Did You Vote LibDem?

[littlebabyjesus]

That misses the point. Why are people attracted to the lies? What are their grievances and what are the real reasons for those grievances? Why do so many people say that they are concerned about immigration, only to find when you ask them what they are scared of that it is in fact something that isn't true?

Fighting lies is not banging your head against a brick wall. Conceding to the liars that they have a point is simply giving in to repression, turning the poor against each other, promoting the idea that 'my lack of a job/council house is not the fault of that rich cunt in a mansion down the road, but of those other poor cunts who live opposite me'. It is not, and cannot ever be, the right thing to do.

 

[newme]

Didnt vote at all, polling card came in the name of an asian sounding gentleman who doesnt live here anymore. Still yet to ever vote tho as Im yet to find anyone I actually want in any kind of power.

 

[Big Bloke]

I didn't but nearly did. I think a coalition is something that should be given every chance to work. Concessions from both sides, giving a tempered set of policies. The Libs actually have a chance of making a difference.

Libs and Cons both said that they were standing for change, we certanly have a change. Long live a hung paliment, long live the coalition!!

I might buy one of these tee-shirts if found on Zazzle http://www.zazzle.co.uk/well+hung+parliament+gifts


Big Bloke

 

[trevhagl]

I didn't but nearly did. I think a coalition is something that should be given every chance to work. Concessions from both sides, giving a tempered set of policies. The Libs actually have a chance of making a difference.

Libs and Cons both said that they were standing for change, we certanly have a change. Long live a hung paliment, long live the coalition!!

I might buy one of these tee-shirts if found on Zazzle http://www.zazzle.co.uk/well+hung+parliament+gifts


Big Bloke

that is one of the crappest ranges of merch i've ever seen! I imagine even Jim Davidson's are better than that!

 

[Proper Tidy]

ok, so what's your alternative proposal?

currently the people affected are not allowed into the country.

if they were to be allowed in under existing rules they would have to have their visa tied to a specific employer, restricting their rights to withdraw their labour from that employer should that employer treat them like shit.

the lib dems have offered up one potential option to resolve the problems outlined by me in this thread. The only other potentially workable option I can think of would be to limit a persons work by job type, eg agricultural worker, but I can see that causing at least as many problems as the regional idea.

Of the other potential options, open borders would be a disaster if we tried to implement it alone, and realistically could only ever be a long term gradual goal rather than a sudden switch.

Allow a capped number of non-skilled economic migrants to come into the country to work anywhere in any job would be likely to lead to the problem I outline in my edit above relating to seasonal farm workers, ending up in the city at the end of the season, finding more permanent work in the cities, resulting in the need for more migrant workers to be brought in the next year to fill the seasonal vacancies etc.

Keep things as they are and it just builds up pent up demand from economic migrants desperate to get here to work by whatever means possible, resulting in the levels of illegal migration we've seen recently, with all the problems that entails.

Open things up under the current tier 3 rules, and you're basically creating a system of indentured workers...

so, beyond the posturing, do you have an opinion on what the actual best way forward is for this situation? Doing nothing obviously being the equivalent of supporting the current system.

Yes. I assume you mean a solution under the present market-driven dynamic? In which case:

Force employers to pay a living wage for all work, including fruit picking etc, with the right to join a union enforced. Strengthen collective wage agreement legislation. Restrict or prohibit third party employers ie recruitment agencies.

This would ensure that jobs currently dominated by gangmasters and slave-waged migrants would become more attractive to workers generally, and would change the dynamics of the labour market significantly.

Open the borders. Immigration laws are counter-productive. Prior to immigration laws - when we effectively had open borders - economic migrants generally moved to the UK alone, and returned to their country of origin when the work dried up or when they had saved enough to give them a headstart elsewhere. Immigration laws actually increased net immigration by forcing migrant workers to a) stay in the UK even if work dried up for fear of not being able to return, and b) bring their families over as a consequence. Immigration laws do not work.

With the dynamic of the labour market changed and with workers free to come and go as and when necessary, then economic migration would be responsive to demand. Economic migrants do not come here to be poor and unemployed after all.

 

[Big Bloke]

that is one of the crappest ranges of merch i've ever seen! I imagine even Jim Davidson's are better than that!

I thought the "Well Hung Parliament" mug was rather witty and a bit 80's retro, which I'm told is 'all the rage' these days.

 

[free spirit]

Open the borders. Immigration laws are counter-productive. Prior to immigration laws - when we effectively had open borders - economic migrants generally moved to the UK alone, and returned to their country of origin when the work dried up or when they had saved enough to give them a headstart elsewhere. Immigration laws actually increased net immigration by forcing migrant workers to a) stay in the UK even if work dried up for fear of not being able to return, and b) bring their families over as a consequence. Immigration laws do not work.

hmm, ok, so would you expect to do this unilaterally, and all in one go, or gradually and only in conjunction with the rest of the EU / lots of other countries?

IMO, the lesson from the UK being virtually the only country in Europe to open it's borders straight away to the new eastern european EU members is that doing the same for the entire world would almost certainly lead to a massive influx of people to this country before things did finally settle down.

