• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

We needed the immigration workforce because Tony sold the young on being graduates and professionals.
With all the extra money you'e going to earn with your hard earned degrees you'll be able to pay some menial to do that for you.
Oh, there isn' any menial left, who would have thunk it!
Said it at the time and I'll say it until I'm on my death bed, what a fudging con.
Blair was a charlatan of the highest order and it never fails to amaze me how fell for it.
 
glasgowspur said:
We needed the immigration workforce because Tony sold the young on being graduates and professionals.
With all the extra money you'e going to earn with your hard earned degrees you'll be able to pay some menial to do that for you.
Oh, there isn' any menial left, who would have thunk it!
Said it at the time and I'll say it until I'm on my death bed, what a fudging con.
Blair was a charlatan of the highest order and it never fails to amaze me how fell for it.
Click to expand...

Did more harm then Thatcher ever did.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Yep it was students and youngsters who used to do casual fruit picking work in the summer months. We also used to have a lot of teachers come on building sites in the summer months and do casual work. They used to like earning a bit extra in the summer months, would work a few weeks then go off and do holiday stuff. But that was also a time when people not only did not mind working they quite liked being in a different working environment for a few weeks, reminded what they studying for.

Blair created a country of lazy freeloaders.
Click to expand...

Someone also once told me that, years ago, locals could do more of the seasonal work because it was easier to sign on/get other casual work in between the seasons. I don't know how reliable that information is, purely anecdotal.

Students used to be able to sign on once upon a time, didn't they? It's not all so straightforward any more.
 
Why do some on here want to go backwards? Is it because you reminisce for the past? In the 1940s and 50s those who lived hand to mouth picked fruit. People who'd wait by the docks in the east end for the chance of some casual work so they could buy food. Not immigrants, but British people living in London. In the summer they'd take the whole family to Kent and pick fruit for a break and to earn some cash. Is that the world you want us to go back to!?

The reason young British people don't pick fruit or do menial jobs is because we're that much richer now. That's not a bad thing! And actually its not a bad thing that we've adapted and people from Poland come over and do it and return home after. You might question how these people are treated and the poor conditions they have to live and work in, but if you're putting Brits first, surely such a setup works well for us?
 
Im not sure anyone wants to "go backwards". Rather people are questioning the legitimacy of the accepted truth that we NEED so many immigrants for work. Particularly menial work.

It would seem in the case of fruitpickinng, yes, we do. Theres nothing wrong with querying if thats a universal truth though.

And nothing about asking that suggests a desire to go back to the old days either.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Im not sure anyone wants to "go backwards". Rather people are questioning the legitimacy of the accepted truth that we NEED so many immigrants for work. Particularly menial work.

It would seem in the case of fruitpickinng, yes, we do. Theres nothing wrong with querying if thats a universal truth though.

And nothing about asking that suggests a desire to go back to the old days either.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I think people want to "go back" to a time when capitalism worked for the majority of society.

Unfortunately the powers that don't want have spent decades planting fantastical stories to create narratives that protects them and points the blame elsewhere.

The goals of many leave voters are correct and noble. The target was wrong.
 
Corbyn is onto something with his rigged economy rhetoric. It is resonating, as people can see that you can work as hard as you like and get nowhere under neo-liberalism.
 
The problem is the balance is out of kilter.
Pay a wage to a fruit picker to make it attractive and the price of the fruit goes up.
It's called economics.
If the cost of the product to producer is higher than the value to the consumer then you're in trouble.
 
glasgowspur said:
The problem is the balance is out of kilter.
Pay a wage to a fruit picker to make it attractive and the price of the fruit goes up.
It's called economics.
If the cost of the product to producer is higher than the value to the consumer then you're in trouble.
Click to expand...
Cheap labour has kept the cost down for everything - remove the cheap labour and the cost goes up meaning less of it will be used. Less people using hotels, coffee shops - less luxury goods and more inferior goods will be the likely outcome.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Cheap labour has kept the cost down for everything - remove the cheap labour and the cost goes up meaning less of it will be used. Less people using hotels, coffee shops - less luxury goods and more inferior goods will be the likely outcome.
Click to expand...
And fewer jobs in those industries.
 
galeforce said:
thats not my experience
Click to expand...
Nor is it the experience of almost anyone I know.

The most successful people I know are the ones that have taken the biggest risks and put in the most time/effort. The ones I know who support Corbyn have spent half their lives dossing in Bali or surfing somewhere and are now upset that those who were their peers are now living in big houses and driving nice cars.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Why do some on here want to go backwards? Is it because you reminisce for the past? In the 1940s and 50s those who lived hand to mouth picked fruit. People who'd wait by the docks in the east end for the chance of some casual work so they could buy food. Not immigrants, but British people living in London. In the summer they'd take the whole family to Kent and pick fruit for a break and to earn some cash. Is that the world you want us to go back to!?

