Topic: Ed Milliband

[vicgill]

As I have said previously, he talks and acts like a 16 year old at
his school`s debating society and hasn`t changed.
Thank fuck for a bit of Dennis Skinner every so often.

With you on that, the only labour MP who doesn´t speak with a plum in his mouth

[Finn Solomon]

You really think that if they hadn't pushed the boat out a bit more they wouldn't have got a second term?! The second term was by an absolute landslide in second election term, only cut about 3 off the majority didn't they?

The majority people still just didn't trust the Tories and they were in more disarray than Labour are now. They could have done a fair bit more without risking the second term. I don't mean full nationalisation in and old Labour style, but they didn't need to cosy up to Murdoch or allow the market such a free deregulated reign either.

Agree about Murdoch and the market, but they introduced minimum wage and legalised gay marriage, two huge achievements that were largely ignored by the media. I think people overlook how much they actually did get done.

[Nessy76]

Agree about Murdoch and the market, but they introduced minimum wage and legalised gay marriage, two huge achievements that were largely ignored by the media. I think people overlook how much they actually did get done.

Yes. Sure Start, Tax Credits, binning off the hereditary peers. All good stuff.

[jaffod]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-immigration-rethink-labour-907391


Surprised no-one has picked up on this. I'm sure if Cameron had expressed similar views yesterday it would have been dissected on here in great length.   Doesn't it make Ed a little bit racist? Or has the penny now dropped that the last Labour governments 'open door' policy on immigration has had a catastrophic effect on a large percentage of the UK's population? Say anything for a few extra votes wont you Ed?
 

[SMD]

I'm sorry but anyone under the impression that immigration was an 'open door' under the previous government didn't experience it. It's a nightmare for most people.

[Nessy76]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-immigration-rethink-labour-907391


Surprised no-one has picked up on this. I'm sure if Cameron had expressed similar views yesterday it would have been dissected on here in great length.   Doesn't it make Ed a little bit racist? Or has the penny now dropped that the last Labour governments 'open door' policy on immigration has had a catastrophic effect on a large percentage of the UK's population? Say anything for a few extra votes wont you Ed?

There have, and nearly always will be, much bigger impacts on people's lives than immigration. It's something that, once you study and understand it, you can see how the benefits of letting more people into the country, clearly outweigh the costs. But this is an island, and a lot of people are scared of foreigners. It's a minor issue, but it's one that people are passionate about, a bit like gay marriage in the states. And that passion can easily turn nasty if people feel their views aren't being heard, even if their views are ill-informed, or even xenophobic, gibberish to a large degree. Scare stories in the media about immigrants claiming huge amounts of benefits or using the NHS are all nonsense, the taxes paid by immigrants as a whole more than cover even the most pessimistic costs of this sort of thing. But people will believe what's in the papers, most of which are owned by people with extreme views on the subject.

To me, if I go for a job interview, and someone else gets it, it doesn't matter if they are from the street next door to me or Outer Mongolia. I just don't see why I should be more entitled to a job if someone else is better qualified or able to do it.

What Miliband is referring to, though, is that people from other countries are able to come and work here for less than the minimum wage. That is clearly wrong, and that's something that does need to be sorted out. For their sake, as much as anyone else's.

The current government make no secret of the fact they would like to abolish the minumum wage altogether, that's going to do a lot more harm to the working people of Britain than any "open door" immigration policy ever could.

[jaffod]

There have, and nearly always will be, much bigger impacts on people's lives than immigration. It's something that, once you study and understand it, you can see how the benefits of letting more people into the country, clearly outweigh the costs. But this is an island, and a lot of people are scared of foreigners. It's a minor issue, but it's one that people are passionate about, a bit like gay marriage in the states. And that passion can easily turn nasty if people feel their views aren't being heard, even if their views are ill-informed, or even xenophobic, gibberish to a large degree. Scare stories in the media about immigrants claiming huge amounts of benefits or using the NHS are all nonsense, the taxes paid by immigrants as a whole more than cover even the most pessimistic costs of this sort of thing. But people will believe what's in the papers, most of which are owned by people with extreme views on the subject.

To me, if I go for a job interview, and someone else gets it, it doesn't matter if they are from the street next door to me or Outer Mongolia. I just don't see why I should be more entitled to a job if someone else is better qualified or able to do it.

