The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[HanoiVillan]

'The former prime minister said ministers should be concentrating on tackling the main concerns of leave voters rather than focusing on the fine point of the Brexit agreement.'

LOL WUT?

[blandy]

10 hours ago, snowychap said:

Gordon Brown calls for tougher controls on migration

Bigoted man.

Some of what he’s said is right, IMO.

[StefanAVFC]

Quote

no undercutting of wages by migrants;

Should be illegal anyway with the minimum wage

Quote

possible removal of migrants if they failed to find a job within nine months

According to free movement laws, we have the right to remove a migrant within 3 or 6 months (can't remember which) whilst still in the EU if they don't find a job IIRC

Quote

a ban on employment agencies advertising jobs abroad that had not been advertised in the UK

Pointless. A good candidate is a good candidate regardless of where they're from.

Quote

a bigger fund to help mitigate the impact of migration on local communities.

Empty words.

It's all just dog whistle bollocks isn't it?

Edited June 6, 2018 by StefanAVFC

[blandy]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Should be illegal anyway with the minimum wage

According to free movement laws, we have the right to remove a migrant within 3 or 6 months (can't remember which) whilst still in the EU if they don't find a job IIRC

Pointless. A good candidate is a good candidate regardless of where they're from.

Empty words.

It's all just dog whistle bollocks isn't it?

No, it's not all dwb. If I have time later, I'll type why not. But there's a difference between, for example, advertising job s, say, making widgets in the UK, in ooh, I dunno, only in Poland , and then bringing Poles across on min wage to do that work and the alternative which is advertising the same work in the UK, or in the UK and abroad and finding that the best candidates want to be paid (say) the living wage. i.e. the rules can be manipulated to suppress wages  and undercut UK people, because Eastern Europeans (or whoever) will work for less, sharing houses and costs, while permanent UK residents have perhaps greater costs around housing and so on.

 

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

But there's a difference between, for example, advertising job s, say, making widgets in the UK, in ooh, I dunno, only in Poland , and then bringing Poles across on min wage to do that work and the alternative which is advertising the same work in the UK, or in the UK and abroad and finding that the best candidates want to be paid (say) the living wage. i.e. the rules can be manipulated to suppress wages  and undercut UK people, because Eastern Europeans (or whoever) will work for less, sharing houses and costs, while permanent UK residents have perhaps greater costs around housing and so on.

 

Perhaps you're right.

However, I can speak from experience working in Poland, for a big IT company.

You don't get the young, professionally trained Poles going to the UK. You get labourers. Workers doing jobs that British people traditionally don't want to do. The professionally trained Poles stay in Poland and join a company like mine because the salaries are decent and comparable.

 I'm not going OTT, but the difference between a labourer in Poland and in the UK could be 5/6 quid an hour. The difference for these well paid jobs over here is nowhere near that. Sure you'll have the odd one going over but generally not.

I think this part is dog whistle because it's focused at the low skilled jobs, and a particular group of people.

The only professional I'd say he has a point about are your tradesmen; your plumbers/electricians etc. But are they going to be advertising those sort of jobs in Poland? Or will tradesmen who have already made the move be applying in the UK? How does that policy stop migrants already in the country getting jobs meant for UK citizens?

It just isn't very well-thought out when you look at the overall context IMO.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

I think this part is dog whistle because it's focused at the low skilled jobs, and a particular group of people.

It's (mostly) UK nationals in those jobs that have grievances that in part caused the Brexit vote.

If you live in Lincolnshire and have a job as a farm labourer or whatever, and rent a home and then the farmers bring in loads of people from eastern europe to work on the farm it has the effect of increasing the price of home rentals (demand has gone up), suppressing wages or wage rises, (because people will do the work for min wage), making waiting lists for schools, hospitals doctors, etc. longer. Making people in that area feel that their way of life and culture has changed with all the incomers. So they're worse off, central gov't is cutting back on finance, local gov't can't build housing and schools fast enough and they have no money to do so anyway...your wages are suppressed, your way of life is changed and you might resent all that.

It's easy for me or you to sit here and shout "dog whistle" but there's an element of valid complaint in there, for sure. It might not al lbe down to "bloody immigrants" or "the flippin' EU" but some of it is, in a way. The UK Gov't should have done more and should do more to alleviate some of these issues. In that respect, I agree with Gordon Brown.

But Brexit is epically stupid.

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

because people will do the work for min wage

Jobs that British people could easily do but generally choose not to

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

making waiting lists for schools

Yet to see much evidence that immigration causes this. I come from a 99% white British area and saw huge waiting lists. People want their kids to go to good schools. Has nothing, or very little to do with immigration IMO.

