BS: Labour party discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 06:38 PM

The thing is to avoid getting into direct arguments with individuals but rather to address the issues. And completely ignore any name-calling. That's the way Jeremy Corbyn operates, and that was also how Tony Benn did.
......
Last time anything to do with a politically related issue we were having some posts about comparisons between trades unions in Britain and Germany. Anybody out there with any actual experience that's relevant to that? One of the thing that worries Labour supporters is that this government might use Brexit as a way of hitting various kinds of workers rights, and the right to organise effectively is a central part of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 06:16 PM

I'm getting seriously pissed off with this. I asked the mods to close the toxic "Whither Labour" thread, appealed on this thread to keep it clean, and look what happens. We have the usual trolls, Keith and bobad, (not even suspects) showing up here in order to disrupt the discussion. I have things to say in this thread, but I honestly can't be arsed at the moment. I'm off to post about autumn leaves in more pleasant threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: bobad
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 05:53 PM

Why are you on the Left always so nasty and always trying to make it personal.

Please don't sully the respectable progressive Left by referring to these regressive Leftists as the Left. This species of nouveau fascists are not representative of the Left, they are exemplars of the far Left and have more in common with the far Right than with the true Left.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 03:42 PM

Maybe a separate thread about netiquette and about how best to conduct discussions about subjects that arouse heated feelings might be a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 03:18 PM

"Muppets is an affectionate term. "
A spectacular example of your dishonesty, which you've used before
You have used it as a term of abuse, along with all the others I have listed and you have chosen to ignore - the fact that you choose this and ignore the rest is another example of your dishonesty - I doubt very much if you are going to admit to them, let alone withdraw or apologise for them - the fact that yyou are silent on them is the narest we are likely to get to an apology.
"Can you give an example of me accusing you of making things up when you had not?"
Where to start
David Ben Gurion's ''taken their land' statement, "Benny Morris's' admitting to burying the massacre victim, 'Self-Hating Jews'..... are the ones that spring to mind.
I've said this before - I do not "make up" anything and if I ever felt the need to I would not be part of these debates.
Unlike you, I and those I respect on this forum are here to debate and exchange ideas, not to "win" anything.
"Ignoramous" or o nothing is also another of your stock phrases.
"Why are you on the Left always so nasty and always trying to make it personal."
Your hypocrisy here is stunning
One ofe the most "personal" and "nasty" individuals on this forum is your friend Bobad, certainly not of "the left", - he is one of yours - his distastefully cowardly name-calling and his refusal to even pretend to respond, (as you do) put any bad-tempered response I make make in the shade
Far from complaining, you back up his vituperative hate-filled vomit - you have never once complained about his behaviour - it seems things are only "nasty and personal" when they are aimed at you or your friends.   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 03:16 PM

British Trades Unions are also forbidden to call Wilcat Strikes. And in fact Wildcat Strikes is properly the term for what happens when a bunch of workers down tools without being authorised to do so by their union.

And so forth. British Trades Unions have all the restrictions German ones do, and then some, but without the rights which German unions have by law to balance things up.
The arrangements in Germany are essentially the ones designed by representatives of British Trades Unions after the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 02:57 PM

Big difference between German Trades Unions Kevin is that they are forbidden by law from calling "Wildcat Strikes", they have never attempted to hold the Government or the country to ransom to get what they want, no such thing as "flying pickets", again illegal, and they and the employers are subject to compulsory and binding third party arbitration once a dispute has run a defined length of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 02:15 PM

But she's got a very impressive amount of experience.

When you sign a top-flight player you don't keep them on the substitutes bench till the next season.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 02:13 PM

Jim,
you know nothings, muppets and ignoramuses - "antisemitism has been one of your accusations and you constantly accuse me of lying and making things up

Muppets is an affectionate term. I call my grandchildren muppets in fun sometimes.

Can you give an example of me accusing you of making things up when you had not?
No, but feel free to prove me wrong.