What Miliband is referring to, though, is that people from other countries are able to come and work here for less than the minimum wage. That is clearly wrong, and that's something that does need to be sorted out. For their sake, as much as anyone else's.

The current government make no secret of the fact they would like to abolish the minumum wage altogether, that's going to do a lot more harm to the working people of Britain than any "open door" immigration policy ever could.

All very admirable, especially the part in bold. I'm not sure many people in the unemployment blackspot where my employer is based would agree with you though.
 I work for one of the  the biggest employers in South Liverpool, an area rife with unemployment, social deprivation and the crime that comes hand in hand with it, and I would estimate that about 70% of the workforce are immigrants.
 This isn't some tinpot company either, it is a leader in it's field with an impressive list of blue-chip companies as it's clients. The work undertaken doesn't fall into the 'British workers wouldn't want to do it' category at all.
 The immigrant workers are no better qualified or capable than the majority of the local workforce who exist on benefits and who have virtually no chance of landing a permanent, full-time job. There are couples working there who have no kids, mortgages etc but have a combined monthly take-home pay of around £2500. They contribute virtually nothing to the local economy other than bus fares. Half a mile away there are hundreds of families living on a pittance. Nothing will ever convince me that is right.
 There are probably 30/40 regular agency staff on top of the full-time employees and they are 100% eastern European. Many of them can barely speak English which makes a complete mockery of the argument of being better qualified.
 Of course the management don't mind at all. They'll work every hour God sends, keep their gobs shut and do as they're told. There was a union meeting not long after I started there and no more than 2 or 3 left their machines to attend it. Their acceptance of whatever management throws at them has had a devastating effect on the pay and working conditions that British workers have fought for for decades.
 I'm pretty sure this is a scenario that is being replicated in workplaces up and down the country but anyone voicing concerns about it has been labelled a racist/ bigot/ xenophobe etc. That may change now that Ed has broken ranks and admitted the last Labour government fucked up on a massive scale. I'd still be interested in his true motives though.

[-Q-]

I'd still be interested in his true motives though.

Electability.  He knows that a large proportion of people in this country are xenophobic and he needs to prey on their fears if he has any chance of winning in 2015.  Labour did not need to be tough on immigration to win in '97, '01 or '05 because they had a large groundswell of public opinion in their favour anyway. Despite the current poll numbers, he knows that next time the election will be closer and they need to stake out their anti-immigrant credentials now, to blunt Cameron's sword in advance of the election.

[jaffod]

Electability.

Almost certainly true.

  He knows that a large proportion of people in this country are xenophobic and he needs to prey on their fears if he has any chance of winning in 2015.

Or maybe he's realised the terrible consequences of Labour's immigration policy during their last tenure with xenophobia having nothing to do with it whatsoever?

[-Q-]

Or maybe he's realised the terrible consequences of Labour's immigration policy during their last tenure with xenophobia having nothing to do with it whatsoever?

If by "terrible consequences" you mean there are fewer "British jobs for British workers" because Eastern Europeans are "taking all 'our' jobs" then you are talking about xenophobia.

[jaffod]

If by "terrible consequences" you mean there are fewer "British jobs for British workers" because Eastern Europeans are "taking all 'our' jobs" then you are talking about xenophobia.

Go and look up the definition of 'xenophobia'.

[hide5seek]

Jaffod, I thought immigration has gotten worst since the election?

[jaffod]

Jaffod, I thought immigration has gotten worst since the election?

It may well have done.

[-Q-]

Go and look up the definition of 'xenophobia'.

On what other basis can you assert that migrant workers are taking the jobs of British workers?

If a company is advertising a job in Speke, why does a scouser (or a manc or a Scot) have any more right to apply and take that job than an individual who happens to have been born in Eastern European?

[jaffod]

On what other basis can you assert that migrant workers are taking the jobs of British workers?

Xenophobia : An unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or that which is foreign or strange.

I neither fear or hate the migrant workers I work with, so my concerns about the effect of migrant workers on the local workforce doesn't come under xenophobia. Like I said, go and look it up.

If a company is advertising a job in Speke, why does a scouser (or a manc or a Scot) have any more right to apply and take that job than an individual who happens to have been born in Eastern European?