I think we pretty much coped with the influx of a few hundred thousand from eastern europe ok, but if this turned into millions from all over the world as would be likely if we did it unilaterally, I can't see this being so easy to cope with at least in the short term.

Long term, this would be where I'd want to get to, but I can't see it working as an instant unilateral measure without causing huge problems and a massive backlash. I also can't see it standing a cat in hells chance of getting past the tories and labour, so it fails my realism test for actually addressing the current situation in the short term IMO.

Kudos for putting your cards on the table though, and I pretty much agree that what you suggest is the situation we ought to be aiming to get to. Assuming it was possible to get agreement on the measures to achieve it, the question is whether to do it in one go, and accept that we just have to deal with any consequences as a price we have to pay for getting to a sensible and fair long term system, or take a more gradual approach.

maybe you're right and the lib dems have taken the cowards way out, I just can't see any chance of getting majority consent for the open borders approach at this point in time, so am working on a minor improvement is better than no improvement basis.

 

[little_legs]

I might buy one of these tee-shirts if found on Zazzle http://www.zazzle.co.uk/well+hung+parliament+gifts

why is this user advertising merchandise here?

and here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10659362&postcount=59
.

 

[Proper Tidy]

hmm, ok, so would you expect to do this unilaterally, and all in one go, or gradually and only in conjunction with the rest of the EU / lots of other countries?

IMO, the lesson from the UK being virtually the only country in Europe to open it's borders straight away to the new eastern european EU members is that doing the same for the entire world would almost certainly lead to a massive influx of people to this country before things did finally settle down.

I think we pretty much coped with the influx of a few hundred thousand from eastern europe ok, but if this turned into millions from all over the world as would be likely if we did it unilaterally, I can't see this being so easy to cope with at least in the short term.

Long term, this would be where I'd want to get to, but I can't see it working as an instant unilateral measure without causing huge problems and a massive backlash. I also can't see it standing a cat in hells chance of getting past the tories and labour, so it fails my realism test for actually addressing the current situation in the short term IMO.

Kudos for putting your cards on the table though, and I pretty much agree that what you suggest is the situation we ought to be aiming to get to. Assuming it was possible to get agreement on the measures to achieve it, the question is whether to do it in one go, and accept that we just have to deal with any consequences as a price we have to pay for getting to a sensible and fair long term system, or take a more gradual approach.

maybe you're right and the lib dems have taken the cowards way out, I just can't see any chance of getting majority consent for the open borders approach at this point in time, so am working on a minor improvement is better than no improvement basis.

Hence the first part of my post, really.

The influx of economic migrants from Poland etc was indeed far, far greater than anybody expected, and did temporarily place huge pressure on resources, along with acting as a brake on wages and conditions for all workers in the UK. It also contributed significantly to the rise of anti-immigrant sentiments and consequentially the racist right.

However, by ensuring through legislation that economic migrants cannot be used as a tool by employers to drive down wages and employment rights, whilst strengthening the rights of workers and unions to establish collective wage agreements, then this would temper both the flow of migrant workers and the consequences of migration on the rest of the workforce.

The EU is problematic, however, because of several aspects of European law, in particular the posted workers agreement, which allows employers to bypass collective wage agreements as they are only expected to match the wage in the workers country of origin, rather than the wage in the country they are actually living and working in. It was precisely this exploitation legitimised by the posted workers directive that led to Lindsey Oil Refinery and the wildcat strikes, and similar situations elsewhere, such as Laval in Sweden (in which, iirc, Latvian workers were paid 4 euros an hour despite the Swedish collective wage agreement being 16 euros an hour).

In short, what I advocate is tempering the exploitation of workers by employers by tackling the employers not the workers.

 

[butchersapron]

"Nick Clegg defends 'surprise' Tory alliance"

The parliamentary arithmetic made a Lib-Lab coalition unworkable, and it would have been regarded as illegitimate by the British people.

So why have you been arguing ever since that you made sincere and sustained efforts to do something that you think the British people would regard as illegitimate? Why did you open secret talks behind the backs of your now partners to put in place something that you fervently believe would have been regarded as illegitimate by the British people?

I know why - and so do you.

 

[stethoscope]

Ha ha, yes butchers.... read the BBC and Guardian article this morning and came away thinking - you never wanted a deal with Labour anyway, did you Clegg?!

 

[sihhi]

So why have you been arguing ever since that you made sincere and sustained efforts to do something that you think the British people would regard as illegitimate? Why did you open secret talks behind the backs of your now partners to put in place something that you fervently believe would have been regarded as illegitimate by the British people?

I know why - and so do you.

To get better terms from the Tories - i.e. more cabinet seats?

 

[Citizen66]

The historic precedent for migrants tending to congregate in certain areas, usually those with cheap initial rents, which also tend to be economic blackspots are pretty clear, as demonstrated by pretty much every wave of immigration this country has experienced.

Well there's loads of East Europeans in the part of London where I am and I wouldn't class it as an economic blackspot and the rent certainly isn't cheap compared to other parts of the uk.

