Labour people, its time to dump Corbyn

wotsthat

mrginge wrote: »

An interesting contribution, although slightly presumptive and stereotypical.

Can you offer any insight into how the ability to move countries for work can benefit poor British people who...

a. Can't afford to
B. Can't speak the language
C. Receive more in low pay/benefits here than they would elsewhere

This is after all the crux of labours problem isn't it ?

Apart from the fact that Labour are providing the most ineffectual opposition since the Tories of the first Blair government I couldn't give a fig about their problems.

If someone can't or won't move countries then the ability to do so isn't of benefit to them - hardly a stretch to work out.

I'm not going to pretend to be overly concerned for them either. Instead I'd suggest that people most in favour of freedom of movement are the least likely to be (a) skint (b) monolingual and (c) weighing up the cost of working abroad against being on benefits in the UK.

Maybe the bigger issue for your poor disenfranchised souls isn't the fact that their sandwich making jobs are being stolen by immigrants but they lack aspiration and are being motivationally castrated by the generosity of the state.

Can't particularly see why it's a problem for labour to be honest - the disenfranchised and demotivated are non-voters and will remain so.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Apart from the fact that Labour are providing the most ineffectual opposition since the Tories of the first Blair government I couldn't give a fig about their problems.

If someone can't or won't move countries then the ability to do so isn't of benefit to them - hardly a stretch to work out.

I'm not going to pretend to be overly concerned for them either. Instead I'd suggest that people most in favour of freedom of movement are the least likely to be (a) skint (b) monolingual and (c) weighing up the cost of working abroad against being on benefits in the UK.

Maybe the bigger issue for your poor disenfranchised souls isn't the fact that their sandwich making jobs are being stolen by immigrants but they lack aspiration and are being motivationally castrated by the generosity of the state.

Can't particularly see why it's a problem for labour to be honest - the disenfranchised and demotivated are non-voters and will remain so.

have you become a tory voter? or were you always a tory voter?

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

have you become a tory voter? or were you always a tory voter?

Become.

I voted Tory last time because I wanted to save the country from having Ed Miliband as PM and Ed Balls as Chancellor. You're very welcome - no need to thank me.

I don't think the transformation is fully complete because I'm yet to be convinced Theresa May can turn water into wine.

mrginge

wotsthat wrote: »

Maybe the bigger issue for your poor disenfranchised souls isn't the fact that their sandwich making jobs are being stolen by immigrants but they lack aspiration and are being motivationally castrated by the generosity of the state.

Maybe it is. However, once again your desire to simply disagree means you have drifted off topic. The question asked was regarding the benefits of free movement for poor people. it's clear from the rest of your critique that you believe there is no benefit.

I'm sure Paddington will be along shortly to tell you how wrong you are on that.

Can't particularly see why it's a problem for labour to be honest - the disenfranchised and demotivated are non-voters and will remain so.

Interesting to see that your concern for society is limited to those that vote. I look forward to your presentation on 'why schools are a waste of time'.

wotsthat

mrginge wrote: »

Maybe it is. However, once again your desire to simply disagree means you have drifted off topic. The question asked was regarding the benefits of free movement for poor people. it's clear from the rest of your critique that you believe there is no benefit.

You may as well be arguing that exercise doesn't benefit those who don't do any exercise. And?

Horses and water spring to mind.

mrginge wrote: »

Interesting to see that your concern for society is limited to those that vote. I look forward to your presentation on 'why schools are a waste of time'.

I doubt your views on the disenfranchised poor are much different than mine but if you feel the need to sit on the moral high ground go for it.

Anyway we were talking about Labour's problems. If Labour are seeing a decline in support then it's because of a drop off in support from people who do vote. The problem certainly isn't that a section of society who have never voted still don't.

TickersPlaysPop

Those jokers.... Corbyn and Trump will never win elections...

If not the man.... the policy will win... enough people have woken up as I predicted years ago... a western spring... the youth and previously disaffected and apathetic will rise up and start voting again... it is a game changer and makes poll predictions useless.

mrginge

wotsthat wrote: »

You may as well be arguing that exercise doesn't benefit those who don't do any exercise. And?

Horses and water spring to mind.

I'm not arguing anything.
I asked a question as to what the benefit of free movement was to poor British people. The answer that came back was something to do with China having a lot of people.

If you wish to continue attempting to provoke me then go for it. It would seem pointless though as I am sitting proudly on the moral high ground.

Anyway we were talking about Labour's problems. If Labour are seeing a decline in support then it's because of a drop off in support from people who do vote. The problem certainly isn't that a section of society who have never voted still don't.

One could argue that labour do not have a decline in support. Only a decline in those who are more targetted by polls. That would seem logical given that pollsters will by definition avoid asking new/non-voters and these are the groups being specifically targetted by labour.

Thrugelmir

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't think the transformation is fully complete because I'm yet to be convinced Theresa May can turn water into wine.

Sometimes all that's required is a steady hand. No grand scheme plans such as Brown had. Which ultimately have fallen apart like a house built of cards.

westernpromise

mrginge wrote: »

One could argue that labour do not have a decline in support. Only a decline in those who are more targetted by polls. That would seem logical given that pollsters will by definition avoid asking new/non-voters and these are the groups being specifically targetted by labour.

Nah.

Non-voters break exactly the same way as voters so there is no constituency of hidden Labour support there. If Labour's polling 28% generally then 28% is where they stand with non-voters.

Non-voters are not the unique or alienated demographic Khorbiyn supposes. Mostly they're just people who live in safe seats in which there is no point voting because it's in the bag for someone.

TrickyTree83

westernpromise wrote: »

Nah.

Non-voters break exactly the same way as voters so there is no constituency of hidden Labour support there. If Labour's polling 28% generally then 28% is where they stand with non-voters.

Non-voters are not the unique or alienated demographic Khorbiyn supposes. Mostly they're just people who live in safe seats in which there is no point voting because it's in the bag for someone.

I'm astonished they're persisting with him.

I can only guess they're hoping brexit will be awful and blamed on the Conservatives and a mass protest vote will get him and his band of merry communists into power.