You know what? I believe in looking after your own. Shoot me for it. Nothing, absolutely fucking nothing, will ever convince me it is right for 'a job in Speke' to be given to an eastern European over a bloke from Speke who wants to work and has a family to support. That does not make me a xenophobe, a racist or any other fucking label you'll no doubt try to put on me.
 Fwiw, the migrant workers in my place of work are no more able, no more intelligent or no more hard-working than the vast majority of British workers who I have encountered over the years. They are there for a reason and I doubt I need to explain what that reason is do I?

[-Q-]

Xenophobia : An unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or that which is foreign or strange.

I neither fear or hate the migrant workers I work with, so my concerns about the effect of migrant workers on the local workforce doesn't come under xenophobia. Like I said, go and look it up.


You know what? I believe in looking after your own. Shoot me for it. Nothing, absolutely fucking nothing, will ever convince me it is right for 'a job in Speke' to be given to an eastern European over a bloke from Speke who wants to work and has a family to support. That does not make me a xenophobe, a racist or any other fucking label you'll no doubt try to put on me.
 Fwiw, the migrant workers in my place of work are no more able, no more intelligent or no more hard-working than the vast majority of British workers who I have encountered over the years. They are there for a reason and I doubt I need to explain what that reason is do I?

They want to work and have a family to support...?

[jaffod]

They want to work and have a family to support...?

LOL.

[Nessy76]

Xenophobia : An unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or that which is foreign or strange.

I neither fear or hate the migrant workers I work with, so my concerns about the effect of migrant workers on the local workforce doesn't come under xenophobia. Like I said, go and look it up.


You know what? I believe in looking after your own. Shoot me for it. Nothing, absolutely fucking nothing, will ever convince me it is right for 'a job in Speke' to be given to an eastern European over a bloke from Speke who wants to work and has a family to support.

This does sort of contradict itself, mate. People in Eastern Europe have families to support as well. Why don't they matter as much as the bloke from Speke? "Hatred or fear" might be overstating it, but you have stated an obvious and irrational bias here.

[jaffod]

This does sort of contradict itself, mate. People in Eastern Europe have families to support as well. Why don't they matter as much as the bloke from Speke? "Hatred or fear" might be overstating it, but you have stated an obvious and irrational bias here.

Like I said, I believe in looking after your own. To be honest I don't give a toss what goes on in eastern Europe. That's their problem. I'd rather see the bloke from Speke looked after all day long. Does that make me a c*nt? Fine.
 Afwiw, I'd say 95% of the migrant workers in my place of work are in their late teens/ early 20's, have no kids, put nothing back into the local economy and openly admit they are putting away every penny so they can buy property when they return home in the future.

[Nessy76]

Like I said, I believe in looking after your own. To be honest I don't give a toss what goes on in eastern Europe. That's their problem. I'd rather see the bloke from Speke looked after all day long. Does that make me a c*nt? Fine.
 Afwiw, I'd say 95% of the migrant workers in my place of work are in their late teens/ early 20's, have no kids, put nothing back into the local economy and openly admit they are putting away every penny so they can buy property when they return home in the future.

I didn't call you a c*nt mate, I just pointed out that you are basing your view on an irrational prejudice, whether you see that as xenophobic or not.

[jaffod]

I didn't call you a c*nt mate, I just pointed out that you are basing your view on an irrational prejudice, whether you see that as xenophobic or not.

I know you didn't call me a c*nt, but some people probably would.

There really isn't anything irrational about it.  For it to be irrational I would have to have no idea as to why I hold these views when in fact I am perfectly clear on why I hold them. Nor is it prejudice, which is basically a preconceived judgement based on a person's gender, colour, age, origin etc. None of that matters here, I'm not judging anybody, simply stating I believe British workers should be given preference in their own country. Like I said some will call me a c*nt for that but that's how I feel about it.

[Nessy76]

I know you didn't call me a c*nt, but some people probably would.

There really isn't anything irrational about it.  For it to be irrational I would have to have no idea as to why I hold these views when in fact I am perfectly clear on why I hold them. Nor is it prejudice, which is basically a preconceived judgement based on a person's gender, colour, age, origin etc. None of that matters here, I'm not judging anybody, simply stating I believe British workers should be given preference in their own country. Like I said some will call me a c*nt for that but that's how I feel about it.