I have never called anyone an ignoramus, or accused anyone of antisemitism.
Lots of made up stuff there Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 02:07 PM

McGrath,
Don't generalise, Keith. Those accusations definitely don't reflect how Jeremy Corbyn responds to criticism, and repeatedly urges others to do. And when did you last catch me overstepping the mark?

Never Kevin. Sorry. I should have made clear that I meant Steve and Jim who have both just attacked me and others personally instead of discussing.
I am sure you disdain such behaviour as much as I do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BBC 5 months ago,
"The leader of Labour's inquiry into anti-Semitism, Shami Chakrabarti, says she has joined the party in order to gain members' "trust and confidence".

Now, having been a member only five months, she has been made Shadow Attorney General!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 01:31 PM

You call those who don't agree with you know nothings, muppets and ignoramuses - "antisemitism has been one of your accusations and you constantly accuse me of lying and making things up
Yo never withdraw you accusations, let alone apologise for them when you are proven wrong
Glass houses and all that Keith
I am responding to what Ake said - nothing is out of context here
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 01:05 PM

Don't generalise, Keith. Those accusations definitely don't reflect how Jeremy Corbyn responds to criticism, and repeatedly urges others to do. And when did you last catch me overstepping the mark?
............
The big difference with German Trades Unions is that they are allowed to get on with the job without being stomped by the government with legislation that aims to undermine their ability to do that. And it would be recognised as a breach of the constitution for any govvernment to try to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 12:52 PM

Why are you on the Left always so nasty and always trying to make it personal.
Why can we never have a respectful, civilised discussion without name calling?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 12:39 PM

"German workers are also envied for their corporate power. Their influence within larger companies is guaranteed by their seats on supervisory boards; this gives them a say in the hiring and firing of management and decisions over company strategy. Such a system is lauded by Ed Miliband, who is infatuated with the Rhineland model of consensual capitalism."
"It's quite simple really Jim, I am in favour of changing the economic system over a reasonable measure of time."
When's a "reasonable time" Ake - when we're all dead presumably - or perhaps when YOU decide?
We have lost our bargaining position as workers down the years, we no longer have security of employment at work or security of tenure at home, as a result, unemployment and homelessness are soaring.
According to last years's survey, following the last recession, the rich are 64% richer and the poor are 57% poorer
We no longer have an industrial base because it does not benefit the investors to have one - more profitable to swell the dole queues and buy foreign
I asked you for your idea as to how change could be brought about - you never answered, nor will you now.
You have no interest in changing society for the better and have aligned yourself with those who prefer to attack the less fortunate, in this case, refugees and economic migrants rather than to support just change
I really hop you choke on your "Pie in the Sky".
Wealth created by Captalism is only beneficial when it benefits all - the fact that Britain's main export is money says what needs to be said about exactly how "beneficial" it is to the working people of Britain as a whole
You are an establishment arse-kisser in the extreme.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 12:17 PM

It's quite simple really Jim, I am in favour of changing the economic system over a reasonable measure of time.
You on the other hand are in favour of keeping the democratic capitalist system we have at present, but making bloody sure it cannot work effectively. A "no win" situation.

If capitalism is not allowed to create wealth it moves on to somewhere more conducive.....I have sad many times that if we are determined to have a capitalist society and economy, the Conservative Party are the most effective people to run it.
That has always been true in my lifetime Labour borrow and spend without demanding any sacrifices from the working and middle classes. Soaking the rich stops the capitalist system from working effectively, as "the rich" are often the wealth creators.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 11:24 AM

"one that does not meddle in politics and attempt to dictate to the elected Government?"
Tory bullshit.
It was the politicians who meddled in Trades union rights, not the other way round
Thatcher the fascist deliberately confronted the miners to DESTROY the Trades Union movement.
The Unions in general never attempted to interfere in Government, any conflict that arose dd so because of attempted government interference.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 10:59 AM

" an effective trade union system."

