Jeremy Corbyn

[TheDiablo]

Corbin is a supporter of Palestine. That is not news nor particularly unusual on the left. He wants a fair and peaceful resolution to ease the plight of the Palestinians. He is not a holocaust denier, nor does he wish to see Israel exterminated.

The Jewish Chronicle's view of what constitutes 'anti-semitic' may be different from that of an objective outsider. They have already advised their readers not to vote for him. Nothing he can say or do will change that now.

All the rest is rhetoric. He need not, and should not, address all those accusations in detail.

Perhaps not all of them. And I agree with what you say re the JC - my point is that this will become a real problem for him at some point when the mainstream right wing go after him (which wont be until after he is elected, and not until they need to).

IMO he certainly should address point 1 and 2. Not directly to the JC obviously, as this would set a precedent for him and open a can of worms. But there's a HUGE difference between being a Palestine sympathiser and actively supporting (both financially and attendance) a group ran by 'Holocaust Revisioner' Paul Eiser. Let's take a look through his beliefs, which are exactly what Corbyn needs to disassociate himself from asap

· I question that there ever was an official plan on the part of Hitler or any other part of the National Socialist regime systematically and physically to eliminate every Jew in Europe.
· I question that there ever existed homicidal gas-chambers.
· I question the figure of six million Jewish victims of the Nazi assault and I believe that the actual figure was significantly less.

Edit - font colour on cut/paste of quotes.

 

[SocketRocket]

If you can't see that data taken from a special interest group with an agenda is biased, then there really is no point in trying to discuss it any further with you. You are beyond reason.

They are using data from various sources including the ONS. Of course they are a special interest group, one that has concerns for the levels of immigration and it's potential effects on the Nation, their views echo very large numbers of people and as such cannot be fobbed off as swivel eyed loons. If that goes against your left wing viewpoint than so be it.

 

[Ethan]

They are using data from various sources including the ONS. Of course they are a special interest group, one that has concerns for the levels of immigration and it's potential effects on the Nation, their views echo very large numbers of people and as such cannot be fobbed off as swivel eyed loons. If that goes against your left wing viewpoint than so be it.

Well that is not true, in either part. Their views represent the views of a small but rabidly obsessed minority.

They have also taken ONS data and applied some of their own assumptions and extrapolations to it.

And they can most certainly be fobbed off as swivel eyed loons regardless of the number they claim, or actually, represent.

My viewpoint is that of someone who review data on all sorts of subjects and considers the province of the data when doing so, as any sensible person would.

 

[SocketRocket]

Well that is not true, in either part. Their views represent the views of a small but rabidly obsessed minority.

They have also taken ONS data and applied some of their own assumptions and extrapolations to it.

And they can most certainly be fobbed off as swivel eyed loons regardless of the number they claim, or actually, represent.

My viewpoint is that of someone who review data on all sorts of subjects and considers the province of the data when doing so, as any sensible person would.

Are you suggesting there are not large numbers of the UK population with concerns over immigration?

 

[Ethan]

Perhaps not all of them. And I agree with what you say re the JC - my point is that this will become a real problem for him at some point when the mainstream right wing go after him (which wont be until after he is elected, and not until they need to).

IMO he certainly should address point 1 and 2. Not directly to the JC obviously, as this would set a precedent for him and open a can of worms. But there's a HUGE difference between being a Palestine sympathiser and actively supporting (both financially and attendance) a group ran by 'Holocaust Revisioner' Paul Eiser. Let's take a look through his beliefs, which are exactly what Corbyn needs to disassociate himself from asap

· I question that there ever was an official plan on the part of Hitler or any other part of the National Socialist regime systematically and physically to eliminate every Jew in Europe.
· I question that there ever existed homicidal gas-chambers.
· I question the figure of six million Jewish victims of the Nazi assault and I believe that the actual figure was significantly less.

Edit - font colour on cut/paste of quotes.

But who said Corbyn agrees with all the loony views of this guy Eiser? I doubt it.