It's really not that hard to see, is it?

[jaffod]

It's really not that hard to see, is it?

Nah, sorry mate but it's easy to highlight a couple of words in an effort to twist what I'm actually saying.

I'll give you a few definitions of 'prejudice'.

1. An unfavourable opinion or feeling formed beforehand without knowledge, thought or reason.

2. Unreasonable feelings, opinions or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious or national group.

3. An adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

I can quite categorically state that none of those definitions are relevant with regards to my views on this subject, although you'll no doubt twist my words to make it sound otherwise.

[-Q-]

You still have not provided any rational reason for favouring locals over Eastern European interlopers other than an illogical, emotion based preference for in-group members (locals, Scousers) over out-group members (outsiders, Eastern European).  That would be because there isn't one, it is a primitive evolutionary mechanism, based on entirely based on psychologically satisfying prejudices and not reason.

[insert obligatory League of Gentlemen picture here]

[jaffod]

You still have not provided any rational reason for favouring locals over Eastern European interlopers other than an illogical, emotion based preference for in-group members (locals, Scousers) over out-group members (outsiders, Eastern European).  That would be because there isn't one, it is a primitive evolutionary mechanism, based on entirely based on psychologically satisfying prejudices and not reason.

[insert obligatory League of Gentlemen picture here]

Jesus fucking wept.

You want a rational reason? I'll give you one, although I'm sure I already have. I'd prefer the jobs to be given to 'locals, scousers' rather than 'Eastern European interlopers' (your words, not mine) because I'd rather see them given the chance to get on in life instead of bringing up a family on benefits (which I will fucking contribute to through taxes but that's beside the point).
 Answer me a question. My son will leave school in 3/4 years time. I imagine he will find it difficult finding a permanent job, after all there are roughly 1,000,000 unemployed youngsters in this country at the moment. If a decent job came up and it was a choice between my son getting it or an 'Eastern European interloper' (your words, not mine) who should I wish to get it? I'd favour my son believe it or not. Why? Because I want him to get on in life and not spend his days watching Jeremy fucking Kyle and trying to work out how he can purchase a place of his own on Jobseekers Allowance. Is that so fucking wrong? Does that make me prejudice?

 I'll ask you some more questions.

If I go into a supermarket and decide to buy English apples over French apples because I believe in supporting our farmers does that make me prejudiced? Am I making an informed, considered choice or am I making an ill-considered, adverse judgement against the French farmers? Does that make me prejudiced against the French? No, does it fuck.

If I have a choice between buying a British built car as opposed to one built in Japan and decide to buy the British one because I believe it will keep British car-makers in work does that make me prejudiced against the Japanese? Again, does it fuck, I'm showing support for British car-makers.

Why do I support Liverpool Football Club? Am I 'prejudiced' against other teams/ cities because of who I chose to support? No, I support who I support because I was fucking born there and my family have supported LFC for generations.

Is it not possible to simply choose anymore? Must every decision you make in life from buying food/ clothing/ cars or supporting a football team come down to prejudice? Because that's how you make it sound. Seriously, where do you draw the line?

Choice and the freedom to hold a considered opinion are wonderful things without having bullshit, ill-fitting labels put on them.

Fwiw this is my last say on the subject because if you can't see the distinctions I'm making then I despair.

[-Q-]

Jesus fucking wept.

I think you are attaching far stronger, negative connotations to the word "prejudice" than I am.  I am not suggesting that you are racist, just that the views you are expressing are irrational and mildly xenophobic.  The fact is, the vast majority of people in this country share your views.  I am fascinated by this in-group bias.

You want a rational reason? I'll give you one, although I'm sure I already have. I'd prefer the jobs to be given to 'locals, scousers' rather than 'Eastern European interlopers' (your words, not mine) because I'd rather see them given the chance to get on in life instead of bringing up a family on benefits (which I will fucking contribute to through taxes but that's beside the point).

That is not an explanation of why you would prefer a Scouser to "get on in life" than an Eastern European.  Let's say you are interviewing two people for a job.  One is from Speke, the other from Warsaw.  They are equally qualified, so why should the Scouser get the job? On the basis of where he was born and raised?

