UK Labour Leadership election

ancapailldorcha

gallag wrote: »

Ah, but I mentioned religious practices, I asked would you walk through Alum Rock late at night with your miniskirt wearing wife and your skull cap on, you agree that would be to dangerous and the reason for that danger is religious practices. No?

You seem a tad obsessed with this. I would not walk through any disreputable area at night and that has nothing to do with religious practices. You seem a bit obsessed with this for some reason.

gallag

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You seem a tad obsessed with this. I would not walk through any disreputable area at night and that has nothing to do with religious practices. You seem a bit obsessed with this for some reason.

You are basically admitting to no go areas.

A Dub in Glasgo

Can someone remind why this is relevant to the UK Labour Party election?

ancapailldorcha

gallag wrote: »

You are basically admitting to no go areas.

No, I states that most cities have areas where the crime rate is higher due mainly to economic deprivation. This is nothing to do with this nonsense you've continually spouted about no-go areas and religious practices.

djpbarry

gallag wrote: »

I feel I answered you here

"As for London, it's subjective isn't it, you say there is no areas that non muslims are not safe yet a cursory Google/YouTube search on the topic certainly shows areas that I, as I am sure you would also feel unsafe never mind if you were a scantily clad female or a jew in a skull cap, but I suppose you are correct that there is no map from an official source highlighting dangerous areas for white British people which I suppose would be the only evidence you would be willing to accept, though I would imagine your hypocrisy would be tested if challenged to walk through Alum Rock late at night with your miniskirt wearing wife and your skull cap on."

You didn’t answer anything. You said there are areas in London that are especially dangerous for women and Jews – name one.

Harry Palmr

Corbyn with a major OG after suggesting the return of "ladies only" rail carriages as a way to circumvent harassment by men.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/26/jeremy-corbyn-backlash-women-only-train-carriages-cooper-kendall

Corbyn’s aides brushed aside the concerns, stressing that he was only raising it as an option for consultation and at least he was generating a debate about sexual harassment.

In the document Corbyn stresses that he would prefer not to introduce women-only carriages. “Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women-only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform to the bus stop to the mode of transport itself,” he says.

“However, I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome – and also if piloting this at times and on modes of transport where harassment is reported most frequently would be of interest.”

It wouldn't matter even if this were a good idea, the mere mention of segregation in the 21st century is clumsy campaigning to say the least.

djpbarry

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Corbyn with a major OG after suggesting the return of "ladies only" rail carriages as a way to circumvent harassment by men.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/26/jeremy-corbyn-backlash-women-only-train-carriages-cooper-kendall

I genuinely cringed when I read about this this morning.

Sam Russell

I hope he does not write it in stone!

ancapailldorcha

He's just considering it as an idea from the looks of things. Hopefully, that's as far as it goes.

BoJack Horseman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He's just considering it as an idea from the looks of things. Hopefully, that's as far as it goes.

Everything is an idea until he wins a GE.

ancapailldorcha

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Everything is an idea until he wins a GE.

This doesn't guarantee that he'll adopt it.

djpbarry

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He's just considering it as an idea from the looks of things.

But as said above, it's very clumsy from a PR perspective. He's supposedly trying to dispel the myth that he wants to take Labour back to the good old days (or bad old days, depending on your perspective) and then he comes out with something like this? The fact that he's even considering it is ludicrous.

ancapailldorcha

djpbarry wrote: »

But as said above, it's very clumsy from a PR perspective. He's supposedly trying to dispel the myth that he wants to take Labour back to the good old days (or bad old days, depending on your perspective) and then he comes out with something like this? The fact that he's even considering it is ludicrous.

What's this got to do with the good/bad old days?

BoJack Horseman

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This doesn't guarantee that he'll adopt it.

No, your right.
I was being a bit pedantic.

But you know what I mean.
Every policy starts with an idea.
Every idea is flown as a kite in a media to see what bites

Dannyboy83

Harry Palmr wrote: »

It wouldn't matter even if this were a good idea, the mere mention of segregation in the 21st century is clumsy campaigning to say the least.

Labour have already implemented segregated party rallies....