Most of this is coming from The Jewish Chronicle and The Daily Mail. What an alliance. The paper which supported Hitler and the Brownshirts is now a champion of anti-semitism? I rather doubt it.

Just another smear campaign.

 

[Ethan]

Are you suggesting there are not large numbers of the UK population with concerns over immigration?

How many is 'large numbers'?

 

[Foxholer]

They are using data from various sources including the ONS. Of course they are a special interest group, one that has concerns for the levels of immigration and it's potential effects on the Nation, their views echo very large numbers of people and as such cannot be fobbed off as swivel eyed loons. If that goes against your left wing viewpoint than so be it.

They obviously didn't use much, if any, of the data from one of the articles you quoted earlier

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

which states in its Summary....

<Quote>
We investigate the fiscal impact of immigration on the UK economy, with a focus on the period since
1995. Our findings indicate that, when considering the resident immigrant population in each year
from 1995 to 2011, immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) have made a positive fiscal
contribution, even during periods when the UK was running budget deficits, while Non-EEA
immigrants, not dissimilar to natives, have made a negative contribution. For immigrants that arrived
since 2000, contributions have been positive throughout, and particularly so for immigrants from
EEA countries. Notable is the strong positive contribution made by immigrants from countries that
joined the EU in 2004.
<End Quote>

I give rather more credence to this article/paper, as it's published by The Royal Economic Society in their The Economic Journal, so more than likely subject to peer review, either before or afterwards!

Migration Watch is merely, imo, one of the many 'pressure groups' that are an essential freedom allowed in a democracy!

 

[Ethan]

They obviously didn't use much, if any, of the data from one of the articles you quoted earlier

http://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

which states in its Summary....

<Quote>
We investigate the fiscal impact of immigration on the UK economy, with a focus on the period since
1995. Our findings indicate that, when considering the resident immigrant population in each year
from 1995 to 2011, immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) have made a positive fiscal
contribution, even during periods when the UK was running budget deficits, while Non-EEA
immigrants, not dissimilar to natives, have made a negative contribution. For immigrants that arrived
since 2000, contributions have been positive throughout, and particularly so for immigrants from
EEA countries. Notable is the strong positive contribution made by immigrants from countries that
joined the EU in 2004.
<End Quote>

I give rather more credence to this article/paper, as it's published by The Royal Economic Society in their The Economic Journal, so more than likely subject to peer review, either before or afterwards!

Migration Watch is merely, imo, one of the many 'pressure groups' that are an essential freedom allowed in a democracy!

I defend Migration Watch's freedom to exist and publish their propaganda, just as I defend my right to criticise it.

Peer reviewed journals are a generally more reliable source of data and interpretation than pressure groups which have already determined their view and only seek information to support it.

 

[Foxholer]

I defend Migration Watch's freedom to exist and publish their propaganda, just as I defend my right to criticise it.

Peer reviewed journals are a generally more reliable source of data and interpretation than pressure groups which have already determined their view and only seek information to support it.

Absolutely agree with this! Those freedoms are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights - in Articles 11 and 10 respectively!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

They are using data from various sources including the ONS. Of course they are a special interest group, one that has concerns for the levels of immigration and it's potential effects on the Nation, their views echo very large numbers of people and as such cannot be fobbed off as swivel eyed loons. If that goes against your left wing viewpoint than so be it.

So they are bias then - they are anti immigration then

So have you any facts from "official" sources - maybe from customs or border control etc

Some real hard facts as opposed to "scenarios" ?

 

[SocketRocket]

So they are bias then - they are anti immigration then

So have you any facts from "official" sources - maybe from customs or border control etc

Some real hard facts as opposed to "scenarios" ?

If having a certain opinion is biased then I guess we are all biased. Of course they are anti-immigration, what did you expect them to be.

Facts about what from Customs and Border Control? I don't understand what you are talking about!

 

[SocketRocket]

How many is 'large numbers'?

Three quarters of the UK population is a large number in my opinion.