The fact that you will have to contribute to the benefits of a Scouser if an Eastern European migrant does take a job here is not "beside the point" it is actually the closest you've come to making a coherent argument as this would have a direct effect on you and your finances.  Unfortunately, it is based on a faulty premise and there is no "lump of labour;" migration and employment is not a zero-sum game.

Answer me a question. My son will leave school in 3/4 years time. I imagine he will find it difficult finding a permanent job, after all there are roughly 1,000,000 unemployed youngsters in this country at the moment. If a decent job came up and it was a choice between my son getting it or an 'Eastern European interloper' (your words, not mine) who should I wish to get it? I'd favour my son believe it or not. Why? Because I want him to get on in life and not spend his days watching Jeremy fucking Kyle and trying to work out how he can purchase a place of his own on Jobseekers Allowance. Is that so fucking wrong? Does that make me prejudice?

No, not at all.  You have every rational reason to want your son to get on in life and to succeed as he is your son, someone whose life is of value to you - however this still does not explain why you believe a generic local should get a job ahead of an Eastern European.  I would imagine that you would want your son to get the job ahead of all the 100 other people who might have applied - whether they are Scousers or Eastern Europeans.

I'll ask you some more questions.

If I go into a supermarket and decide to buy English apples over French apples because I believe in supporting our farmers does that make me prejudiced? Am I making an informed, considered choice or am I making an ill-considered, adverse judgement against the French farmers? Does that make me prejudiced against the French? No, does it fuck.

It would depend.  If there was a massive difference in quality, yet you chose the inferior apple in order to support hard-working British farmer then you would be making a poor and irrational decision.  That doesn't mean that you hate the French and want to knock their berets of their garlic munching heads with a fresh baguette.

If I have a choice between buying a British built car as opposed to one built in Japan and decide to buy the British one because I believe it will keep British car-makers in work does that make me prejudiced against the Japanese? Again, does it fuck, I'm showing support for British car-makers.

"Showing support for British car-makers" is a psychologically pleasing platitude, but it doesn't help explain why you would support British car-makers over Japanese car-makers.

Why do I support Liverpool Football Club? Am I 'prejudiced' against other teams/ cities because of who I chose to support? No, I support who I support because I was fucking born there and my family have supported LFC for generations.

This is still an irrational, in-group prejudice.  It is a modern form of tribalism.

Is it not possible to simply choose anymore? Must every decision you make in life from buying food/ clothing/ cars or supporting a football team come down to prejudice? Because that's how you make it sound. Seriously, where do you draw the line?

You can choose whatever you want.  If you gain emotional satisfaction from buying English apples and a Vauxhall car built at Elsmere Port then go right ahead.  However, I will still maintain that this is fundamentally irrational.

Choice and the freedom to hold a considered opinion are wonderful things without having bullshit, ill-fitting labels put on them.

Fwiw this is my last say on the subject because if you can't see the distinctions I'm making then I despair.

As I said above, I think you are attaching much stronger negative connotations to irrational prejudice than I am.  Nothing I have said was meant to suggest that you are preparing your EDL/BNP membership forms as we speak.  If that is how it came across, I apologise.  An "irrational prejudice" is a position that favours one group over another, arrived at sub-consciously or emotionally that does not stand reasoned scrutiny.  However, this does not necessarily mean a hatred of out-group members.  Preferences could be relatively mild - such as favouring in-group members for job opportunities. Even though it does imply a discrimination against out-group members - this can be as mild as preferring to purchase English cars or apples, which is obviously your own free choice.

---
Sadly, Ed has decided that he needs to prey on these irrational prejudices for political gain, playing "dog-whistle" politics.  And yes, the Tories, Daily Mail etc are far worse (or should that be better?) at it, but it doesn't make it acceptable for Miliband to do it.

[Nessy76]

Nah, sorry mate but it's easy to highlight a couple of words in an effort to twist what I'm actually saying.

I'll give you a few definitions of 'prejudice'.

1. An unfavourable opinion or feeling formed beforehand without knowledge, thought or reason.

Such as feeling that some people don't deserve to do a job they might be perfectly qualified for.

2. Unreasonable feelings, opinions or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious or national group.

Such as feeling that some people don't deserve to do a job they might be perfectly qualified for, based on their national group.