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

hospitals doctors

Immigration props up the health service, and I can only anecdotally say the same as I said for schools (regarding 99% white British)

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

So they're worse off, central gov't is cutting back on finance, local gov't can't build housing and schools fast enough

That's on the government, not immigrants. 

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

Making people in that area feel that their way of life and culture has changed with all the incomers.

I mean, this is it really. They've been made to feel that way. Not by the immigrants but by monumental bellends such as Farridge spouting off about control and a sustained, decades long attack on immigrants by the national press.

Where we disagree is that you think we should placate this sort of mindset, whereas I think we should challenge it. Dog-whistling isn't the way to do either IMO.

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Where we disagree is that you think we should placate this sort of mindset, whereas I think we should challenge it. Dog-whistling isn't the way to do either IMO.

No, that's not a fair reflection of my opinion. I don't think we should "placate" the sort of mindset Brexity or racisty or anti-immigranty people hold. What I think is that there are areas where the UK Gov'ts policies are not optimised around best benefitting the UK population and UK citizens and residents. Some of the things Gordon Brown mentioned would seem to me to be improvements over the current situation. Something that introduced a rule that UK jobs can not be advertised (only) overseas and not in the UK would be a good thing, for example.

My perception is that had more been done (including some of the things you mention ( Gov't underfunding etc.) over the past decade or so, then perhaps a different Brexit result might have ensued. People's feelings affect the way they vote. When they feel abandoned or hindered by someone, they're not going to vote for them. Of course it's true that there's been all sorts of lies and misinformation from Farage etc and the Heil, but some of the resentement of the EU is valid.

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

No, it's not all dwb.

He may have mentioned one or two things which were fine but the problem is that he appears to have come at from an angle that immigration is a problem because people say it is and therefore we must do a, b, c, d, e and f to placate them.

The article may be unfair on Brown and perhaps not all of his thoughts are predicated on 'immigrants are the reason for wage suppression' and that the effects of immigration are negative (a bigger fund is needed to mitigate the impact of...' but it is presented in that way.

It would have been a much better thing if Gordon Brown could have used his intellect to make the positive case for immigration which is surely what he believed when he was in government (until he went off on the 'British jobs for British workers' crap). He could easily have incorporated riders, e.g. that we need to make sure that any difficulties that occur are ameliorated as much as possible, whilst still stressing the overall benefit of immigration.

He hasn't and I'd expect Farage et al. to be jumping on this saying, " Look, even he's accepted we were right now." Even if that isn't what Brown is actually saying.

Edited June 6, 2018 by snowychap

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, snowychap said:

He may have mentioned one or two things which were fine but the problem is that he appears to have come at from an angle that immigration is a problem because people say it is and therefore we must do a, b, c, d, e and f to placate them.

I don't agree with that, Snowy, for two reasons - firstly I don't think he's saying immigration is a probelm because people think it is (but in reality it isn't - it's only their perception which is wrong) and secondly he isn't talking about "placating".

Anyway, regardless of GB, I look at it like this: Immigration has consequences - some beneficial, some benign and some harmful.

For example, the significant migration of UK retirees to the Costa Del Sol in Spain has benefits for Spain, in terms of providing custom for shops, bars, restaurants, taxis...etc. It also has consequences for the demands on the Spanish Health Service....etc

So it's an absolute fact, that everywhere, wherever there is immigration there is a mix of good band and indifferent conseqences. I see politicians and some commentators sort of denying the mix - "no, immigration is beneficial, the NHS depends on..." and some people viewing or complaining about the negatives that affect their lives as being racists, or thick, or whatever.

An increased population in the UK puts more demands on water, roads, schools, housing...etc. As was said earlier, much of this could and should have been mitigated by central and local Government, but it wasn't, largely because tory austerity and before that because Labour unpreparedness for the scale of it, when the Romanians etc. were allowed the free movement.

The consequences of that immigration, the negative ones as wel as thr good ones have been felt, as  reality, by people in the UK. The distribution of the good and bad of immigration hasn't been even.

I think what GB was saying (as I read it) was that the UK needs to do what is done by Germany and by Belgium and others to deal with people coming to the UK to stop wages being undercut, to ensure local people had access to job vacancies and for more money to be made available to mitigate the impact of influxes of immigrants to areas where it puts a sudden strain on resources etc. and to register  people who come here and remove them if they don't come to work (after 9 months unemployed - the EU thin is free movement of Labour, not free movement of people for living, full stop).