You mean one like exists in Germany Kevin - i.e. one that does the job it was intended to do, one that behaves in a responsible manner with regard to the companies and industries it's members are employed in, one that does not meddle in politics and attempt to dictate to the elected Government?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 09:53 AM

"At least, we won't be a party to them."
No minimum wage - no living wage - no Trades Unions - you really are a bosses man aren't you Ake?
Maybe after the recent Ukip kerfuffle, you should think about applying for the bosses job - you certainly seem to meet all the necessary requirements
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:58 AM

If it was impossible to pay a wage for a nasty job that wasn't sufficient to attract locals, there wouldn't be any particular incentive to employ immigrants, even if they would be willing to work for less. Unless they were better at the job, and that's a matter for our education and training system to address.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:39 AM

The huge differentials in exchange rate makes a mockery of the whole ill gotten scheme.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:36 AM

At least, we won't be a party to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:32 AM

Whether it's called a minimum wage or a living wage (should mean the same thing) setting it is only part of the story. It needs to be enforced and monitored. Best way to monitor it is probably an effective trade union system.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:26 AM

"The type of contracts I referred to would be illegal in the UK,"
Plenty of those by indigenous employers - an essential part of "the black economy"
As I said, concentrating on only foreign ones is racist.
"the Common Market"
Exploitation of workers by employing cheaper labour predates the E.U. by centuries
19th century mine and and mill owners were having a field day exploiting the starving Irish fleeing the Famine, with the Government happily supporting them by opposing the introduction of Trade Unionism.
The inter-communal racism that came out of that is an accepted fact.
You fellers are still happy to use the same techniques against immigrants today - why abandon something that's served to prop up an exploitative system when it's done its job so well for so long.
The real alternative is to set a minimum living wage - can't let that happen, can we!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:20 AM

Those are the kinds of reforms which were needed in the EU, but they weren't the kind of stuff Cameron was trying for. And I'll be very surprised if after Brexit those kind of loopholes are not preserved.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 08:02 AM

Remember the Chinese "Cockle pickers" in Morecombe Bay? Their "employer" was a Triad Gang....

Yup! See, I was right at 05 Oct 16 - 04:34 PM! Just like Trump's Mexican rapists, murders, pederasts & the like.

Be afraid, be very afraid!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 07:48 AM

"The system we live under promotes and encourages exploitation"

Well for the last 43 years that's been successively - "the Common Market"; The EEC; the EU.

The type of contracts I referred to would be illegal in the UK, but as the contracts are signed abroad, we have no control over them and if they are legal in the country they are signed in they are enforceable. It is then EU employment laws and the rules governing free movement of labour that provides the loophole for this exploitation. EU could of course make it law that the employment law to be adhered to must be that of the country where the work will actually take place - but that has it's downsides to.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 06:37 AM

Sub-contracting and outsourcing can be used to distance companies from the people who do work for them in a way that protects bad practice and exploitation. That's a mahor reason why it has probably increased in recent years as a way for exployers to avoid regulation that is meant to protect workers and quality. It's a way of avoiding responsibility. And as the court case Teribus quotes demonstrates, it is a pretty successful way of doing that.

It happens in all kinds of areas - local councils do it. When you complain about some faulty bit of work repairing council property the council says it's down to the contractor, the contractor says it's the subcontractor, the subcontractor says it's the council...

It's a serious problem, and too often gets ignored. But most of the time those engaged in this, at the top especially, are natives.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 06:16 AM

"I wonder does he actually mean to challenge the evidence put before the Crown Court in the case of the Chinese Cockle pickers?"
Of course I don't, but singling out on group of foreigners as evidence of corrupt foreign employers and ignoring all the appallingly bad indigenous employers, especially those who use immigrants to drive down wages, is simple racism of the king which promotes race hatred, even violence.
The system we live under promotes and encourages exploitation - that some immigrant employers indulge in the free-for-all has s.f.a. to do with anything - especially whether Britain takes in too many immigrants.
Your instigation of race hatred includes those countries that have fair labour laws and infinitely better labour relations than Britain.
Choosing a bad example, sich as the cockle-pickers is crude tub-thumping racism.
Historically, right up to the end of Empire (within my lifetime), Britain treated the people they had dominion over like shit and were noted for doing so.
It's the system that allows abuses to happen that is at fault, not the nationality of those who take advantage of those faults.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 05:56 AM

Unethical contracts can be found worldwide.

