Davkaus Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 And why's he put "stop the boats" on there, when he knows asylum seekers are banned from working? Well, we know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cizzler Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 5 hours ago, Stevo985 said: What the ****? If a parody account tweeted this it would be criticised for going too far. Pre-facing this with the fact I've never voted Conservative in my life (and not singling you out - as the overwhelming response on the previous page was one of ridicule/ contempt for the policy - but had to quote one) but just hoping for some fair discourse on immigration, as maybe I'm missing something obvious. But, is it truly beneficial [long-term] for the U.K. to allow masses of cheap care workers and their dependents? Do other major economies allow this? (Genuine question). Is the benefit (cheap care labour) not outweighed by the cost on the public sector of the dependents? Public spending expenditure p/head in the U.K is approx ~£15k - therefore if you pay less than £15k in tax annually, presume (roughly) you cost, rather than benefit the state. Typically what tax are dependents of care workers paying (is it above or below this threshold)? I think it's easy to dub 'anti-immigration' policy as right-wing/racist/Tory scum - but with crumbling public services and an ever-increasing population, surely there is some consensus that unless migration is skilled/net benefit to the state - public services will be increasingly stretched. There is only so much more we can be taxed. Why is the correct solution not to pay care workers more, so current citizens are more willing to do it. Unless I'm missing something, importing cheap labour (and the family that comes with it) just kicks the can down the road. Years down the line, more people end up in care in this country - which means we will have to ship in more cheap labour again? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 2 minutes ago, Cizzler said: But, is it truly beneficial [long-term] for the U.K. to allow masses of cheap care workers and their dependents? I’m not sure about masses of them, it’s not really that attractive a proposition. Come and wipe some British pensioners arses for minimum wage and you can also bring your kids with you. Its a part of the economy which is struggling to recruit so in a normal world they’d be encouraged to come, not discouraged and treated as second class citizens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 (edited) I think there are plenty of good arguments for reducing immigration - I just think the tories are as incapable at developing a considered, rationale and effective policy on it as they are on any other topic you could point a shitty stick at. It's a fair point though @Cizzler, that although the calls for reduced immigration in modern politics are typically aligned with, or seen to be aligned with, far right racist dogwhistles, this isn't necessary, and there are plenty of old school traditional leftists shaking their head at the influx of cheap labour that has contributed to the reduced bargaining power of unions (not that the tories hadn't made a good start on that), undermining workers rights and driving wages into the ground. Where I think it becomes somewhat more nuanced is our aging population, our declining birthrates, our lack and our pension timebomb waiting to detonate, making us even more reliant on immigration. I don't have all of the answers. I don't have even some of the answers, but I damn well know that James Cleverley doesn't either. Quote Unless I'm missing something, importing cheap labour (and the family that comes with it) just kicks the can down the road. Years down the line, more people end up in care in this country - which means we will have to ship in more cheap labour again? You're not wrong. Here lies the tragedy of the quest for infinite growth in a finite (and burning) world. At some point we'll have to admit that no matter how much we strain for continued growth, our living standards will continue to fall. Actually, I've just thought of something. AI and Robots are bound to fix it. Edited February 20 by Davkaus 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 46 minutes ago, Cizzler said: Pre-facing this with the fact I've never voted Conservative in my life (and not singling you out - as the overwhelming response on the previous page was one of ridicule/ contempt for the policy - but had to quote one) but just hoping for some fair discourse on immigration, as maybe I'm missing something obvious. But, is it truly beneficial [long-term] for the U.K. to allow masses of cheap care workers and their dependents? Do other major economies allow this? (Genuine question). Is the benefit (cheap care labour) not outweighed by the cost on the public sector of the dependents? Public spending expenditure p/head in the U.K is approx ~£15k - therefore if you pay less than £15k in tax annually, presume (roughly) you cost, rather than benefit the state. Typically what tax are dependents of care workers paying (is it above or below this threshold)? I think it's easy to dub 'anti-immigration' policy as right-wing/racist/Tory scum - but with crumbling public services and an ever-increasing population, surely there is some consensus that unless migration is skilled/net benefit to the state - public services will be increasingly stretched. There is only so much more we can be taxed. Why is the correct solution not to pay care workers more, so current citizens are more willing to do it. Unless I'm missing something, importing cheap labour (and the family that comes with it) just kicks the can down the road. Years down the line, more people end up in care in this country - which means we will have to ship in more cheap labour again? The government couldn’t allow a significant rise in care worker salary so as to get UK workforce to fill the places. At the moment unemployment is quite low and those that are unemployed are not necessarily suited to those care work / social jobs. According to the House of Commons data, there are over 1.5 million people in the adult care sector. To give that many people a significant pay rise would interfere with the desire to get inflation down. The UK based people that would fill those better paid social jobs wouldn’t be the unemployed, they’d come from other jobs that would now be relatively low paid. If you’re going to give a care worker £15 an hour, why would a junior doctor work for less? Then you need to back fill the doctor posts… and on it goes. Those cheap workers from overseas don’t just pay their own tax, they potentially free up family carers or get people back to health and they also then pay tax. so paying someone minimum wage might well involve us having to educate their child. It also might mean the middle aged carers for the old lady can return to work as, well, whatever teachers, doctors, sole trader hairdressers. It’s fantastically complicated, those children educated in the UK will potentially hopefully have a favourable attitude towards the UK in adult life and either contribute by staying here or by being an ambassador for the UK back in their home country, as a soft power bonus for us. The system needs fixing, there can’t be any dispute there. We can’t have uncontrolled immigration, we need to know who is here, we need it to be a positive contribution. All that complexity has been abandoned to chase slogans for votes. If your elderly nan needs care, you basically have a short list of options: Let them suffer. Pay a substantially higher rate for carers. Then work out who’s going to do the other jobs. Have low wage foreign carers. You give up work and you do the caring. