Jeremy Corbyn & Tom Watson elected leader and deputy leader of the Labour Party

[Barn]

Just as a pedantic question - are Irish actually classified as "immigrants" and/or counted as such, and what if they are from the North? Surely not from Norn??

It depends. In Office for National Statistics publications, Ireland is treated as one of the "EU15" countries.

In governmental publications, Irish 'immigrants' are often not included in the figures. In the Brexit white paper, for example, the quoted figures for EU immigration all excluded Irish people.

There is no immigration control between the UK and Ireland (see s1(3) Immigration Act 1971) and the law provides that the Irish are not treated as foreigners or aliens for the purpose of any Act (see s2(1) Ireland Act 1949). It is phrased in slightly archaic language, however. This hasn't been a problem whilst the Irish have also had a right of abode under EU law, but it could do with being beefed up after Brexit.

People who move from Northern Ireland to the mainland UK wouldn't be included in any immigration statistics, except for the ONS figures for domestic migration.

 

[southern442]

When the main parties all decided not to put a candidate forward for Batley & Spen it seemed even some normal Labour voters were unhappy as it meant Labour could put forward almost anyone they wanted and they would be guaranteed a seat in parliament.

It's quite strange that the other parties didn't field candidates 'out of respect' in that instance. Obviously the killing of Mrs Cox was horrifying, but think back to the last time an MP was assassinated/murdered, which was Ian Gow of the Conservatives in 1990. Not only did the major parties all field candidates, but the seat was actually taken by the Lib Dems, and the by-election caused by Gow's death was seen as one of many tests of Thatcher's premiership.

 

[pemma]

It depends. In Office for National Statistics publications, Ireland is treated as one of the "EU15" countries.

In governmental publications, Irish 'immigrants' are often not included in the figures. In the Brexit white paper, for example, the quoted figures for EU immigration all excluded Irish people.

There is no immigration control between the UK and Ireland (see s1(3) Immigration Act 1971) and the law provides that the Irish are not treated as foreigners or aliens for the purpose of any Act (see s2(1) Ireland Act 1949). It is phrased in slightly archaic language, however. This hasn't been a problem whilst the Irish have also had a right of abode under EU law, but it could do with being beefed up after Brexit.

People who move from Northern Ireland to the mainland UK wouldn't be included in any immigration statistics, except for the ONS figures for domestic migration.

Those born in NI can get either a UK or Irish passport or both.

When one of my grandparents moved from Ireland to England it was before the Republic of Ireland was formed so I could technically claim I'm 100% British and also claim I'm 25% Irish. However, that isn't really the case with people or descendants of people who have moved across since ROI was formed.

Have many Irish people moved to European countries other than Britain at any time?

 

[pemma]

It's quite strange that the other parties didn't field candidates 'out of respect' in that instance. Obviously the killing of Mrs Cox was horrifying, but think back to the last time an MP was assassinated/murdered, which was Ian Gow of the Conservatives in 1990. Not only did the major parties all field candidates, but the seat was actually taken by the Lib Dems, and the by-election caused by Gow's death was seen as one of many tests of Thatcher's premiership.

Possibly the thinking was the governing Conservative party not doing the right thing to address the issues in Ireland was part of the problem? Also apparently he knew he was a target but refused increased security and his home address was listed in the phone book, which wasn't standard practice for MPs at the time.

 

[Barn]

Those born in NI can get either a UK or Irish passport or both.

When one of my grandparents moved from Ireland to England it was before the Republic of Ireland was formed so I could technically claim I'm 100% British and also claim I'm 25% Irish. However, that isn't really the case with people or descendants of people who have moved across since ROI was formed.

Have many Irish people moved to European countries other than Britain at any time?

If you wanted to you could claim Irish citizenship (so long as your Irish grandparent was born in Ireland) and then you could be 100% British and 100% Irish at the same time.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Possibly the thinking was the governing Conservative party not doing the right thing to address the issues in Ireland was part of the problem? Also apparently he knew he was a target but refused increased security and his home address was listed in the phone book, which wasn't standard practice for MPs at the time.

