Keir Starmer at it again..

[Templeton Peck]

If a sizeable chunk of the population is suspicious or negative about immigration (and the associated elements), how are patronising semantics and 'we know best' lectures going to engage anyone??

Rightly or wrongly, immigration is a massive issue and area of concern for many working class voters in areas Labour will be fighting Reform

Educating them might be a start.

 

[Templeton Peck]

What's he said on benefits that you'd prefer he said in a more positive way?

The whole framing of benefits is negative.

 

[prawnking]

15 years (plus) of letting the immigration issue be framed by right wing Tories and Reform/Ukip etc is why we are where we are now. Because politicians havent challenged the narrative, they've let it slide.

So now we see hotels burned down and innocent people attacked because of how strongly that side of society feel about immigration/race etc.

NOT engaging about these issues are a huge problem.

I'm not sure it's just an issue of 'framing' and 'narratives' now.

How do you think 'that side of society' feel reading the Casey report which details how countless young girls who were victims of gang exploitation were let down due to authorities looking the other way for years because of concerns of appearing racist or upsetting other communities?

How would YOU 'engage with the issues'? Tell them they're wrong and racists? It's a bit more complicated than that now

 

[prawnking]

The whole framing of benefits is negative.

So you don't have specific examples of this language that needs to be more positive then?

And are you happy for the welfare bill to keep doubling?

 

[prawnking]

Educating them might be a start.

Yep, people love being lectured by lefties, known fact.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

I'm not sure it's just an issue of 'framing' and 'narratives' now.

Because it's been left to fester and propagate, just letting that continue is what you suggest?

To not make arguments regarding how much we benefit from Immigration both culturally and economically is damaging to society.

It resulted in Brexit which has hugely negatively affected society.

 

[Templeton Peck]

Yep, people love being lectured by lefties, known fact.

Not a left/right issue is it? Humanising immigrants?

 

[Templeton Peck]

So you don't have specific examples of this language that needs to be more positive then?

And are you happy for the welfare bill to keep doubling?

Govts could talk about how it's actually a good thing that we don't let people die in a ditch when things go bad for them.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

It's really interesting that you think it's "lecturing" to argue against those right wing statements that have damaged this country so much.

 

[Templeton Peck]

It's really interesting that you think it's "lecturing" to argue against those right wing statements that have damaged this country so much.

Right wing lecturing is OK.

 

[prawnking]

Because it's been left to fester and propagate, just letting that continue is what you suggest?

To not make arguments regarding how much we benefit from Immigration both culturally and economically is damaging to society.

I'm talking about, as a first step, listening to people's concerns about immigration and the effect they feel it has on their lives and communities.

You're talking about, as a first step, lecturing them on the ACKSHUAL 'cultural and economic benefits' that, by inference, they're too stupid to see.

I'm talking about listening, not trying to win an argument with them with educated superiority

 

[prawnking]

Not a left/right issue is it? Humanising immigrants?

How about humanising the people you're lecturing too

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

How about humanising the people you're lecturing too

Depends doesn't it?

If they're concerned about Rochdale as they should be, or if they're trying to burn down hotels because there are immigrants in there. The later shouldn't be humanised, they're scum.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

You're talking about, as a first step, lecturing them on the ACKSHUAL 'cultural and economic benefits' that, by inference, they're too stupid to see.

1. Why do you talk like this?

2. Why is talking about the factual benefits of immigration "lecturing"?

 

[prawnking]

2. Why is talking about the factual benefits of immigration "lecturing"?

It's context based obviously. I've spelled it out perfectly clearly in my previous posts very reasonably, and I'm not spending all afternoon repeating myself when neither you or TP discuss politics in good faith on here

 

[Templeton Peck]

So in summary, right wing lecturing is OK?

 

[prawnking]

Depends doesn't it?

If they're concerned about Rochdale as they should be, or if they're trying to burn down hotels because there are immigrants in there. The later shouldn't be humanised, they're scum.

Not every voter with negative views or general personal/community/national concerns about immigration is a hotel burner or rioter, just like every immigrant isn't a member of an exploitation gang.

You don't convince people or win them over by wagging your superior finger at them. What do you or I know about their real life and experiences? You find out by listening.

How can Labour be the people's party if it doesn't listen, it only preaches?

 

[prawnking]

So in summary, right wing lecturing is OK?

I don't know. I'd ask you to give me examples but that usually just makes you go quiet

 

[Templeton Peck]

Not every voter with negative views or general personal/community/national concerns about immigration is a hotel burner or rioter, just like every immigrant isn't a member of an exploitation gang.

You don't convince people or win them over by wagging your superior finger at them. What do you or I know about their real life and experiences? You find out by listening.

How can Labour be the people's party if it doesn't listen, it only preaches?

I've got real life experiences. Can Labour listen to me?

 

[prawnking]

I've got real life experiences. Can Labour listen to me?

They should do. But other real life experiences are available too