest. Instead of trying to achieve decent targets people would like, they take the targets away.

Neither option is good enough for me I'm afraid.

 

[Ian1779]

It's coming away from the point.

Everyone knows the Tory policy is not good enough. Labour could have a chance to win a lot of voters on this subject but instead they do the bare minimum to put people's minds at rest. Instead of trying to achieve decent targets people would like, they take the targets away.

Neither option is good enough for me I'm afraid.

The problem has many aspects that need addressing - a meaningless target that no one has ever met might be a good soundbite, but there is nothing behind it.

For example, what is the true figure of illegal immigration? Does anyone at the home office or government have any clue about this. How many have arrived in the last 1/5/10/20 years. Some of those have now established themselves here and have children. How do you even begin to address that?

 

[skybluetony176]

It's coming away from the point.

Everyone knows the Tory policy is not good enough. Labour could have a chance to win a lot of voters on this subject but instead they do the bare minimum to put people's minds at rest. Instead of trying to achieve decent targets people would like, they take the targets away.

Neither option is good enough for me I'm afraid.

The bare minimum would to be change nothing in how it’s currently policed. But not lie to you about how they’re going to do something different by doing the same thing.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

The problem has many aspects that need addressing - a meaningless target that no one has ever met might be a good soundbite, but there is nothing behind it.

For example, what is the true figure of illegal immigration? Does anyone at the home office or government have any clue about this. How many have arrived in the last 1/5/10/20 years. Some of those have now established themselves here and have children. How do you even begin to address that?

The bare minimum would to be change nothing in how it’s currently policed. But not lie to you about how they’re going to do something different by doing the same thing.

Maybe so, but it is not enough for me I'm afraid.

It looks like a convenient excuse not to monitor immigration to me. Whilst I'm hearing some good things, there is nothing solid enough on this from Labour. I don't agree with what the Tories are doing either for the record...

 

[Captain Dart]

More demolition of politicians lies my the excellent Martin Lewis.

 

[clint van damme]

More demolition of politicians lies my the excellent Martin Lewis.

yet you don't pass comment on the absolute whopper our new home secretary came out with Wednesday, aren't you bothered that Windrush has exposed the current and previous Home Secretary's as liars?