My own suspicion would be that if the same thing happened today in the same circumstances, the other main parties would now refuse to stand. My feeling is that political culture around this kind of thing has changed over the last 25 years (perhaps in part as a result of there being such a long period of no domestic political assassinations of politicians on mainland GB prior to Jo Cox's death, which thereby makes such events appear even more shocking when they happen), and that would account for other parties standing against Ian Gow but not against Jo Cox.

It's also possible that part of the calculation of the other parties in refusing to stand against Jo Cox was that they'd be defeated massively if they did stand. And obviously, as soon as the first party (I think it was the Conservatives, but not sure?) announced they wouldn't stand, that in itself would have caused significant pressure on the other parties not to stand too. At any rate, the precedent has now been set for opponents not standing in by-elections following the politically motivated murder of a sitting MP. And I think that is a good thing, since it limits the opportunities for this kind of violence to effect political change.

 

[pemma]

If you wanted to you could claim Irish citizenship (so long as your Irish grandparent was born in Ireland) and then you could be 100% British and 100% Irish at the same time.

I looked at the rules for claiming an Irish passport before (out of interest) and there could be a complication in my case. My grandparent would have been classed as an Irish citizen until their death but their death was before my birth so from the wording the Irish government use, it's not 100% clear whether that Irish citizenship could pass down to me but is is clear my father could have got an Irish passport is he wished to get one.

 

[pemma]

My own suspicion would be that if the same thing happened today in the same circumstances, the other main parties would now refuse to stand. My feeling is that political culture around this kind of thing has changed over the last 25 years (perhaps in part as a result of there being such a long period of no domestic political assassinations of politicians on mainland GB prior to Jo Cox's death, which thereby makes such events appear even more shocking when they happen), and that would account for other parties standing against Ian Gow but not against Jo Cox.

One other difference is Jo Cox was a relatively unknown MP on the opposition benches, whereas Ian Gow was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

 

[Barn]

I looked at the rules for claiming an Irish passport before (out of interest) and there could be a complication in my case. My grandparent would have been classed as an Irish citizen until their death but their death was before my birth so from the wording the Irish government use, it's not 100% clear whether that Irish citizenship could pass down to me but is is clear my father could have got an Irish passport is he wished to get one.

The way I read it, you are eligible but your children will not be unless you register prior to their births.

 

[meridian2]

Returning to the original point, as a lifelong Labour voting social conservative, who has seen both main parties dismantle its conservative aspirations, I see no reason to vote at the next election. There is simply no one who represents my once mainstream political opinion, so a spoiled vote is the best I could offer.

 

[miami]

Returning to the original point, as a lifelong Labour voting social conservative, who has seen both main parties dismantle its conservative aspirations, I see no reason to vote at the next election. There is simply no one who represents my once mainstream political opinion, so a spoiled vote is the best I could offer.

Then you should spoil your vote. To not vote lumps you in the "I can't be bothered" or "I don't care" group. A spoiled vote lumps you in with the "Nobody on this ballot paper represents my views" vote.

 

[Barn]

Returning to the original point, as a lifelong Labour voting social conservative, who has seen both main parties dismantle its conservative aspirations, I see no reason to vote at the next election.

For a while it looked like UKIP would start to target working class social conservatives. But UKIP often come across as boorish, crass and rude (as if they are trying to mimic Katie Hopkins) which is a complete misreading of what social conservatism is all about. That and their shambolic organisation will kill UKIP as a party. Perhaps it already has.

Labour has completely abandoned any social conservatism it previously had. It is now the party of the fashionable cause du jour, the party of the Guardian-reading academic, the party of the wealthy City worker who votes Labour to tell themselves they're a good person rather than giving to charity, the party of the virtue-signalling student protestor. It is almost ashamed of its working class roots.

 

[meridian2]

For a while it looked like UKIP would start to target working class social conservatives. But UKIP often come across as boorish, crass and rude (as if they are trying to mimic Katie Hopkins) which is a complete misreading of what social conservatism is all about. That and their shambolic organisation will kill UKIP as a party. Perhaps it already has.