Perhaps you would care to take a look at Primark for example, and before you tell me that Primark is an Irish company you may want to know it is part of Associated British Foods which in itself is part of the FTSE 100.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 05:36 AM

Jim Carroll - 06 Oct 16 - 04:13 AM

Usual over emotive response and generalisations from the above poster.

I wonder does he actually mean to challenge the evidence put before the Crown Court in the case of the Chinese Cockle pickers?

Is he actually attempting to deny the existence of Agencies set up in Eastern European EU member states who engage workers on what are in their own countries perfectly legal contracts, then send those workers to Britain using the EU's free movement of labour as the vehicle by which those agencies then exploit those workers. In doing this no EU Law is being violated and EU Law supersedes UK Law.

My previous post on this doesn't cover the half of it. The legally binding contract signed back in the labourer's home country requires that:

Contracted labour has to stay in Agency provided accommodation and money is deducted from their wages to cover those costs.
Contracted labour have to surrender their Passports.

In other words they are trapped for the term of their contracts. Now so far in all of this not a single "Brit" has been involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 04:49 AM

Your arguments are racist Keith - they always have been, with your obscene "implants"
One thing is certain - it the British people had adopted the attitudethat you people do, back in the thirties rather than the humanitarian Christian one they did, there would have bee millions more dead Jews than there were.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but I'm sure your God will forgive you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 04:20 AM

I questioned whether the immigration rate might be too high.
Steve's response was to call me names, e.g. "racist."
I am no racist. Senior members of the last Labour government, including Milliband, stated that they had let the rate get too high. All racists?
None have you have said if there was any level of immigration you would consider too high.

Meanwhile, low and unskilled workers are faced with their wages being cut if they can find work at all, high rents, no homes for their kids, and health care and schooling massively over subscribed.
If they complain about their plight, the workers' party turns on them and calls them racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 04:13 AM

So the immigrants are all potential criminals and the non British employees are all criminals or potential criminals?
***** foreigners eh!!
Has this site finally fallen into the hands of the B.N.P. - it certainly seems like it, reading the racist bile of our three caped crusaders.
The most law-abiding, industrious and ambitious section of the population are the million or so Asians who have moved to Britain to better their lot, more often often than not to be greeted by racist filth such as that being vomited here by our three resident 'Christian humanitarians'.
WELCOME to BRITAIN   
Immigrants come to Britain to escape the effects of appalling conditions brought about by the fact that we, and other wealthy nations flood our shops with goods manufactured in places of work that are dangerous to the point of being lethal, more on than not, for starvation wages.
We maintain slave-like conditions in these countries with our custom and our elected representatives ascertain that things don't change too much by selling arms to the despotic rulers
We are even happy when our P.M. toddles off to pay his respects to a dead despot while a journalist is undergoing 1,000 lashes for suggesting that something is "rotten in the State of Saudi".
Rule Britannia, eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 03:00 AM

Exactly so Teribus.
The differentials make the whole sorry scheme unworkable, even without the criminal element.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Oct 16 - 01:46 AM

"If an employer pays an immigrant worker less than he would pay a native Brit worker for the same work, he is unscrupulous and immoral."

Seems pretty straightforward that doesn't it. But that doesn't even show a fraction of the picture and it all depends on who the "employer" is.

Remember the Chinese "Cockle pickers" in Morecombe Bay? Their "employer" was a Triad Gang, they had been brought into the country as illegal aliens and had no say in who they worked for, or what they got paid, or indeed how much of what they got paid they could keep. They were contracted out by the Triad Gang to the Company wanting the Cockles picked.

"David Anthony Eden Sr. and David Anthony Eden Jr., from Prenton in Merseyside, who bought cockles from the work gang, were cleared of helping the workers break immigration law.