3. An adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

Such as feeling that some people don't deserve to do a job they might be perfectly qualified for, based on their national group, rather than their ability to do the job.

I can quite categorically state that none of those definitions are relevant with regards to my views on this subject, although you'll no doubt twist my words to make it sound otherwise.

No twisting required. I'm not trying to make you out to be a racist, but you freely admit that you would favour one stranger to another based on nothing more than his nationality. That is prejudice and there's no getting away from it.

Jesus fucking wept.

You want a rational reason? I'll give you one, although I'm sure I already have. I'd prefer the jobs to be given to 'locals, scousers' rather than 'Eastern European interlopers' (your words, not mine) because I'd rather see them given the chance to get on in life instead of bringing up a family on benefits (which I will fucking contribute to through taxes but that's beside the point).

Again, all you are saying is that you prefer the local to the Eastern European, you don't put forward any reason for that. Making a decision without having a reason for it is irrational.

Answer me a question. My son will leave school in 3/4 years time. I imagine he will find it difficult finding a permanent job, after all there are roughly 1,000,000 unemployed youngsters in this country at the moment. If a decent job came up and it was a choice between my son getting it or an 'Eastern European interloper' (your words, not mine) who should I wish to get it? I'd favour my son believe it or not. Why? Because I want him to get on in life and not spend his days watching Jeremy fucking Kyle and trying to work out how he can purchase a place of his own on Jobseekers Allowance. Is that so fucking wrong? Does that make me prejudice?

Strictly speaking, that would be nepotism, but I think just about everyone would feel the same way, so I'm not going to give you a hard time about it. The issue here isn't about your son, though, it is about two hypothetical strangers, the only difference being that one is local and one from Eastern Europe. You are seeing everyone from your area in the same terms as your immediate family, which is tribal behaviour.

I'll ask you some more questions.

If I go into a supermarket and decide to buy English apples over French apples because I believe in supporting our farmers does that make me prejudiced? Am I making an informed, considered choice or am I making an ill-considered, adverse judgement against the French farmers? Does that make me prejudiced against the French? No, does it fuck.

It depends on why you want to "support our farmers". If it is because you think that will help the local economy and ultimately bring direct financial gain to yourself, then it is an informed, considered choice. (But not one that applies to the labour market, everyone who works here pays the same taxes, wherever they are from) If it's just because you think favouring the English farmer over the French farmer is a good thing in its own right, then it isn't an informed, considered choice. It's just more of the same tribal behaviour.

If I have a choice between buying a British built car as opposed to one built in Japan and decide to buy the British one because I believe it will keep British car-makers in work does that make me prejudiced against the Japanese? Again, does it fuck, I'm showing support for British car-makers.

But at the expense of Japanese car manufacturers (and, in all probability, your own driving experience)

This is what you don't seem to get. The man working in a Japanese car factory also has a family, also has bills to pay, also wants to support his kids through their education. We've established you aren't racist, so the only difference here is that one man lives further away. How far do you extend this idea? Would you buy a car made in Speke but not one made in Dagenham?

Why do I support Liverpool Football Club? Am I 'prejudiced' against other teams/ cities because of who I chose to support? No, I support who I support because I was fucking born there and my family have supported LFC for generations.

Yeah, but football is totally tribal.

Is it not possible to simply choose anymore? Must every decision you make in life from buying food/ clothing/ cars or supporting a football team come down to prejudice? Because that's how you make it sound. Seriously, where do you draw the line?

You were the one who raised the issue of buying food and cars here, and it was you who decided that was political. I'd suggest you buy the best available, not the one made nearest. (Unless you're worried about the environment, then local produce makes all kinds of good sense, just not for the reasons you have.)

Choice and the freedom to hold a considered opinion are wonderful things without having bullshit, ill-fitting labels put on them.

Fwiw this is my last say on the subject because if you can't see the distinctions I'm making then I despair.

If an opinion is worth holding, surely it has to stand up to scrutiny from different opinions?

[Red Genius]

What a load of nonsense this argument has descended into.

There are not enough jobs for everybody, ergo high unemployment.  Introducing more people into this country when there are not enough jobs to satisfy our current surplus of job seekers does not help matters.