Labour has completely abandoned any social conservatism it previously had. It is now the party of the fashionable cause du jour, the party of the Guardian-reading academic, the party of the wealthy City worker who votes Labour to tell themselves they're a good person rather than giving to charity, the party of the virtue-signalling student protestor. It is almost ashamed of its working class roots.

Can't argue with any of that. Whatever UKIP is, social conservatism is not it. Labour is obsessed by political correctness that it mistakenly believes is a suitable replacement for good manners, and has become a middle class branding exercise. The Tories are a bunch of Old Etonian quasi-lefties pinching Labour's dinner, having replaced the hands-in-the-till crooks of Major's party. It's not an edifying prospect, the one bright point of which is the possibility of an independent UK - if anyone can be bothered to reimagine it.

 

[miami]

Could someone explain what 'social conservatism' means, specifically what policies that they would like a party into social conservatism to promote?

 

[me123]

Can't argue with any of that. Whatever UKIP is, social conservatism is not it. Labour is obsessed by political correctness that it mistakenly believes is a suitable replacement for good manners, and has become a middle class branding exercise. The Tories are a bunch of Old Etonian quasi-lefties pinching Labour's dinner, having replaced the hands-in-the-till crooks of Major's party. It's not an edifying prospect, the one bright point of which is the possibility of an independent UK - if anyone can be bothered to reimagine it.

hock:

If you think that the current Conservative Government are "quasi-lefties" (who have acted to decrease the tax burden of the wealthy, are restricting benefit payments to the most vulnerable, are taking steps to dismantle the NHS...), then I'm a bit concerned about what your vision of conservatism is. Care to enlighten us?

 

[meridian2]

hock:

If you think that the current Conservative Government are "quasi-lefties" (who have acted to decrease the tax burden of the wealthy, are restricting benefit payments to the most vulnerable, are taking steps to dismantle the NHS...), then I'm a bit concerned about what your vision of conservatism is. Care to enlighten us?

The current Tory party are socially liberal free marketeers. There is very little conservative, or indeed Conservative about them. The difference between Boris Johnson and any of Blair's front bench is the school he went to. Ditto Cameron.

 

[Barn]

Could someone explain what 'social conservatism' means, specifically what policies that they would like a party into social conservatism to promote?

I'm not a social conservative (I tend to believe in individual liberty so long as it doesn't hurt people) but it refers to 'traditional' viewpoints on non-fiscal matters, such as:

- role of religion vs secularism in discourse
- role of marriage and family values
- multiculturalism vs integration
- gay marriage / adoption
- gender roles / feminism / transgenderism
- abortion / euthanasia
- drug control
- role of the state in parenting and educational decisions
- legality of pornography etc

The point is that the real politics of real people isn't a simple left-right axis.

The old Conservative party of Thatcher / Major was socially and ecnomically conservative.

New Labour and the current Conservative party are socially much more liberal.

You used to get socially conservative, economically socialist politics (like parts of old Labour / blue Labour). This doesn't really exist any more and to some extent has left a gap in the market.

 

[meridian2]

hock:

If you think that the current Conservative Government are "quasi-lefties" (who have acted to decrease the tax burden of the wealthy, are restricting benefit payments to the most vulnerable, are taking steps to dismantle the NHS...), then I'm a bit concerned about what your vision of conservatism is. Care to enlighten us?

This discussion shows the fault lines between social conservatism and social liberalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTu3gVvm_K8

 

[me123]

Yes, I do understand the difference, I'm trying to understand exactly where you sit (as everyone's political viewpoint is ever so slightly different).

 

[meridian2]

Yes, I do understand the difference, I'm trying to understand exactly where you sit (as everyone's political viewpoint is ever so slightly different).

Barn's list was pretty much on the money. The problem is in a politically correct world a belief that gay marriage is a bad thing for marriage, is the equivalent of saying homosexuals are bad people, when it is nothing of the sort. Similarly any talk of God brings the Labour and Conservative parties out in hives, because they think it's a vote loser, not through any instinct on the issue either way. The whole thing is so hypocritical, a Muslim politician could maintain their belief in a deity and both parties would have no problem putting them on the front bench, whereas Blair had to wait until he was out of office to "come out".