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 20 VT Supporter Share Posted February 20 (edited) 2 hours ago, Cizzler said: Pre-facing this with the fact I've never voted Conservative in my life (and not singling you out - as the overwhelming response on the previous page was one of ridicule/ contempt for the policy - but had to quote one) but just hoping for some fair discourse on immigration, as maybe I'm missing something obvious. But, is it truly beneficial [long-term] for the U.K. to allow masses of cheap care workers and their dependents? Do other major economies allow this? (Genuine question). Is the benefit (cheap care labour) not outweighed by the cost on the public sector of the dependents? Public spending expenditure p/head in the U.K is approx ~£15k - therefore if you pay less than £15k in tax annually, presume (roughly) you cost, rather than benefit the state. Typically what tax are dependents of care workers paying (is it above or below this threshold)? I think it's easy to dub 'anti-immigration' policy as right-wing/racist/Tory scum - but with crumbling public services and an ever-increasing population, surely there is some consensus that unless migration is skilled/net benefit to the state - public services will be increasingly stretched. There is only so much more we can be taxed. Why is the correct solution not to pay care workers more, so current citizens are more willing to do it. Unless I'm missing something, importing cheap labour (and the family that comes with it) just kicks the can down the road. Years down the line, more people end up in care in this country - which means we will have to ship in more cheap labour again? Banning people coming here legally to make a positive contribution to society from bringing their families is not the solution to any of this. And has been said a million times, immigrants contribute more financially to the uk than they take away so that argument is nonsense. By all means pay care workers more so more people from the UK want to do it. The two things aren’t mutually exclusive. But banning people we actually need from bringing their families isn’t just cruel, it’s monumentally **** stupid Edited February 20 by Stevo985 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 20 Moderator Share Posted February 20 So Cleverley has just sacked the Borders Watchdog via a Zoom call. Fell out after some reports were critical, the reports are unpublished. Well I'm sure there'll be a clamour from journalists and the opposition to have them published now you dumb bastard He was due to step down in a month anyway 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 20 Moderator Share Posted February 20 Also why have they referred the Nottingham knife attack case to the court of appeal because the sentence was too lenient? He'll be in a mental institution for the rest of his natural life. Are they really saying the three psychologists whose reports the CPS commissioned got it wrong, that the man is actually sane? Yet more headline grabbing distraction bollocks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marka Ragnos Posted February 20 VT Supporter Share Posted February 20 1 hour ago, Xann said: "There's nothing left to cut." And yet, millions of Britons voted against their own interests and for the interests of multi-billionaires -- over and over and over again. Why? How does that work? Why isn't Labour's message winning against this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 9 minutes ago, Marka Ragnos said: ... Why isn't Labour's message winning against this? The shit sandwiches just keep coming for the (wo)man on the street. So it might be starting to sink in now? Up to this point, dismal critical thinking and woeful prescience in the electorate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marka Ragnos Posted February 21 VT Supporter Share Posted February 21 (edited) 2 hours ago, Xann said: The shit sandwiches just keep coming for the (wo)man on the street. So it might be starting to sink in now? Up to this point, dismal critical thinking and woeful prescience in the electorate. I remember the last time I voted in Britain -- a long time ago -- Labour was running these billboards that showed pretty much nothing but a menacing pair of scissors. The message was something like, "Stop Tory cuts." Super simple. The Y in Tory formed the scissors. It was very effective, IMO. Edited February 21 by Marka Ragnos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post blandy Posted February 21 Author Moderator Popular Post Share Posted February 21 4 hours ago, Marka Ragnos said: The message was something like, "Stop Tory cuts." Super simple But misspelt 6 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 7 hours ago, Marka Ragnos said: Why isn't Labour's message winning against this? How big a lead in the polls would Labour need for you to consider that they were winning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 21 VT Supporter Share Posted February 21 9 hours ago, Marka Ragnos said: "There's nothing left to cut." And yet, millions of Britons voted against their own interests and for the interests of multi-billionaires -- over and over and over again. Why? How does that work? Why isn't Labour's message winning against this? Labour will win the next Election by an enormous landslide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 16 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Labour will win the next Election by an enormous landslide Both these things are true though. Labour's winning by doing and saying basically nothing. Stay as still as possible and watch the tories continue to implode. Meanwhile the tories keep promising tax cuts and cuts to publish services, and Labour are pressed "how are you going to pay for it?!", leading to them canning policy after policy. I think it's a fair point that Labour aren't cutting through and offering a different message to the austerity mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one_ian_taylor Posted February 21 VT Supporter Share Posted February 21 (edited) 10 hours ago, Marka Ragnos said: "There's nothing left to cut." And yet, millions of Britons voted against their own interests and for the interests of multi-billionaires -- over and over and over again. Why? How does that work? Why isn't Labour's message winning against this? What message? Edit: But we'll find out how well Labour are doing soon enough Edited February 21 by one_ian_taylor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted February 21 VT Supporter Share Posted February 21 The danger for labour is if the tories change leader and direction, it could leave Labour flat footed. Problem for the tories is they have no viable candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 5 minutes ago, tinker said: The danger for labour is if the tories change leader and direction, it could leave Labour flat footed. Problem for the tories is they have no viable candidates. Lee Anderson would be amazing entertainment value though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 5 minutes ago, tinker said: The danger for labour is if the tories change leader and direction, it could leave Labour flat footed. Problem for the tories is they have no viable candidates. Yeah, I think the tories need a complete reset and bunch of fresh faces. It's going to take them a decade to distance themselves from this shower, but step 1 is realising they have a problem, and they seem a long way from that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts