Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

[Gramsci]

You referring to the look after our own comment? Which you thought meant white people and she later qualified.

The other stuff, is normal one nation conservatism though more progressive re UBI.

Not exactly extreme, radical far right etc. You're frankly being histerical from where I'm sat.

I actually thought brogdale put up a pretty good post why UBI isn't always progressive .

Edie posts up stuff that's pretty right wing and says they are just correspondents telling us urban People what the working class think about immigration. And why it's not good for "our own" working class

Then when questioned say it's not what what they think themselves.

I mean apart from the references to Porches it comes across right wing in a it's not me sort of way.

Bit like Tories saying they didn't mean the hostile environment to mean black people got deported

 

[Pickman's model]

Thank you. Absolutely this. It’s indicative of a real bubble to think my views are anything other than fairly mainstream small c conservative, at times left leaning.

Sue don’t worry, I put my experience up here in the same way as Gramsci and others have put theirs, for discussion. I prefer to discuss things like that, because it roots things in reality rather than purely theoretical. I have a thick skin and no one has upset me


To answer this: because I care about people. And most of all I care about the people of this country. And of those, I care about the people who have had less advantage, the ones who are starting out at the bottom, who need a leg up and opportunity. The kids at my sons school for example.

Where we disagree is that you think you have all the answers, that somehow railing against the world and theoretically discussing some revolution that will never come to pass and some socialist utopia that the 20thC showed again and again would end in authoritarian nightmare is the way forward. Rather than realising that capitalism and democracy (for all its the “least worst” system with faults) has actually resulted in enormous advances in living conditions, wealth, healthcare and freedom.

You seem to take some pitying look at those worse off and think they need saving. It’s the same charity mindset that’s currently ongoing fucking up Africa. Saviour bullshit. I think that giving people opportunities, hope, encouraging a meritocracy alongside freedom that liberal politics give is a healthier way.

It’s not an either or. I do think that there should be a safety net and that safety net should be for children, the ill and disabled, and other vulnerable groups. I also think that people should be allowed to succeed.

I’m mainly interested in levelling the playing field for children. The fucking state of secondary education is appalling. The lack of aspiration, the lack of discipline, the lack of teachers. And looked after children should be top priority in Government and kinship carers and foster carers handsomely supported. The general state of children’s health is poor- a lot of parents don’t even brush their kids teeth ffs. That’s to do with a lack of hope, and more money handed out doesn’t solve hope. Feeling like you and your kids can have a better life does.

We just see the world differently. You blame- well, everything- on “neoliberal capitalism”. I’m more about the balance between personal responsibility and for want of a better term civil responsibility.

we're not in the twentieth century any longer and the choice is capitalism or something else - the old choice of barbarism or socialism. this isn't an abstract theoretical thing, there are no signs that under capitalism the climate problem is being dealt with - quite the reverse as more than half the carbon in the atmosphere has been emitted since 1990. then there's the new dangers of things like pfas chemicals in the water and in food. i don't see much being done under this best of all possible systems to deal with that. hell, there's very little data on pfas in water, the monitoring doesn't even happen.

so just because attempts by some people, mostly following one formerly minor stream of marxism, to create a better world ended up really badly in the twentieth century isn't imo a reason not to look for something better in which production for need rather than profit is the reason for making things. where people aren't pitted against each other in 'meritocratic' systems which justify decisions to treat people at the bottom of the pile worse because obvs they don't have the merit for any higher station.

And a meritocracy is itself opposed to equality as it presupposes a hierarchy. You can give people all the opportunities you want but where there is inequality in eg social capital, where there is membership of informal networks - the right school, the right university, parents who can get their offspring the right internships etc - people without those benefits won't rise as you imagine.

You're also ignoring the criticism of countries like the former ussr or Cuba which many people on the left believe to be travesties rather than examples to be emulated. brogdale's tagline alone ought to demonstrate he's no fan of the 'socialism' of the countries you counterpose to capitalism. Just because some attempts to improve people's lot have gone awry doesn't mean all of them will. Indeed, the existence of the ussr, among other factors, made governments in this country behave differently and for a brief historical moment, 1945 to 1979, to attempt more equality and social mobility.

But now children aren't educated for any other reason than work, and nor are undergraduates as can be seen by the animus against arts and humanities in universities. You won't change things without a societal change and whether that comes through parliament or not some upheaval will be necessary. However, attempts to improve things through parliament have been shown ephemeral where they succeed and the experience of the past 100 years isn't really supporting your line of argument.

 

[Edie]

I actually thought brogdale put up a pretty good post why UBI isn't always progressive .

Edie posts up stuff that's pretty right wing and says they are just correspondents telling us urban People what the working class think about immigration. And why it's not good for "our own" working class

Then when questioned say it's not what what they think themselves.

I mean apart from the references to Porches it comes across right wing in a it's not me sort of way.

But like Tories saying they didn't mean the hostile environment to mean black people got deported

Different ideas exist you dead Italian Marxist! By the way you sound like a white kid from Plymouth whose still excited he has brown neighbours and “multicultural Britain”.

 

[Pickman's model]

Different ideas exist you dead Italian Marxist! By the way you sound like a white kid from Plymouth whose still excited he has brown neighbours and “multicultural Britain”.

different ideas exist but they're not all equal

 

[brogdale]

To answer this: because I care about people. And most of all I care about the people of this country. And of those, I care about the people who have had less advantage, the ones who are starting out at the bottom, who need a leg up and opportunity. The kids at my sons school for example.

Where we disagree is that you think you have all the answers, that somehow railing against the world and theoretically discussing some revolution that will never come to pass and some socialist utopia that the 20thC showed again and again would end in authoritarian nightmare is the way forward. Rather than realising that capitalism and democracy (for all its the “least worst” system with faults) has actually resulted in enormous advances in living conditions, wealth, healthcare and freedom.

You seem to take some pitying look at those worse off and think they need saving. It’s the same charity mindset that’s currently ongoing fucking up Africa. Saviour bullshit. I think that giving people opportunities, hope, encouraging a meritocracy alongside freedom that liberal politics give is a healthier way.

It’s not an either or. I do think that there should be a safety net and that safety net should be for children, the ill and disabled, and other vulnerable groups. I also think that people should be allowed to succeed.

I’m mainly interested in levelling the playing field for children. The fucking state of secondary education is appalling. The lack of aspiration, the lack of discipline, the lack of teachers. And looked after children should be top priority in Government and kinship carers and foster carers handsomely supported. The general state of children’s health is poor- a lot of parents don’t even brush their kids teeth ffs. That’s to do with a lack of hope, and more money handed out doesn’t solve hope. Feeling like you and your kids can have a better life does.

We just see the world differently. You blame- well, everything- on “neoliberal capitalism”. I’m more about the balance between personal responsibility and for want of a better term civil responsibility.

Thanks for the reply and I'm glad you haven't been upset. There's a lot to unpack here and I find this a tad daunting, tbh.

You are right that we disagree, but I too care about people, the people who have had less advantage, the ones who are starting out at the bottom which is why I struggle to understand how you rationalise your belief that such care stops at the UK state's boundary. This doesn't seem to hold up to logical analysis. We also disagree when it comes to your belief that "capitalism and democracy (for all its the “least worst” system with faults) has actually resulted in enormous advances in living conditions, wealth, healthcare and freedom". Advances in living conditions have had to been wrung from the capitalists by the workers organising themselves and, if you hadn't noticed, those processes have been flung into reverse for the best part of 5 decades.

I don't think that your claims to know what I am thinking, what I believe and from where those views derive strengthen your arguments and, FWIW, I very much don't think I have "all the answers", quite the opposite, I tend to have more questions than answers these days. In recent years I've been fortunate enough to have time to read, learn and reflect on my beliefs and actually undergone quite a personal political journey that led me to question many of the "answers" that I did previously think were appropriate and I really don't think I've ended up with authoritarian beliefs. I hope that at some stage your life becomes less busy and you too have that opportunity to reflect on your own ideological beliefs.

Where you are right is in saying that I attribute societal ills to neoliberal capitalism; that's correct. I find it inconceivable that an educated person like yourself would fail to recognise that our socio-economic problems result from the arrangement of the economic base and, instead, cast those problems as the fault of those who are compelled to live under those arrangements. That's just weird.

 

[_Russ_]

I've posted a solution to this.

Regularise people instead of deporting them

Post in thread 'Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?' Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

What does regularising people actually mean?, what does this entail?

 

[Gramsci]

What does regularising people actually mean?, what does this entail?

I thought that would be obvious.

Giving them right to stay here.

TBF Im not bothered about illegal immigrants.