Here is some data on the subject created by a group from Oxford University.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....migration-overall-attitudes-and-level-concern

 

[Ethan]

Three quarters of the UK population is a large number in my opinion.

Here is some data on the subject created by a group from Oxford University.

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....migration-overall-attitudes-and-level-concern

You said that large numbers were concerned about immigration.

That survey shows that 3/4 think immigration should be reduced.

Those two ideas are not necessarily the same. If asked to say what you think should be done about immigration, people may offer the view 'reduce it' without it necessarily being an important concern for them.

Also, if you look at the link you sent, scroll down to the graph of how many think it has 'gone too far', and you will see that percentage has been recurring more or less steadily since 1964.

So shouldn't the headline be "British people less concerned about immigration now than any time in last 50 years!".

Surveys are funny, a lot depends on the precise phraseology and tone of questions.

Further material in that survey shows that immigration is being rated as a more important issue even as the percentage thinking it should recuse gets smaller. Counter-intuitive, no?

I suspect a lot has to do with the way these issues are put in the public's mind. If they are constantly told by politicians and the media that immigration is a big deal, they will begin to think it is.

 

[SocketRocket]

You said that large numbers were concerned about immigration.

That survey shows that 3/4 think immigration should be reduced.

Those two ideas are not necessarily the same. If asked to say what you think should be done about immigration, people may offer the view 'reduce it' without it necessarily being an important concern for them.

Also, if you look at the link you sent, scroll down to the graph of how many think it has 'gone too far', and you will see that percentage has been recurring more or less steadily since 1964.

So shouldn't the headline be "British people less concerned about immigration now than any time in last 50 years!".

Surveys are funny, a lot depends on the precise phraseology and tone of questions.

Further material in that survey shows that immigration is being rated as a more important issue even as the percentage thinking it should recuse gets smaller. Counter-intuitive, no?

I suspect a lot has to do with the way these issues are put in the public's mind. If they are constantly told by politicians and the media that immigration is a big deal, they will begin to think it is.

I think your suggestion that people thinking immigration should be reduced does not mean they have concerns about it is rather tentative.

You will notice that 56% wanted it reduced a lot.

 

[c1973]

Immigration won't really be an issue for Corbyn though, will it?

The guy is blatantly unelectable in the UK and has very little chance of being PM and forming a Government (thankfully).

 

[SocketRocket]

Immigration won't really be an issue for Corbyn though, will it?

The guy is blatantly unelectable in the UK and has very little chance of being PM and forming a Government (thankfully).

His chances IMO are similar to Dennis Skinner.

 

[c1973]

His chances IMO are similar to Dennis Skinner.

Frank Skinner has more chance!

 

[Ethan]

I think your suggestion that people thinking immigration should be reduced does not mean they have concerns about it is rather tentative.

You will notice that 56% wanted it reduced a lot.

Well, if you actually look at the data, you will see that over time, the percentage who think it has gone too far has reduced as the number who think it is an important issue (which are two different questions) has increased. It is a fact, not a matter of opinion. You will notice that that 56% was around 70% in 2007 and 90% in the 1970s.

We may speculate on the explanation for the opposite direction of travel of these questions, and I have suggested it is at least partly due to the media and electoral narrative. Your explanation is what exactly?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Immigration won't really be an issue for Corbyn though, will it?

The guy is blatantly unelectable in the UK and has very little chance of being PM and forming a Government (thankfully).

Not so sure, the guy certainly has momentum with him. He has a nice quiet common touch, which makes a change from being lectured to by folk who have never done a days work outside of politics.
I think he also has the youth behind him. The same youth who have switched off politics for over a decade now.
There is definitely change afoot in British politics, the Tories only got in as the slightly less worse option.

 

[Hobbit]

Immigration won't really be an issue for Corbyn though, will it?

The guy is blatantly unelectable in the UK and has very little chance of being PM and forming a Government (thankfully).

That was said, by Labour, about Margaret Thatcher.