 

[butchersapron]

Julian glover you cunt

 

[cesare]

I supported the lib dems againts the tories, this is a lib dem policy which the tories attacked during the campaign when they were campaigning against us, and it's bullshit for you to attempt to pull this kind of crap about cameron being my leader. He's as much your leader as mine, as in he's the Prime Minister. Yes the Lib Dems have agreed to support him in that on the basis of a lot of concessions from him to us, and because we had fuck all other logical option available to us. This does not make him my leader or mean that I'm likely to agree with or support every word he's ever uttered.

If you want to express your opinion, that's fine, but if you do it in the way you've chosen to in this thread, then you must surely expect the sort of reaction you just got. Or can you only dish it out?

You started this shit with a combination of whining about 'vitriol' together with patronising anyone with an opinion/experience different to yours.

Whilst the sidestep into immigration is interesting (if you've the time to get past the tfl:dr:essays element) it started off as a discussion about the how LibDems ended up where they are now, and people's views on that. Just because some LibDems are now choosing to ignore what Cameron was saying pre-election, doesn't mean that the tory views are substantially any different now.

labour's points based system currently makes it impossible for unskilled non-eu economic migrants* to migrate here, as they've specifically closed down tier 3 for non-EU migrants, as clearly stated in the link I posted earlier, which I've just verified against several other sites to check it was current.


*other than in a few very limited circumstances eg existing domestic help of people moving here, national government employees etc

which has what to do with Tier 3 immigration, which is the only tier currently closed to non-EU migrants, and therefore the only tier likely to be affected at all in the near future by the lib dem proposals?

Right, to be clear, the proposed pass system would apply to tier 3 non skilled workers only? Just that group and only that group?

Tiers 1 and 2 for skilled workers from outside the EU are currently open across the country, and would therefore not be likely to be affected either way by the lib dem policy (unless at some stage there was an oversupply of skilled workers in one area, while an undersupply remained in another at some point in the future, but right now there'd almost certainly be no change to tiers 1 or 2 nationwide).

Does the LibDem proposal for restricted working apply only to non skilled workers and no other group? For definite?

Any sensible company would make full copies of all passports, and entitlement to work documents, and keep them on file for immediate inspection by the immigration service (or other authorised body) upon demand. If a company didn't do this, then they would automatically be liable for a fine of upto £10k per illegal worker, or potentially per worker on their payroll who they couldn't prove had been working legally for them if they had already left.

This is exactly the same position as currently exists under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, it would just mean that employers would have an additional document to copy.

Where the person lived would have no relevance to the situation, it is where they are working that is the issue.

Yes employers may still bend the rules, but I can tell you from personal experience that a potential £10k fine per person forces all but the most illegal of companies to seriously tighten up their procedures to ensure full compliance.

Employers have to do this anyway - what relevance does it have to the (allegedly specific) LibDem proposal for tier 3 non skilled workers?

I am aware that ID cards have come in for immigrants, as I was campaigning against it at the time (to a limited extent, as I'm largely retired from that side of stuff). I don't really see the relevance to this policy though, being as it relates only to where people can work, rather than where they can visit, travel or live, so randomly demanding ID from people in the street to see if they were allowed to work in that region would almost certainly be considered an excessive / illegal use of police powers, and would likely be ruled illegal following any legal challenge if any police forces did try it on.

Essentially, as with the current policy on the 'prevention of illegal working' the onus would be on spot checks and big fines for employers to force employers to comply with the law, rather than granting the police powers to harrass anyone who might be an immigrant on the street. People would be asked to show their permit to work in that region only once at the start of their employment with each employer, which is massively different to the general understanding of a pass system where the police would generally have the power to demand to see a persons pass at any point, using this right to harass and intimidate people, with affected people expected to carry it with them at all times etc.

How would these 'show their permits to work in that region' actually operate? 'Show their permits' to who?

The phrase Pass System, or Pass Laws have very specific conotations in most people's minds, which are about a million miles away from the system proposed, which is why I'm pretty fucked off with people who should know better using the term to score points with.

I've asked you where you get your understanding of how this would operate from, and you didn't answer. Is there somethig easy to link to that sets this out in more detail? I'm not really into that 'source?' challenge, but you seem to be making some pretty big jumps based on your understanding.

I'm happy to argue the toss with you or anyone about it, what I object to is people, particularly those who should know better, just repeated urbans stock insult for this policy rather than actually debating the issues. You're now debating the issue, for which I'd thank you if that wouldn't get me another accusation of me being patronisng.

There's nothing 'stock' about insults re this proposed policy. It's new. Insults regarding it might become 'stock' in time but at the moment they're new insults

re my expertise... I'm not a specialist in the field by any means, but I was personnel manager for a company employing over 120 seasonal staff last year, from across the UK and EU, and responsible for ensuring we complied fully with employment law, border agency directives etc including knocking back any applications from outside the EU. Most of the UK and EU people we employed, and the agencies we worked with also crossed over into the seasonal work for farms and the like, bringing the harvest in etc. so I've got a fair idea of what the situation is, and the concerns that exist within the sector.

So your interest/experience last year is specific to non skilled workers? (Remind you again, you threw personal jobs/experience into the mix to start this).