 

[Red Cat]

I think those who pay attention to UK fascist groups and their activity see a link between 'mainstream' conservative political opinion and the racist views that hide behind 'common sense respectable' nationalism, I guess that would be populism, and the fascist right wing. They consider that they are not independent of each other, but interdependent, with blurred lines, influencing each other, and with a history. So it's probably important to acknowledge that context, while not expanding the category of extreme right wing to include what are very ordinary views, especially in a way that invites caricature.

It's also probably important to note that for some who are politically active that this is not a theoretical discussion, regardless of the acknowledged theoretical frameworks in which the discussion takes place, and that opinions and ideas are seen through their real world consequences.

 

[Edie]

Thanks for the reply and I'm glad you haven't been upset. There's a lot to unpack here and I find this a tad daunting, tbh.

You are right that we disagree, but I too care about people, the people who have had less advantage, the ones who are starting out at the bottom which is why I struggle to understand how you rationalise your belief that such care stops at the UK state's boundary. This doesn't seem to hold up to logical analysis. We also disagree when it comes to your belief that "capitalism and democracy (for all its the “least worst” system with faults) has actually resulted in enormous advances in living conditions, wealth, healthcare and freedom". Advances in living conditions have had to been wrung from the capitalists by the workers organising themselves and, if you hadn't noticed, those processes have been flung into reverse for the best part of 5 decades.

I don't think that your claims to know what I am thinking, what I believe and from where those views derive strengthen your arguments and, FWIW, I very much don't think I have "all the answers", quite the opposite, I tend to have more questions than answers these days. In recent years I've been fortunate enough to have time to read, learn and reflect on my beliefs and actually undergone quite a personal political journey that led me to question many of the "answers" that I did previously think were appropriate and I really don't think I've ended up with authoritarian beliefs. I hope that at some stage your life becomes less busy and you too have that opportunity to reflect on your own ideological beliefs.

Where you are right is in saying that I attribute societal ills to neoliberal capitalism; that's correct. I find it inconceivable that an educated person like yourself would fail to recognise that our socio-economic problems result from the arrangement of the economic base and, instead, cast those problems as the fault of those who are compelled to live under those arrangements. That's just weird.

Well that’s refreshing. You sound like a real person with doubts.

I don’t agree that all socioeconomic problems are due to the ‘economic base’ (political structure?). I do think some people are just ne’er do wells. And that those people can be at the top, middle or bottom. I have absolute disdain for those who exploit others and try and trick their way out of contributing fairly.

I do see Marmot’s social determinants of health. I do understand the cycle that Darren McGarvey (poverty Safari) paints- he does mention personal responsibility within that. What I care about it how we help the Shuggie Bains.

Have you read that book? Amazing. Breaks your heart. But again, not a simple tale of hard done by people at the mercy of economic circumstances, Agnes takes bad decisions. I wrote to the author after and we had a brief exchange about how he made his life different.

I’m wary of any politics where people are disempowered. I’ve actually got some hope in Starmer and Raynor (who I absolutely LOVE).

 

[Pickman's model]

Well that’s refreshing. You sound like a real person with doubts.

I don’t agree that all socioeconomic problems are due to the ‘economic base’ (political structure?). I do think some people are just ne’er do wells. And that those people can be at the top, middle or bottom. I have absolute disdain for those who exploit others and try and trick their way out of contributing fairly.

I do see Marmot’s social determinants of health. I do understand the cycle that Darren McGarvey (poverty Safari) paints- he does mention personal responsibility within that. What I care about it how we help the Shuggie Bains.

Have you read that book? Amazing. Breaks your heart. But again, not a simple tale of hard done by people at the mercy of economic circumstances, Agnes takes bad decisions. I wrote to the author after and we had a brief exchange about how he made his life different.

I’m wary of any politics where people are disempowered. I’ve actually got some hope in Starmer and Raynor (who I absolutely LOVE).

You're pretty much the only person I've encountered who has hope in them. Theirs is the politics of disempowerment.

 

[kabbes]

Talk to me about other alternatives.

I have been. You’ve not read any of it and repeated the same caricatures as if I’d said nothing

 

[lazythursday]

I guess I do agree with Edie on one thing - even in a society that is vastly fairer, where our economy is designed more around human (and natural) wellbeing rather than profit, there will be some people who take the piss, try to get more than their fair share, etc. I think a political strategy can't shirk from the fact that there are some bad people - yes, plenty at the top, but some towards the bottom too.

 

[Red Cat]

Oh come on, some people are bad is not a political argument.

What is a bad person?
How is that defined and by who? (the church, psychiatry, the state, your neighbours? )
What circumstances or social arrangements are more likely to lead to states of mind or actions considered 'bad' by the group?
What circumstances or social arrangements might mitigate against 'bad' or antisocial actions and how?