Immigrants into our country should be vetted like Australia and Canada do, based on the requirement for their skills set in our economies, where there is a void of ability currently in the country we should welcome those who can fill that void.

Allowing numerous amounts of unskilled individuals into our economies flooding the lower paid jobs does not help getting the current surplus of unskilled workers into a job.

It's dealing with a practical problem, with practical solutions.

Preference of a local lad over a foreigner is not the issue, having the two fighting it out for only one job - is the problem. Or in our case many people fighting it out for just a handful of positions.

[Acaustiq]

If I go into a supermarket and decide to buy English apples over French apples because I believe in supporting our farmers does that make me prejudiced? Am I making an informed, considered choice or am I making an ill-considered, adverse judgement against the French farmers? Does that make me prejudiced against the French? No, does it fuck.

If I have a choice between buying a British built car as opposed to one built in Japan and decide to buy the British one because I believe it will keep British car-makers in work does that make me prejudiced against the Japanese? Again, does it fuck, I'm showing support for British car-makers.

Strictly speaking it'd make you prejudiced against society as you'd be sending incorrect signals to the market, creating negative externalities that ultimately everyone else has to pay for.

Immigrants into our country should be vetted like Australia and Canada do, based on the requirement for their skills set in our economies, where there is a void of ability currently in the country we should welcome those who can fill that void.

If only there were some kind of points system, that would solve everything.

Allowing numerous amounts of unskilled individuals into our economies flooding the lower paid jobs does not help getting the current surplus of unskilled workers into a job.

The supply of labour is no more stochastic than the supply of flat screen televisions or tennis racquets; it's no different to any other factor of production. Ergo the obvious solution is, instead of demanding that the state protects you from competition (and that ultimately society subsidies your indolence) you become more competitive.

I refer you to John Stuart Mill.

Competition may not be the best conceivable stimulus, but it is at present a necessary one; and no one can foresee the time when it will not be indispensable to progress. Even confining ourselves to the industrial department, — in which, more than in any other, the majority may be supposed to be competent judges of improvements, — it would be difficult to induce the general assembly of an association to submit to the trouble and inconvenience of altering their habits by adopting some new and promising invention, unless their knowledge of the existence of rival associations made them apprehend that what they would not consent to do, others would, and that they would be left behind in the race.

Instead of looking upon competition as the baneful and anti-social principle which it is held to be by the generality of socialists, I conceive that, even in the present state of society and industry, every restriction of it is an evil, and every extension of it — even if for the time injuriously affecting some class of laborers — is always an ultimate good. To be protected against competition is to be protected in idleness, in mental dullness; to be saved the necessity of being as active and as intelligent as other people: and if it is also to be protected against being underbid for employment by a less highly paid class of laborers, this is only where old custom or local and partial monopoly has placed some particular class of artisans in a privileged position as compared with the rest; and the time has come when the interest of universal improvement is no longer promoted by prolonging the privileges of a few. If the slop-sellers and others of their class have lowered the wages of tailors and some other artisans, by making them an affair of competition instead of custom, so much the better in the end. What is now required is not to bolster up old customs, whereby limited classes of laboring people obtain partial gains which interest them in keeping up the present organization of society, but to introduce new general practices beneficial to all; and there is reason to rejoice at whatever makes the privileged classes of skilled artisans feel that they have the same interests, and depend for their remuneration on the same general causes, and must resort for the improvement of their condition to the same remedies, as the less fortunately circumstanced and comparatively helpless multitude.

[Nessy76]

What a load of nonsense this argument has descended into.

There are not enough jobs for everybody, ergo high unemployment.  Introducing more people into this country when there are not enough jobs to satisfy our current surplus of job seekers does not help matters.

It's not as simple as that. More people=more demand=more jobs. It's not quite as simple as that, either, of course, but there definitely isn't a finite "supply" of jobs.

[Haemogoblin]

I can't claim to know what impact exactly it has on our own economy in any detail, but the remittances sent home by economic migrants are playing an increasingly hugely significant role in the economic growth of the poorer nations where the recipient families reside. Immigrant labour tends to directly result in an awful lot of money leaving UK circulation, as the workers themselves transfer large chunks of their wages to their families back home, where the money inevitably goes a lot further than it would for a family permanently based in Britain spending it over here. As international remittance fees gradually come down via technological advances and increased competition in the field of electronic money transfer, it becomes more and more of an attractive enterprise for struggling families abroad.

