This story is unavailable.

My comment here was rather abrupt.

I think it is very misplaced to say that calling for tighter immigration = demonisation of immigrants and refugees.

Labour have to be careful with their rhetoric in this area, but we must also listen to the views of the electorate as well. But as i’ve said before in another post — ‘Just look that how the Labour Party now talks about immigration. Simply repeating that freedom of movement is “generally good thing” and “migration is a plus to our economy”, is patronising and paternalistic towards socially conservative voters. We can’t just tell working class people what is good for them and expect their vote.’ — I know i’m wrong asserting that working class voters = socially conservative voters, but you get my point here.

There needs to be a compromise and a more nuanced approach in this debate from both sides and it’s something Labour must come to terms with quick. Labour calling for tighter controls on immigration does not lead to people forming racist opinions. Neither does saying all ‘immigration is good for you/us’, make socially conservative on mass think ‘oh, yes, actually I was wrong’.

Liberal metropolitan Labour members/voters feel uncomfortable around this debate. So they say that ‘pandering’ = more racism. This overly simplistic narrative is used to caccoon themselves from genuinely engaging here. I understand it is a tough one though and I admit I don’t have all the answers.

To stick with someone like Corbyn — who is obviously and clearly unelectable, unable to lead his Parliamentary Party, and will take us to an electoral nadir — because “I agree with Jeremy”, and he is someone you can really get behind... Now to me, that is ‘abandoning one section of society, the sick and unemployed’ — as use this commenter’s words.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.