The reason young British people don't pick fruit or do menial jobs is because we're that much richer now. That's not a bad thing! And actually its not a bad thing that we've adapted and people from Poland come over and do it and return home after. You might question how these people are treated and the poor conditions they have to live and work in, but if you're putting Brits first, surely such a setup works well for us?
Click to expand...

A very strange question in my opinion.

Do you consider anything less than a complete open-door immigration policy to be going 'backwards'? Because all that I, and as far as I can tell other posters arguing similar points are suggesting is introducing some control, balance and, yes, a degree of overall reduction to what many consider to be the currently unsustainable numbers. Not shutting down immigration. Not banning Polish fruitpickers. Just re-introducing a reasonable degree of control and the ability to better calibrate arrivals to the needs of the country.

I cannot for the life of me see how this represents anything even slightly unreasonable or indeed backward-looking. But you apparently do, so I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on it.
 
Parklaner81 said:
A very strange question in my opinion.

Do you consider anything less than a complete open-door immigration policy to be going 'backwards'? Because all that I, and as far as I can tell other posters arguing similar points are suggesting is introducing some control, balance and, yes, a degree of overall reduction to what many consider to be the currently unsustainable numbers. Not shutting down immigration. Not banning Polish fruitpickers. Just re-introducing a reasonable degree of control and the ability to better calibrate arrivals to the needs of the country.

I cannot for the life of me see how this represents anything even slightly unreasonable or indeed backward-looking. But you apparently do, so I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on it.
Click to expand...

Your arguement is fair. But the point is, at what cost? If it makes us all poorer? For the long term? Is it still worth it?

Now you may argue that won't be the case, i would like to see some evidence of that please.

But whatever your arguement is... you can not be ok with the fact that no fudging impact assessments have been done.

That is a fudging joke. Whether you support leave or remain the fact that the people that are in charge of leaving have not done impact assessments has to be cause to fudging draw a breath. And say are these the people that should be in charge of the most important moment in our post war history?
 
I don't believe for a second they've not done impact assessments. I do believe they are scared brickless of releasing the conclusions though.
 
DTA said:
Guys seriously

Seriously.... What the actual fudge

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-42249854

Forget the EU and Brexit.... if you even have a passing care for this country then you can't possibly want these clowns in charge of something as important as this.

No fudging impact assessments... are you fudging having a laugh?
Click to expand...

I believe in rigour and due diligence - of course

But I do also see some sense in the argument that economics is a social science, not a hard science, and therefore is basically guesswork and conjecture. Slow journalism.
 
Parklaner81 said:
A very strange question in my opinion.

Do you consider anything less than a complete open-door immigration policy to be going 'backwards'? Because all that I, and as far as I can tell other posters arguing similar points are suggesting is introducing some control, balance and, yes, a degree of overall reduction to what many consider to be the currently unsustainable numbers. Not shutting down immigration. Not banning Polish fruitpickers. Just re-introducing a reasonable degree of control and the ability to better calibrate arrivals to the needs of the country.

I cannot for the life of me see how this represents anything even slightly unreasonable or indeed backward-looking. But you apparently do, so I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on it.
Click to expand...

Woah there. Where have I said that? I was referring to the narrative (which I can understand) which looks back and says, well in my day, you'd get up and take any bloody job you could when you were 16 etc. And I'd agree. But the reality is, when British people picked fruit they were bordering on destitute. We're richer, and that's ultimately a good thing. With less wealth there are positives - more social cohesion as we rely on others more for example creating stronger social bonds - but you can't halt change and go back to world where plucky roosterneys spent their summers picking fruit.

Maybe what made you so defensive is that the gaps are being filled in with EU work migrants. But we all seem to agree, post Brexit we'll allow (or should) at least some of this migration to continue.

The logical progression of this, is to start asking, what changes will we see then, if we are going to allow some migration anyway (and half of our migration is ex-eu anyway), is the control we'll get over immigration worth the sacrifices of giving up customs union membership? Hard to answer that without knowing the full EU deal etc.
 
SpurMeUp said:
Hard to answer that without knowing the full EU deal etc.
Click to expand...

There in lies the rub. There is an assumption, and again - accepted truth - that we will simply be worse off, that really grates me.

I full accept that we could be, and fully accept in the short term we likely will be (any change or transition comes with some pain), but it doesnt follow that WE WILL FOR SURE BE WORSE OFF. It just doesnt, there is much possibility.

Personally I am still VERY much of the opinion that the EU needs to deal as much as we do. And that, with that in mind, compromises can be found that suit all. Isnt that really what any successful negotiation is about?


In the case of immigration, I think it is a must that it is reduced, the current rates simply cannot be sustained.

I think it is only right that a country gets to choose those it accepts, ideally with the majority being required.

This in turn helps support sectors/services where they need it, and relieve pressure on things like welfare and housing at the same time*.

As Scara points out, if we need less hotels and coffee shops, we also need less workers to operate them. It is not necessarily a bad thing to have a reduction in both.




*No, I dont think the NHS, Welfare or housing issues are immigrations fault. I do, however, think high immigration adds pressure to an already faulty system
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back