Ha...

There you go.

Slowly but surely. The left in the UK is starting to gradually admit it. Slowly.

In, say, April 2016 the 'party line' was that immigration had absolutely no effect on wages whatsoever and there were no downsides and absolutely everyone benefitted from it so no-one could object to immigration without being a racist.

Now, as you can see, people on the left have reached a bargaining stage where the pendulum is starting to shift. The line is now "OK so immigration does negatively impact some people but their hardship is worth it for the greater good."

Its a start. Long way to go but it's a start.

You seem to be someone who just has zero grip on how politics works.

Labour stuck to its principles in 1983 and got hammered.

And again in 1987

And again in 1992

It was only after it "sold out its principles", as you put it -- or rather adopted policies that people would actually vote for en masse, as I'd put it -- that it won in 1997

And again in 2001

And again in 2005

I mean, look at that even AFTER Iraq, he STILL won. Still. Absolutely incredible.

Then Gorden Brown started shuffling back to old Labour policies and ... immediately lost in 2010.

Ed Milliband shifted further left and ... immediately lost in 2015.

Now Jeremy Corbyn has gone right back to 1983-style Labour policies and ... well **** me he's back to 1983 popularity numbers.

Well, hey, at least he didn't sell out his principles.

I mean, god, what PLANET do you live on?

fyp.

Brown's comment about the woman being bigoted just because she raised immigration as an issue was so bog-standard labour back then.

Except no one has ever denied that. Fake narrative.

Much much much much much much much much more negative for discourse in this country than Labour or lefties denying any negative impact of immigration, are cohorts in areas with negligible immigration, that are in no way concretely impacted negatively by immigration making political decisions based almost purely on immigration.

You seem the most reasonable and least fanatical on this, and I think you might be able to give an honest answer.

Would you not prefer a balanced rational debate on immigration?

Lets say for arguments sake we agree that Labour or the left has to move to a position of accepting more negative impact from immigration, in the same breath the right has to move to a position of admitting that lots of people who think they are negatively impacted by immigration are not as is absolutely undeniably backed up by the objective data and that they are exploiting this for political ends.

The right is in total and utter denial about the polarisation they too are apart of in the immigration debate and the negative impacts thereby.

I am not labour, I have no affiliation with that party and when Gordon Brown gave his resignation speech I was fist pumping as I hated that guy.

"No more boom and bust" Through the biggest credit expansion in history. That tilted me sooooo much.

What I want is rational, reasoned and enlightened government and the national debate to be framed thereby. I vote accordingly in light of that and most of the time that means holding your nose and voting for the least worst option.

To be frank, I find the blatant fist pumping by Lord and co about the irrationality and hysteria around the immigration debate deeply ignorant. Literally demanding that the debate collapse completely and concede to this irrationality is strange voo doo.

Surely we all aspire to more than that?

The one where I lived through those events, look at data dispassionately and do not endlessly superimpose my own political bias on events. And consistently bet my own money on things and win, rather than sound off on the internet.

For those of us who actually remember Labour from 1983-1995, no, they certainly did not stick to their principles and were widely accused of selling out at the time.

Your grovelling admiration of Blair makes absolutely no sense in this context since he had the most pro-immigration policy of any PM in history. He had precisely the reverse policies you are now recommending.

Your assessment of Brown and Milliband ignores the fact that during their elections the middle-class Blairite vote held up strongly. They lost because the working classes did not turn out to vote.

As for Corbyn, as usual you seem to convince tabloid speculation and your own political bias for an actual assessment of events. He is not polling significantly worse than Milliband and Brown did in those actual elections. The polling methodology changed after Milliband's defeat. It was the polls themselves that changed.

You are also ignorant of the fact that with any alternative candidate Labour polls the same or worse. Especially Blairites.

You also seem to be aware that across the globe extreme parties are polling significantly more votes and taking them away from mainstream parties. You seem oblivious to what happened in the US when the Democrats tried to foist a centrist candidate on the electorate.

The woman who said "Where are all these eastern europeans coming from?". That's an ignorant racist. You actually defending that woman? Someone so f***ing stupid they don't know eastern europeans don't come from eastern europe? Brown should never have apologized to her.

Even when you get caught on tape saying something that stupid, you racist scum start whining about being called ignorant racists. That's the dictionary definition of ignorant racist you are defending, you ignorant racist.

Tell me: is there anything at all you people would not consider racist? "You just start talking about burning Jews AND PEOPLE CALL YOU RACIST", dribble dribble.