Fear of losing votes, or more especially fear of losing votes in marginal constituencies, rules the entire political agenda. I'm not the biggest Corbyn fan, but I recognise the antipathy towards him is based on the fact he can't win an election, not that Labour members don't share his political beliefs. We live in a time of political expediency, not political conviction.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The point is that the real politics of real people isn't a simple left-right axis.

The old Conservative party of Thatcher / Major was socially and ecnomically conservative.

New Labour and the current Conservative party are socially much more liberal.

The political compass idea- with an economic left-right axis and a social liberal-authoritarian axis- is a much better way of describing things.

Cameron's Conservative Party were economically right-wing, but socially more towards the liberal end. They sell off and privatise anything that isn't nailed down, they pull social welfare funding, but they (rightly, I should add) legalise marriage for gay people.

Blair's Labour Party were economically pretty centrist- they were much to the left of Cameron- but socially about the same as Cameron's government.

Thatcher's Conservative Party was economically about the same as Cameron's government, but socially significantly more authoritarian.

The problem is in a politically correct world a belief that gay marriage is a bad thing for marriage, is the equivalent of saying homosexuals are bad people, when it is nothing of the sort.

I hate to break it to you, but it is saying that. It is making a value judgment about what the "right" sort of relationship between two consenting adults should be. There is no logical or rational basis for believing that a relationship between two consenting adult gay people is of less value and less worthy of marriage than a relationship between two consenting adult heterosexual people. It is purely a subjective opinion.

It's also a moronic opinion. I agree with gay marriage. My best friend, my best person at my wedding, is a married lesbian. But I'm a man married to a woman. And no amount of legalising gay marriage is going to make me divorce my wife and marry a man instead. If someone thinks it will then, respectfully, I can't help but wonder what feelings they are trying to bury.

Marriage is a legal cementing of a relationship between two loving, consenting adult humans. There's absolutely no reason why this can't or shouldn't extend to gay people who meet that criteria.

 

[miami]

I'm not a social conservative (I tend to believe in individual liberty so long as it doesn't hurt people) but it refers to 'traditional' viewpoints on non-fiscal matters, such as:

- role of religion vs secularism in discourse
- role of marriage and family values
- multiculturalism vs integration
- gay marriage / adoption
- gender roles / feminism / transgenderism
- abortion / euthanasia
- drug control
- role of the state in parenting and educational decisions
- legality of pornography etc

The point is that the real politics of real people isn't a simple left-right axis.

The old Conservative party of Thatcher / Major was socially and ecnomically conservative.

New Labour and the current Conservative party are socially much more liberal.

You used to get socially conservative, economically socialist politics (like parts of old Labour / blue Labour). This doesn't really exist any more and to some extent has left a gap in the market.

Very confusing for me to understand why anyone would hold abhorent viewpoints in these areas. I guess that's the same across the country, hence nobody apart from the usual UKIP nutters (gay marriage causes floods) holds those views.

Certainly I can see a few areas of debate -- euthanasia for example -- it's fine in theory, but in practice you have to be sure that there's no pressure. Of course given that fiscally conservative governments encourage euthanasia, and even get away with systematic manslaughter of old (poor) people by reducing health and social care funding. I believe most of the parties are in favour of drug control - at least the use of drugs in public. With the exception of UKIP they all back the smoking ban for example.

 

[miami]

Don't underestimate the effect of the selectee themselves. It is very easy for local people to take umbrage at someone 'parachuted' into a safe seat.

It was probably a big factor in UKIP's failure in Stoke.