I don't know of any politics that doesn't think about these questions.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'd also question the idea that there are people 'towards the bottom' who are trying to get more than their fair share. If they were anywhere close to getting 'more than their fair share', they wouldn't be 'towards the bottom'.

 

[Orang Utan]

I guess I do agree with Edie on one thing - even in a society that is vastly fairer, where our economy is designed more around human (and natural) wellbeing rather than profit, there will be some people who take the piss, try to get more than their fair share, etc. I think a political strategy can't shirk from the fact that there are some bad people - yes, plenty at the top, but some towards the bottom too.

Why does it matter if everyone is looked after?

 

[lazythursday]

Oh come on, some people are bad is not a political argument.

What is a bad person?
How is that defined and by who? (the church, psychiatry, the state, your neighbours? )
What circumstances or social arrangements are more likely to lead to states of mind or actions considered 'bad' by the group?
What circumstances or social arrangements might mitigate against 'bad' or antisocial actions and how?

I don't know of any politics that doesn't think about these questions.

I guess I just mean that sometimes it can feel that people on the left like to find excuses for behaviour rather than find a solution that works with the average person's sense of justice and fair play. Or at least that's a perception that's easily taken.

 

[kabbes]

I guess I just mean that sometimes it can feel that people on the left like to find excuses for behaviour rather than find a solution that works with the average person's sense of justice and fair play. Or at least that's a perception that's easily taken.

I find that people on the right mistake analysis for excuses.

 

[Orang Utan]

I guess I just mean that sometimes it can feel that people on the left like to find excuses for behaviour rather than find a solution that works with the average person's sense of justice and fair play. Or at least that's a perception that's easily taken.

I really don’t understand this attitude when it comes from people who want for nothing.

 

[lazythursday]

Why does it matter if everyone is looked after?

well it might matter if, for example, we've moved into a situation of considerable food insecurity

 

[Gramsci]

So according to a Labour politician asylum seekers are coming here to have an easy life being put up in hotels. Which Tories allowed to happen.

According to him asylum seekers under Tories asylum seekers could live all there lives being put up in hotels.

Instead of the failed Rwanda scheme and hotels Labour are going to get on with it and quickly put people on planes back to where they came from.

So the message I get is that Labour are going to be tougher and more efficient than Tories.

All good news for those with concerns

 

[lazythursday]

I find that people on the right mistake analysis for excuses.

Yes I agree. I just think this is an area where it's easy to be misinterpreted and be assumed to be a soft touch, by people who aren't especially right wing.

 

[Serge Forward]

So according to a Labour politician asylum seekers are coming here to have an easy life being put up in hotels. Which Tories allowed to happen.

According to him asylum seekers under Tories asylum seekers could live all there lives being put up in hotels.

Instead of the failed Rwanda scheme and hotels Labour are going to get on with it and quickly put people on planes back to where they came from.

So the message I get is that Labour are going to be tougher and more efficient than Tories.

All good news for those with concerns

Which to be fair, that's what Labour was saying before the election. The cunts.

 

[brogdale]

Well that’s refreshing. You sound like a real person with doubts.

I don’t agree that all socioeconomic problems are due to the ‘economic base’ (political structure?). I do think some people are just ne’er do wells. And that those people can be at the top, middle or bottom. I have absolute disdain for those who exploit others and try and trick their way out of contributing fairly.

I do see Marmot’s social determinants of health. I do understand the cycle that Darren McGarvey (poverty Safari) paints- he does mention personal responsibility within that. What I care about it how we help the Shuggie Bains.

Have you read that book? Amazing. Breaks your heart. But again, not a simple tale of hard done by people at the mercy of economic circumstances, Agnes takes bad decisions. I wrote to the author after and we had a brief exchange about how he made his life different.

I’m wary of any politics where people are disempowered. I’ve actually got some hope in Starmer and Raynor (who I absolutely LOVE).

Again, thanks for the reply.

However, it's so all over the place that, again, I do wonder if you're on a Spy-style wind-up.

So what I take away from your post is that some (many?) socio-economic problems do derive from the capitalist arrangement of the economic base, but that you want to temper/blur that reality with some victim blaming and individual responsibility guff?

Having read McGarvey's book I'm not entirely surprised that you enjoyed it. At his best he does promote a couple of bottom-up, non-hierarchical movements, but at his worst he does pander to the MC thatcherite notion of self-improvement as means to get on. In doing so he either ignores or glosses over the achievements of organised labour.