The EU isn't the only source of new labour - there are plenty of skilled IT workers from India who have migrated to the UK in the last few years, so I'm afraid you're fighting a losing battle against immigration.

I'm at least as against the downwards pressure on wages as you are, but cutting out immigration to a country with an increasingly ageing population is no solution - it's a matter of needs must.

You and others like you might not want to have to integrate with Johnny Foreigner, but you're avoiding the awkward point that your ancestors themselves were once Johnny Foreigner.

No normal person has ever claimed that immigration doesn't present some difficulties for the host nation (along with the obvious benefits outlined earlier), but this has always been the case in the UK.

I see rightist parties polling very well, I do not see socialists doing well. I look forward to the time when Labour loses so badly that you will be forced to eat this post.

I also listened to something of interest today: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01...nds-hurricane/

This is looking at the situation in Holland where Geert Wilders is running on the exact platform I am saying Labour should be running on, which is:

LEFT on health, welfare, jobs, etc.

RIGHT on immigration and especially on issues around national identity and values.

I'd strongly recommend listening to the discussion around feelings in the Netherlands and why they have come about.

If people walk around a neighbourhood and see more posters for the Turkish elections than their own elections, that's a problem.

If people feel their national identity is threatened by people who pointblank don't respect it -- in Holland this issue has manifested on gay rights, which is seen as being under threat from increasing Muslim populations.

This underlines all the things I've been saying about social cohesion.

It also underlines all the things I've been saying about the direction Labour HAVE to go in if they want to stay electorally relevant.

LOL calm down Trumpy. Taking a turn of phrase as proof of ignorance, nice touch.

Why did Brown apologise then?

Because he's a politician and she may have been merely stupid and ignorant rather than bigoted.

You don't see many socialist parties at all because they mostly bought into the Blairite vision you seem to love so much and got creamed.

When actual socialists stand they do pretty well. Syriza won in Greece. Bernie Sanders would have won the presidency in a country where the word "socialist" is a term of abuse but for the corruption of the Democrats themselves.

As for your b******* about national identity, please, let's not pretend this was about anything other than tawdry tabloid xenophobia.

GBV, in my interactions with you, you've come across as being inflexible and a partisan. An ideological zealot. Is that a fair assessment? Can you give me THREE issues you'd accept compromise on? Just THREE.

Also, note my post re: Holland.

Oh that's brilliant. "Kill all the Jews". Just a turn of phrase. Not proof of anti-semitism.

Huge leap from "Where are all these eastern europeans coming from?" to "Kill all the Jews", just saying. Like where did THAT leap come from?

No. You don't compromise your own beliefs. That's what integrity is.

The dutch far right can go f*** itself.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I hope so, for your sake.

So you are, indeed, a partisan and a zealot, by your own admission?

So the only reason you'd want to talk to anyone is:

A. to convert them
B. to agree with a comrade
C. to berate them

You are part of the problem, not the solution.

You are being deliberately stupid there. Pretending there was an equivalence being drawn between the two things when clearly, an extreme example was used to illustrate a principle.

Typical far rightist, misappropriating a phrase previously used to denounce your group.

Eldridge Cleaver will be turning in his grave.

You literally just said that there isn't a single issue you are willing to compromise on.

You do not understand politics.

If I was a "zealot" as you put it I wouldn't be able to gamble profitably on elections, certainly not be able to bet mostly on politicians I disagree with.

What triggers me about you is nothing to do with your ideology. My friends are mostly conservative or right-wing. What annoys me about you is your incessant willingness to treat mainstream media comment as absolute fact and not even do cursory research. It is so pathetic, your entire personality is like a collection of telegraph articles. You've clearly never come to an independent opinion about anything.

The examples are so far apart that any point being made collapses under the inadquacy of the analogy.

So far off the mark it's unreal.

Here is my typical pull list: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=817

And my opinions are fiercely independent. I draw my own conclusions. I follow no party lines.

I've had arguments with right-y types on this forum about ID laws and abortion and many other things.

You only see me as being a Telegraph reader because you polarise the world in your own mind. I don't read the Telegraph, I consume the media mentioned in the list. I read and write books. And I work in a university surrounded by many leftists.

You are wrong in your assessment of me. I, however, am correct in my assessment of you. When I asked you to name three issues on which you'd compromise, you replied with invective.

e-books and janitorial duties?

Please link to these books you've written lol.

IOW cite or retract.