So saying immigration should be controlled means you're populist. He might have thought secretly for years it should be controlled. He may have been part of the government when Blair opened the floodgates but that doesn't mean he agreed with Blair.

I don't remember him ever standing up when his party, it's Government and it's supporters were habitually smearing anyone who dared to say what he is saying here.

He is a populist and he is blatently playing to his electorate but that doesn't mean he is wrong or being "racist".

I disagree. It seems to me as seen in the Labour leadership election, like many New Labour MPs, that on most issues Andy Burnham has no political convictions (i.e. personal views) at all but just states the ones he thinks the public want to hear.

EDIT: Apologies, it seems you are correct on this issue and i'm wrong. A google search returns a link (that won't work) to an article in The Independent in Jan 2008 where Burnham is quoted as saying he's against the freedom of movemnet as it's surpressing wages and job prospects of locals in the north west.

It is populist if it's a just a soundbite and you haven't thought about how a "controlled immigration" system would work. There is a lot more to politics than saying crowd pleasing things just to make yourself look good.

I'm not twisting anything - here is what Burnham said in Parliament:

Secondly, there is a strong case for saying that the immigration system that has developed over time in this country is inherently discriminatory—it does not treat all migrants equally. Instead, it accords a preferential status to migrants from our nearest neighbours in the context of a policy that seeks to cap numbers. That, therefore, discriminates against those non-EU migrants who seek to come here and who have families here.

I was looking forward to the prospect of Andy becoming Mayor of Greater Manchester before his renouncement of freedom of movement. Picking up on both your points, he must have observed that 7 out of 10 Greater Manchester boroughs voted Leave and be speaking for such people to maximise his chances of election.

Thanks for having the generosity to add this in your reply to the other poster. I don't usually have much time for Burnham so it's illuminating to learn that he was opposing FOM nearly 9 years ago.

Was Burnham against recruiting foreign workers when he was Health Secretary?

Nothing wrong with what Andy Burnham actually said. With one eye to 2020, he has to represent the views of his constituents, rather than continually have to parrot the irritating and usually inane views of lefties and pro EU dinosaurs like Clarke.

I suspect a strong motivating factor behind the leave vote was immigration and the influence the EU had over this. All Burnham is doing is getting with the times.

It's really becoming pointless trying to debate with individuals who get foaming at the mouth emotionally agitated every time immigration is discussed, and start slinging out playground accusatory invective against those trying to engage in sensible debate over the issue. Better they are simply ignored.

I don't know but he now favours immigration control over access to the single market

[url="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/16/andy-burnham-labour-wrong-to-put-single-market-ahead-of-immigration"]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/16/andy-burnham-labour-wrong-to-put-single-market-ahead-of-immigration[/URL

So I'm guessing he is for Hard Brexit. I have asked him a few questions via social media around why he highlights the different treatment on EU and non EU migrants but he hasn't answered,

And here he points the blame of the UK's ills at the feet of EU migrants - er FoM.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-debate-labour

Burnham won't care about 2020 now. His only concern is the 2017 Manchester Mayor election. He's now reinventing himself as an Old Labour type to appeal to the local electorate.

I doubt old Labour would play off one migrant group against another to win an election, His message will go down well in the doughnut ring of councils around Manchester - but Manchester has a lot to lose and little to gain from his proposals.

Indeed. The city of Manchester voted to Remain but he's probably got his eye on places like Bury, Oldham and Bolton. Then again, as Mayor he'll have no power over freedom of movement so he really should be concentrating on issues where he will be able to do something about and he's pretty much a shoe-in to win anyway.

I've always had a sneaking admiration for Burnham's ability to agree with both sides of any argument without showing the least bit of embarrassment.

I wouldn't vote for him as milk monitor of course - I just find his shamelessness entertaining

Clarke should be looking a lot closer to home, seeing as half of his own party have become Farage clones, and not even paler versions.

They're all evading the real issues....

Net migration has risen to record levels under this government, from 220k in 2009 to 335k in 2015/16
https://www.ons.gov.uk/resource?uri=...6/2f1e7211.png

Emigration is down by more than 100k since 2008 (same graph) - which obviously massively effects the net migration figure !!!!

Net migration from the EU was in the tens of thousands up until 2012
https://www.ons.gov.uk/resource?uri=...6/55416447.png

It's only in the last 4 years that EU net migration has risen above 150k to record levels of 185k, and now almost at the same level as non-EU net migration

Non-EU net migration has always been higher, and has been above or around 200k ever since 1999.

The government can't even get non-EU net migration down to the tens of thousands, even though it has full control, and it's still higher than EU net migration.

The government deliberately allowed net migration to be so high, and had no real plans to reduce it
http://www.conservativehome.com/thec...proved-it.html

In 2012, Theresa May put a 35k salary cap on non-EU immigrants, meaning that we could only recruit cheap manual labour from the EU, hence the slight decrease in non-EU figures and the huge rise in EU figures.

EU citizens by law are supposed to return home if they haven't found work after 3 months (see: B2a)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyour...FTU_2.1.3.html

UK law & welfare policy allows citizens and new migrants to claim in-work benefits if their wages are too low.

UK law allows UK citizens and foreign workers to be hired under ZHCs or 6-12 month apprenticeships paying ~half the minimum wage
https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates

UK employment agencies have been advertising in and mass-recruiting directly from East Europe only
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...9#post84098439

Our government has done NOTHING to stop this practise, a practise which is illegal in just about all other EU countries. This practise alone is the main cause of the undercutting and driving down of wages. The Tories will never deny big business a cheap source of labour.


Until we hear these politicians address the real issues and causes, I would strongly advise not paying any attention to the codswallop that any of them speak.


ps. and no, I'm not saying that EU free movement of labour is flawless and a great idea, it obviously has its faults (especially where the imbalance of richer more thriving/sucessful nations versus the poorer & less successful ones are concerned, and especially when the system is abused by governments, employers and citizens alike), but when not abused, it does also have its many pros (including the ability to employ and pay anyone from any of the member states without needing to have a registered office there - which is great for services, including thousands of internet-based companies).... not that reforms matter now, seeing as we're leaving....

What exactly has he said that's close to the bone? I'd be interested to know your opinion

I don't know how people are expected to communicate with somebody who tells them that they're anti-immigration even if they tell them that they're not.
It's not honest debate and discussion. This form of misrepresentation is a tactic I find to be extremely dishonest to the public who they are trying to appeal to.