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/05/labour-stays-silent-over-gender-segregation-at-party-rally/
Labour stays silent over gender segregation at party rally

Corbyn with a major OG after suggesting the return of "ladies only" rail carriages as a way to circumvent harassment by men.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/26/jeremy-corbyn-backlash-women-only-train-carriages-cooper-kendall

Is it an OG I wonder?

There is a growing body of people who are in favour of gender segregation:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/08/17/official-muhammad-most-popular-name-for-baby-boys-in-london/
Top 10 boys’ names in London 2014:
1. Muhammad

The most popular name given to newborn baby boys in London in 2014 was Muhammad, according to the Office of National Statistics, after first taking the position in 2012.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151324574843231
Last year at the UCL, the forces of religion and secularism clashed on campus after a debate hosted by the university's Islamic Society between Muslim lecturer Hamza Andreas Tzortzis and noted atheist Lawrence Krauss after it was claimed the organisers had segregated the audience by gender in the same way that is practised in mosques. Krauss threatened to walk out and the event was condemned by fellow atheist Richard Dawkins as "gender apartheid".

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151324574843231

BoJack Horseman

Indeed, I don't think its the worst idea to come from Corby's mouth.

I think it would be more popular than people assume.

Dubai's metro system for example has segregated carriages 24/7.
Corbyn's idea was just for late night trains I think.

Harry Palmr

I'd sooner there were religious segregation than gender segregation!

ancapailldorcha

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, your right.
I was being a bit pedantic.

But you know what I mean.
Every policy starts with an idea.
Every idea is flown as a kite in a media to see what bites

I'd be pro-Corbyn and I consider it to be quite disheartening to be honest.

djpbarry

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What's this got to do with the good/bad old days?

Gender segregation is a step backwards, don't you think?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Dubai's metro system for example has segregated carriages 24/7.

Dubai is hardly a society that the UK should be attempting to emulate.

Manach

djpbarry wrote: »

Dubai is hardly a society that the UK should be attempting to emulate.

Well, gone are the days when many cultures attempted to emulate the UK in social ideas and graces. Then again I might be overdosing on the rather scathing social commentary about UK life from the latest Theodore Dalrymple book.

ancapailldorcha

djpbarry wrote: »

Gender segregation is a step backwards, don't you think?.

Of course but that doesn't answer my question.

djpbarry wrote: »

Dubai is hardly a society that the UK should be attempting to emulate.

Agreed. Japan has this as well though I can't comment on whether or not they are 24/7. It was about 6am when I saw a female-only carriage.

RDM_83 again

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Immigration is only a major concern for the same reason that unemployment benefits are also a major concern; disproportionate coverage in the media.

Thats the sort of statement Labour would make, "Its not important and your concerns are misplaced, next question please", its arguably factually correct, and only arguably different studies say different things depending on what they are measuring(including that migration does negatively effect the bottom 5%).

Anyway its redundant, is the narrative going to change?are peoples concerns going to change?
Former, No unless Labour nationalize the media, Latter, No this was the previous strategy and it hurt them.

This is a good article/paper here about what Labour need to do to succeed and it backs up what I've been saying with proper polling data.
Particular interest is the polling of BAME and Left to Far-Left voters, it shows the lie in the view of this being just a concern of the White and the Right.

https://gqrr.app.box.com/s/ro3k2ep7ao1px0hq8dnpkty9y16kfxdr

Labour is perceived to be in fundamentally the wrong position on this issue. By 63 to 20 voters think Labour should be ‘tougher on immigration’ not more positive about its benefits. Sixty-four per cent of voters are very or quite concerned that Labour is too soft on immigration, rising to 73 per cent among over 55s.9 This is not unimportant. Only the NHS ranks as a more important priority for government among voters.

Tackling this issue starts with the party genuinely empathising with legitimate concerns. This is a challenge to the economic right of the party that has a tendency to see people concerned about immigration as Luddites; and a challenge to the liberal left who see them as morally degenerate. These condescending attitudes are part of what defines the Labour party for many of the voters Labour lost to its right – to UKIP and the Tories.
The upside of this unfortunate perception is that simply acknowledging the legitimacy of concern could be transformative for the party brand – provided it is done authentically, consistently and is not buried or caveated into incomprehensibility.