On the notion of Starmer/Rayner representing empowering politics; I think you're taking trolling to performance art levels.

e2a: I didn't need to read the book to understand what poverty feels like; see, we can all do back stories

 

[Red Cat]

I guess I just mean that sometimes it can feel that people on the left like to find excuses for behaviour rather than find a solution that works with the average person's sense of justice and fair play. Or at least that's a perception that's easily taken.

Any solution that doesn't take into account the nature of behaviour in our highly complex society is more likely to be a reaction to the average person's tendency to scapegoat and their (our) desire for revenge.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What does regularising people actually mean?, what does this entail?

Giving people who live here a pathway to become 'legal'.

An amnesty whereby anyone with a job who's been here, say, more than six months and can prove it is granted leave to remain wouldn't actually have any real-world effect other than making those people's lives significantly easier and more secure and saving the authorities a ton of effort in the pointless pursuit of the relatively small % of them that ever get caught and deported.

The Daily Mail would froth, but most of its readers would never even know it had happened if they hadn't told them.

Like Gramsci, I'm not the least bit bothered about the presence of 'illegal immigrants'. But many of them would surely appreciate having the 'illegal' bit taken away. And those who are suffering from the most extreme forms of exploitation would have a world of possibiliites potentially opened up for them.

 

[Elpenor]

Giving people who live here a pathway to become 'legal'.

An amnesty whereby anyone with a job who's been here, say, more than six months and can prove it is granted leave to remain wouldn't actually have any real-world effect other than making those people's lives significantly easier and more secure and saving the authorities a ton of effort in the pointless pursuit of the relatively small % of them that ever get caught and deported.

The Daily Mail would froth, but most of its readers would never even know it had happened if they hadn't told them.

Like Gramsci, I'm not the least bit bothered about the presence of 'illegal immigrants'. But many of them would surely appreciate having the 'illegal' bit taken away. And those who are suffering from the most extreme forms of exploitation would have a world of possibiliites potentially opened up for them.

The bit in bold, such a person has arguably de facto regularised themselves already

 

[Gramsci]

On this ( and this is about something that happened quite a while back) I knew a Filipino here.

Trained as a nurse in Philippines and trying to get himself "regularised" to get job in NHS. Which he knew he could get as they were short of nurses.

He showed me that document he had to fill in. It was the size of a book. And he had to get an awful lot of things dealt with as part of it.

I did wonder why. I realise now it was intentionally made difficult. A lot of immigration policy is performative. Its more about showing the mythical average person that these migrants are not getting away with anything and getting an easy ride.

Even though nurses were needed it was made clear to the Filipino he was here on sufferance. And never forget it.

It's like the stuff about those who take advantage, don't pull their weight and the left make excuses for them

Seems to me a lot of the bullshit waste of time state bureaucracy is a form of resentment politics in action. Its designed not for rational reasons but deliberately to be difficult .

It imagines the resentment of the mythical average person with a sense of fair play that someone somewhere is getting an easier ride than oneself.

With people on benefits and asylum seekers taking same role in this as objects for the state bureaucracy to make jump through hoops. In old days people were put on the treadmill. This is the modern version.

Why it makes sense for Labour politicians to go on about asylum seekers living it up in hotels.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, these things are deliberately made difficult. Same with claiming benefits.

 

[lengualo]

Could you force make a better world by taking away everyone’s freedom, making everyone work in their state determined job (like they do in Cuba), get paid the same, and if they dissent disappear them? I don’t think so. And I don’t want that world anyway. Give people freedom to make their own life choices, and enough safety net as children to have the opportunity to. That’s the goal.

I dont think Soviet era is a good example tbh, and I'm far from a communist. There are significant differences between the different philosophies of communism, they were authoritarian and a blight on left wing thinking.

Few advocate for that.

 

[danny la rouge]

I’ve had this thread on ignore but I’ve taken it off again as I have my wife’s half sister and her husband up with us from Staffs. He just said something this morning that I’ll need to address. With my long Covid I have to pick my times to engage mentally and emotionally.

Anyway, he just threw into the conversation “I don’t think Starmer was right to call us all far right”. I said that the people trying to burn down hostels were far right. And in fact I think Starmer is much further right than me. And then the conversation changed.

But I’m going to have to explore why he thinks Starmer called “us all” far right.

Was wondering if anyone had come across this perception?