Gangmaster Lin Liang Ren was found guilty of the manslaughter of at least 21 people (two further cocklers were thought to have been killed but their bodies were never found). Ren, his girlfriend Zhao Xiao Qing and his cousin Lin Mu Yong were also convicted of breaking immigration laws. Ren was sentenced to 12 years for manslaughter, 6 years for facilitating illegal immigration (to be served concurrently with the manslaughter sentence), and 2 years for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (to be served subsequent to the manslaughter sentence). Lin Mu Yong was sentenced to four years and nine months. Zhao Xiao Qing was sentenced to two years and nine months for facilitation of illegal immigration and perverting the course of justice."

Here's how it works:

Enterprising East European crook looks at the market for agricultural workers required in the UK and sets up an office over in the "old country" where things are bad and unemployment is high. He advertises for workers for jobs abroad for wages that are too good to be true in the "old country". In answer to this advert they get loads of takers and the next thing they are whisked off to the UK to which as members of the EU they exercise their right to free movement of labour where they are contracted out, no idea what the unit price is between the employer of these men (i.e. the Agency that hired them abroad) and the person that Agency has a contract with to supply labour, that could well be for UK minimum wage, could even be marginally above it, but the labourer only gets what he signed up for back in the "the old country".

Not quite so simple as Steve Shaw put it is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 05:06 PM

The "interesting angle" was Kevin's, Greg, though, naturally, your angles are always interesting! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 04:52 PM

That is an interesting angle.

Here's a sort of red alert. I have asked the moderators to close the other Labour thread, which was very toxic and which, unfortunately, a couple of trollish interventions tried to resurrect today. This thread, despite some rather robust exchanges at times, has managed to stay afloat. My personal view is that we've done the antisemitism/Labour angle to death and beyond and I should like to suggest that we *painstakingly* steer clear of it in this thread, despite the predictable future efforts of a couple of people to keep it going. Not that it isn't worth discussing, but, if I've learned anything, it's that it isn't worth discussing further in this thread. I would suggest to them that they are at liberty to start a new Labour/antisemitism thread if they like and if the long-suffering mods will put up with it. I for one would ignore it. And I know that this risks more trollish interventions, but I'm saying it anyway.

Just a suggestion. Over and out!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 04:34 PM

I am well versed on the carpetbaggers who reside there now.

Carpetbaggers, Ake?? Are they anything like the Mexican rapists, murderers and worse and/or The Muslim Horde that Trump has warned us about on this side of the pond?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 03:10 PM

While Keith and I disagree about a number of things about Israel, there is one thing on which I think we would agree. The proportion of Jewish immigrants since the establishment of Israel has been cery high, far higher in fact than the Jewish population at that time,and of course vastly higher than the immigrant numbers in Britain during tge same period.

There have been problems - but overall Israel has managed to deal with this influx as something poitive for it, socially and economically.

It can be done. The fact that we have failed to do it so wellis no reason to dismiss the possibility of our mending our ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 03:06 PM

Good post, Kevin. I can ignore the ridiculous and disconnected one that followed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 02:43 PM

If an employer pays an immigrant worker less than he would pay a native Brit worker for the same work, he is unscrupulous and immoral

Then they are.

The person who has driven down the wages is the employer.

Yes, but how does that help the workers?

Your constant need to blame immigrants for problems in this country is racist

I do not blame them for anything. Please do not try to make this personal again.



No I am not.
There is a dire shortage of housing already, and housing and infrastructure can not be built at the rate our population is ballooning upwards.

Well I think you should buy a little offshore island, build a twenty-foot barricade all round it and live a miserable existence all on your own. No-one allowed in at all.

I benefit from immigration thank you, as do all pensioners, employers, management, landlords, etc.
Those who suffer are the low and unskilled workers, who you might be expected to care about Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 02:35 PM

"Employers will always pay as little as they can." Probably true. But "as they can" is the important bit.

As for housing, for decades after the war the UK was building 300,000 houses a year. Equivalent of a small city.