----

Labour’s idea of a good immigration system cannot be the same as UKIP’s. It cannot be, not just for moral and practical reasons but also electoral reasons. Labour cannot credibly be an anti-immigrant party. In fact, there may well be scope for a message that acknowledges the obvious: you cannot control numbers within the EU. There may be points for honesty there, provided it sits alongside a plan to disincentivise problematic immigration, to boost integration and to tackle problems when they do arise.
Equally, and for similar reasons, numbers cannot be the measuring stick to be judged by. Voters know that the EU involves free movement of workers and will not believe over-claims

The counter-argument to all this is that Britain is becoming more ethnically diverse, more metropolitan and less authoritarian in values. Labour would be swimming upstream if it were to try to become less liberal as the country heads the other way.

---

The idea that a more mainstream position on immigration would alienate voters also ignores the facts on what BAME voters, young voters and other more liberal groups in fact think on the issue. Even if you focus on the 12 per cent of the population who self-define as ‘left’ or ‘far left’, by 47 to 30 they say immigrant numbers need to be reduced. Among BAME voters, the margin for reduced numbers is 58 to 15.11 Younger voters (18-34) say Labour should be tougher on immigration not more positive by 25 points. The margin for older voters – the fastest growing group of likely voters – is 53 points.
Similarly, Scots are not particularly liberal on immigration and welfare; it’s just that the
English are even less so. In Scotland, by 57 to 27 voters think Labour should be tougher on immigration not more positive; the English equivalent is 63 to 19.

ancapailldorcha

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Thats the sort of statement Labour would make, "Its not important and your concerns are misplaced, next question please", its arguably factually correct, and only arguably different studies say different things depending on what they are measuring(including that migration does negatively effect the bottom 5%).

Anyway its redundant, is the narrative going to change?are peoples concerns going to change?
Former, No unless Labour nationalize the media, Latter, No this was the previous strategy and it hurt them.

This is a good article/paper here about what Labour need to do to succeed and it backs up what I've been saying with proper polling data.
Particular interest is the polling of BAME and Left to Far-Left voters, it shows the lie in the view of this being just a concern of the White and the Right.

https://gqrr.app.box.com/s/ro3k2ep7ao1px0hq8dnpkty9y16kfxdr

When did Labour mention nationalising the media? I don't remember that at all.

RDM_83 again

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

When did Labour mention nationalising the media? I don't remember that at all.

It was rhetorical in relation to the "disproportionate coverage in the media", Labour can't control what the media run with.

A Dub in Glasgo

I see Mr. Morris is a stand up comedian

A Dub in Glasgo

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Labour can't control what the media run with.

The media control what they run with.. now who controls the media?

RDM_83 again

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I see Mr. Morris is a stand up comedian

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The media control what they run with.. now who controls the media?

Murdoch

Just generally confused, just read the article its fairly sensible and has some interesting polling data. Some people would actually like it if the Conservatives weren't in power forever

A Dub in Glasgo

RDM_83 again

Anyway so anybody got a view on how Corbyn in particular and Labour in general are going to handle the problem that they hold the opposite view to most people in Britain (even if broken down into different demographics) on an issue that people place a high priority on.
Or will it be ignored or brushed away and Labours ability to win seats will continue its slow decline as its supporters either swing narrow minded nationalist right (UKIP) or to the ultra idealistic head in the clouds liberal left (greens), the former being more important because its reducing previously safe Labour seats to ones with a slim majority

ancapailldorcha

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Anyway so anybody got a view on how Corbyn in particular and Labour in general are going to handle the problem that they hold the opposite view to most people in Britain (even if broken down into different demographics) on an issue that people place a high priority on.
Or will it be ignored or brushed away and Labours ability to win seats will continue its slow decline as its supporters either swing narrow minded nationalist right (UKIP) or to the ultra idealistic head in the clouds liberal left (greens), the former being more important because its reducing previously safe Labour seats to ones with a slim majority

This will be reflected in the result of the election I would think. While they didn't win the last election, Labour didn't do too badly either. Immigration only seems to be a priority in deprived areas such as parts of the North of England.