I suspect that UKIP will be completely gone by 2020. With no PR based European Elections to keep them on, and them about to fire their only MP.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39114851

UKIP donor Arron Banks has suggested he could stand against the party's only MP Douglas Carswell at the next election.
The two have been at loggerheads over UKIP's future direction and strategy.
Mr Banks has called for the Clacton MP and a "Tory cabal" to be expelled - with ex-leader Nigel Farage also saying it was time for Mr Carswell "to go".
Mr Carswell, who defected from the Tories to UKIP in 2014 and won the Essex seat at the 2015 election, said Mr Banks's plans were "news to him".
The BBC understands party leader Paul Nuttall has asked his chairman Paul Oakden to meet Mr Carswell on Tuesday to "discuss the situation" amid growing questions about his future in the party.
Mr Carswell and Mr Banks have been engaged in a long-running feud. The latest development comes amid claims that Mr Carswell resisted attempts by senior UKIP figures to secure a knighthood for former leader Nigel Farage.
The Daily Telegraph reported that in an email the MP suggested Mr Farage should settle instead for an OBE for "services to headline writers".

....

Mr Farage has claimed the party's only MP has been "totally disconnected" from UKIP since February 2015 and it was time for him to sever his links entirely.

"From the date of the result of the general election, he has actively been working against UKIP," Mr Farage wrote about Mr Carswell in the Daily Telegraph.
"I think there is little future for UKIP with him staying inside this party. The time for him to go is now," he added.

....
Current UKIP chairman, Paul Oakden, said after the Stoke result that it might be years before his party can pick up another seat via a by-election.
Mr Banks criticised Mr Nuttall's tactics in the Stoke campaign, saying he wrongly adopted a "red UKIP" strategy, copying Labour policies on the NHS.

 

[Barn]

Marriage is a legal cementing of a relationship between two loving, consenting adult humans. There's absolutely no reason why this can't or shouldn't extend to gay people who meet that criteria.

Completely agree with you. Although I've just said that I'm not a social conservative, I do strongly believe in the institution of marriage as the basis for a solid family relationship.

Far from being weakened by allowing gay people access to it, it is strengthened. It can now become the default relationship for committed couples. It is not conservative to force loving people away from marriage.

This point was made far more eloquently than I can manage by a friend of mine who wrote an influential paper for the Conservative think tank Policy Exchange on the topic: https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/whats-in-a-name-is-there-a-case-for-equal-marriage/

 

[Tetchytyke]

I suspect that UKIP will be completely gone by 2020.

UKIP yes.

But I'm sure Arron Banks will find another totalitarian party to spew forth his filth.

 

[pemma]

I suspect that UKIP will be completely gone by 2020. With no PR based European Elections to keep them on, and them about to fire their only MP.

I suspect they'll end up being like the BNP or Liberal Party (the ones who broke away when the Lib Dems were formed), they'll still exist but apart from getting a candidate on ballot papers for a few local council elections we'll never hear of them.

 

[Busaholic]

Possibly the thinking was the governing Conservative party not doing the right thing to address the issues in Ireland was part of the problem? Also apparently he knew he was a target but refused increased security and his home address was listed in the phone book, which wasn't standard practice for MPs at the time.

Two MPs whose addresses and telephone numbers remained in the telephone directory after Gow's death were Dr David Owen of SDP fame in London's Docklands and John Nott, Defence Secretary at the time of the Falklands War, now infamous as the 'Here Today, Gone Tomorrow' minister who stormed out of his TV interview with Robin Day. Actually, Nott was still in the Cornwall telephone directory with 'MP' after his name when not only had he been superseded as St Ives MP by another Tory by the name of Harris, but he in turn had been defeated by Andrew George of the Lib Dems - Nott was not a favourite of mine, despite being an occasional customer of my bookshop, but I did admire him for having the balls to still list his number.

 

[DarloRich]

Great, just what we need - religion. That has never caused massive division within society or created any problems whatsoever.

 

[meridian2]

Frankly I am not interested in Christianity - a belief people are welcome to, but not something to be imposed on wider society.

Whether or not you are "interested" in Christianity is irrelevant. Britain has been a Christian country for more than a thousand years and any debate on the role of marriage has to accommodate that fact.

 

[meridian2]

Great, just what we need - religion. That has never caused massive division within society or created any problems whatsoever.

Oh it's caused plenty, ditto communism, fascism, liberalism, etc. If you want a body count, check out the kill rate of institutionally atheist regimes in the C20th.