I just don't see that as "placating" people who are "wrong/blaming the wrong target" or as dog-whistle, or as anything other than a pretty obvious set of stuff that should have been done all along by UK Government.

[snowychap]

24 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think what GB was saying (as I read it) was that the UK needs to do what is done by Germany and by Belgium and others to deal with people coming to the UK to stop wages being undercut

51 minutes ago, snowychap said:

The article may be unfair on Brown and perhaps not all of his thoughts are predicated on 'immigrants are the reason for wage suppression'

 

[snowychap]

32 minutes ago, blandy said:

I just don't see that as "placating" people

I do. And it looks as though you've bought it all too, I'm afraid.

Edited June 6, 2018 by snowychap
erroneous comma

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I do. And it looks as though you've bought it all too, I'm afraid.

Oh well. Shame. Each to their own and all that.  I wouldn't dream of saying what it looks like you've "bought", just because you have a different viewpoint.

[snowychap]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

I wouldn't dream of saying what it looks like you've "bought", just because you have a different viewpoint.

I didn't say that because of your different viewpoint but because of the premises on which you've indicated your viewpoint is built.

Edited June 6, 2018 by snowychap
to be is not to be but is is

[blandy]

Same difference, but whatever, the Sun's out, it's tea time. Have a nice evening.

 

[LondonLax]

11 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Jobs that British people could easily do but generally choose not to

That’s a bit of a simplistic analysis you’ve applied there. 

If you are looking for a ‘working class job’ and need to support a family, pay rent etc then minimum wage is not going to cut it and you will need government assistance. 

If you are a migrant worker whose family are living abroad and is willing to doss in shared accommodation and therefore have a much lower cost of living then UK minimum wage will be an attractive option for you. 

If you are an employer who previously would have had a small pool of workers to choose from and suddenly find you have a large group of workers to choose from, many of which are willing to work for minimum wage, you are going to offer less money to fill those positions. 

Globalisation and free markets for labour (like all unregulated free market systems) creates winners and losers. Working class people in the UK (and the US) who used to have a more sheltered work environment are one of the losers in this equation and their frustrations has led to abominations like Brexit and Trump. 

Edited June 6, 2018 by LondonLax

[snowychap]

23 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

If you are looking for a ‘working class job’ and need to support a family, pay rent etc then minimum wage is not going to cut it and you will need government assistance. 

If you are a migrant worker whose family are living abroad and is willing to doss in shared accommodation and therefore have a much lower cost of living then UK minimum wage will be an attractive option for you. 

If you are an employer who previously would have had a small pool of workers to choose from and suddenly find you have a large group of workers to choose from, many of which are willing to work for minimum wage, you are going to offer less money to fill those positions. 

Globalisation and free markets for labour (like all unregulated free market systems) creates winners and losers. Working class people in the UK (and the US) who used to have a more sheltered work environment are one of the losers in this equation and their frustrations has led to abominations like Brexit and Trump. 

That’s a bit of a simplistic analysis you’ve applied there.

[LondonLax]

46 minutes ago, snowychap said:

That’s a bit of a simplistic analysis you’ve applied there.

Yes it’s a post from my mobile during my commute whilst posting on a football forum message board. This stuff would require a university thesis but it at least my post is a step up from the usual ‘working class British people are just lazy’ trope. 

Edited June 6, 2018 by LondonLax

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Yes it’s a post from my mobile during my commute to a football forum message board and this stuff would require a university thesis but it at least it’s a step up from the usual ‘working class British people are just lazy’ trope. 

Your criticism of Stefan's comment may well be right; the subsequent expounding may be a bit of a simplistic (and very debateable) analysis.

Edited June 6, 2018 by snowychap

[HanoiVillan]

Reminder that the fash are no laughing matter:

Man pleads guilty to plot to murder Labour MP Rosie Cooper

'An alleged member of the banned neo-Nazi group National Action has admitted to plotting to kill a British MP and making threats to kill a police officer.

Jack Renshaw, 23, of Skelmersdale, Lancashire, bought a Gladius machete to kill the West Lancashire Labour MP Rosie Cooper last summer. 

On the opening day of his trial at the Old Bailey on Tuesday, Renshaw pleaded guilty to preparing acts of terrorism and making threats to kill a police officer, DC Victoria Henderson.

The judge, Mr Justice Robert Jay, directed the jury to deliver a formal guilty verdict on the two charges. Renshaw also faces a third charge of membership of the banned far right group, which he denies.'

more at link: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/12/man-pleads-guilty-to-plot-to-labour-mp-rosie-cooper