As for whether there's limit to how many people could come, likely, but we aren't near that. The thing about immigration is that, an immigrant population bring with them the main resources needed to provide for them - human ability and energy. But enabling them to use that effectively requires a degree of planning organisation and imagination that has all too often been absent.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 01:58 PM

You can churn out your racist nonsense until you're blue in the face. If an employer pays an immigrant worker less than he would pay a native Brit worker for the same work, he is unscrupulous and immoral. The immigrant worker has no choice as to his pay level and, most likely, no choice but to accept the work on offer. He has come here to work and support his dependants. The person who has driven down the wages is the employer. Your constant need to blame immigrants for problems in this country is racist. You should be ashamed of yourself. Same with housing. For decades there have been those of us who have lamented the fact that successive governments have failed to build enough houses. But now you're blaming immigrants for that as well. Well I think you should buy a little offshore island, build a twenty-foot barricade all round it and live a miserable existence all on your own. No-one allowed in at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 01:29 PM

"We find that the immigrant to native ratio has a small negative impact on
average British wages. This finding is important for monetary policy makers, who are interested in the
impact that supply shocks, such as immigration, have on average wages and overall inflation. Our
results also reveal that the biggest impact of immigration on wages is within the semi/unskilled services
occupational group."
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Documents/workingpapers/2015/swp574.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 01:26 PM

The statement that "immigration drives down wages" is just one more sorry part of the racist narrative

No. It is a fact. Employers will always pay as little as they can.
You could increase Blair's minimum wage, but that would make Britain even more attractive and increase immigration.

Can I ask again if there is any level of immigration that any of you would consider excessive, or is more always better?
Does it matter at all that there are far fewer homes than are needed for the present population and that it is just impossible to build the equivalent of a small city every year?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 01:17 PM

I don't the think the kind of carpetbaggers you mentioned aken are taking the jobs of the native Cornish. It's a different kind of immigration, more akin to colonisation. Rather like what's happening in some parts of London, with the kind of wealthy incomers who will never be affected by stuff like Brexit.
..............

It's worth noting that some of the highest Brexit voting areas had relatively few immigrants, for example Sunderlands. It isn't that the jobs have been taken by immigrants, it's that the jobs have been taken away by the economic system we are stuck with. The largest number of immigrants in Sunderland is actually Chinese, predominantly in the restaurant trade.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 01:04 PM

I most certainly do not condone the policy. I condemn it. We do not train the skilled workers we need in this country and we try to hide behind a wall of fake apprenticeships that train people to make tea and sweep floors. But you can't train enough nurses or doctors unless you have the training facilities and professionals to do the training, and we do not. It does not help that this government has alienated both professions and demolished their morale. It takes a damn sight more than five years at a medical college to produce a finished doctor. We are in serious trouble over this, and stealing the finest talent from India, Pakistan, South Africa and the EU is unsustainable and wrong.

To buy a cottage on Breakwater Road, including Captain's Cottage, would leave you with little change from eight or nine hundred grand, yet they're hardly huge. Nearly all of them are either let to holidaymakers for vast weekly rentals or simply stand empty for 48 or more weeks of the year. Oh yes, "them and us" is alive and kicking in Bude as it is in all the resorts in Cornwall.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 12:50 PM

Sorry cross posted Mr McGrath.....off on a hospital visit, but I would be interested to discuss your last point concerning movement within the UK....later..A.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 12:47 PM

BTW....Thank you Mr McGrath for at least acknowledging my point regarding the effects of emigration on poorer countries.
A point which has been studiously avoided by people like Steve and other "remainers".

No one who seriously considers themselves to have any understanding of politics could possibly condone such a policy, which according to the right reverend Anthony Blair, was designed to "make us more competitive in the global economy" (cheap labour, which as Keith has said drives down wages of the very poorest in society)
Also remember that the minimum wage is worth at least three times more in Eastern Europe than in the UK.
A fruit picker here earns the equivalent of a factory manager in Poland, but could a young UK citizen keep a home and raise a family on the same remuneration.....

Subject: RE: BS: Labour party discussion
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 16 - 12:38 PM

The problem there would be freedom of travel with the UK, aken. It,s not the Poles they should be worried about in Cornwall, it's the English (and the Scots). I can't see how Brexit will help with that.