Immigrants from comparitively undeveloped nations will get a lot of unskilled jobs quite simply because they are prepared to work harder and longer for less, not out of some noble egalitarian 'Global Village' ideal. It's lovely that everyone here is so enlightened and open-armed, but what is happening in the real world for working class communities is that those who come from the very place where the job is located are essentially being undercut by the (totally admirable, industrious, resourceful) economic migrants who can as individuals/couples afford to work more for less pay while living in the country, be it temporarily, until they can comfortably return home, or with plans to stay longterm and perhaps eventually bring more of their family over. That money is thus transferred out of the economy of the country which is providing them with a decent income in the first place.

I personally tend to agree with Red Genius, looking forward at this issue. Job vacancies that require years of skill-training and specialist knowledge should be filled by whoever is best qualified for the role; lifelong UK citizens, economic migrants, nomadic mercenary adventurers - whoever. Multi-lingualism could be a very useful asset in such positions, so immigrant workers could be at a genuine, entirely reasonable advantage over many British candidates in that regard. But it's also important for any city/nation to 'look after its own', particularly its own poor, for the sake of its own future stability and prosperity - 'unskilled' labour is a vital means for poorly educated young people to at least strive toward improving their lot in life; we need to be very careful to ensure we aren't disenfranchising generation after generation of Britons purely for quck, short-term gains. I certainly don't agree with the very right-on assertion that this is always an exclusively narrow-minded or xenophobic view to hold. Shit in modern society is never that black & white.

An extremely complex issue, whichever side you stand. I'm still not entirely sure where I do on it.

[Nessy76]

I personally tend to agree with Red Genius, looking forward at this issue. Job vacancies that require years of skill-training and specialist knowledge should be filled by whoever is best qualified for the role; lifelong UK citizens, economic migrants, nomadic mercenary adventurers - whoever. Multi-lingualism could be a very useful asset in such positions, so immigrant workers could be at a genuine, entirely reasonable advantage over many British candidates in that regard. But it's also important for any city/nation to 'look after its own', particularly its own poor, for the sake of its own future stability and prosperity - 'unskilled' labour is a vital means for poorly educated young people to at least strive toward improving their lot in life; we need to be very careful to ensure we aren't disenfranchising generation after generation of Britons purely for quck, short-term gains. I certainly don't agree with the very right-on assertion that this is always an exclusively narrow-minded or xenophobic view to hold. Shit in modern society is never that black & white.

You raise some very good points, and I entered this myself by saying that Miliband's speech wasn't about xenophobia. The problem is that the issue is so heavily influenced by xenophobia, paranoia and, sometimes, outright racism. If we actually look at the issues, as you are doing, then there is a case to be made for not having open borders, (although the actual economic implications when it all works through are fairly minor compared to other things) but this whole subject is a breeding ground for knee-jerk reactionary thinking, and the real issues are rarely, if ever, discussed.

People who are fairly reasonable, and certainly not racists, hold views that are not related to the issues you've brought up, but are simply based on an irrational preference to see "our lot" do better than "their lot", and that, unfortunately, is what drives the debate.

The case of students is a good example. As a nation, we profitted immensely from overseas students coming over and paying huge amounts to subsidise our own students' education. This government has, for no reason it has been able to articulate, enforced an arbitrary cap on the number of overseas students, pulling money out of the economy and making it more difficult for Universities to operate. This was a service we were selling to the world, as one of the very, very best suppliers on the planet, and the government has hamstrung it because it was dependant on "foreigners" moving here for a few years to spend their money. And all to satisfy the closet racists who read the Daily Mail.

The mind boggles.

[jaffod]

Strictly speaking it'd make you prejudiced against society as you'd be sending incorrect signals to the market, creating negative externalities that ultimately everyone else has to pay for.

 

But...but...I never meant to create negative externalities!

[-Q-]

 

But...but...I never meant to create negative externalities!

No-one ever does...

[Acaustiq]

 

But...but...I never meant to create negative externalities!

And now we're all driving round in austin maxis.

[jaffod]

Oh noes!! What have I done...?

[Haemogoblin]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/FEgGE81joB8" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/FEgGE81joB8</a>