Looking after one's own: isn't than another way of saying something else?

[nino_savatte]

OK .. SO ARE YOU OR ARE YOU NOT SUGGESTING RACISM WITH THIS???

"Looking after one's own: isn't that another way of saying something else? "

SIMPLE QUESTION SIMPLE ANSWER ..

Why not? Why should you be so angry and defensive? It's the truth, is it not? It's a phrase that is often used by the far right, nationalists and soi-disant patriots to refer to a specific group of people; an imagined community of folk who, ostensibly, share the same "culture" and "values".

The phrase, "They're not like us" is a rather apposite of summing it all up. It is therefore correct to be concerned when anyone uses a phrase such as "Looking after one's own", particularly when it is applied to the various discourses on immigration.

That good enough for you, or would you like some more?

No need to use caps btw.

 

[Dhimmi]

So can we consider the phrase "Looking after one's own" another way of saying "Send them back"?

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=191600&highlight=looking+after+one's+own

Probably not in common usage, but we should bear in mind that everyone including racists are more than happy to adopt, manipulate or otherwise hijack reasonable language to try to make unsavoury political points seem more palatable.

Orwell wrote a great essay about political cliches and how they sickened him each and every time he heard them trotted out based mainly on a deliberate lack of style and a lack of imagination.

One of these was "... stand shoulder to shoulder with..." which was retired not long after due to exhaustion after the second world war. Old as I am I couldn't recall remembering anyone trot it out, well until Blair did in his support of Bush.

Of course it's a reasonable enough thing to say, it suggests courage and loyalty, two great qualities in anyone, but the moment it's used to tie yourself to something that no one with an honest mind would touch with a ten foot barge pole it becomes an abuse of language and a mirror image of the abuse of power involved.

 

[nino_savatte]

Probably not in common usage, but we should bear in mind that everyone including racists are more than happy to adopt, manipulate or otherwise hijack reasonable language to try to make unsavoury political points seem more palatable.

Orwell wrote a great essay about political cliches and how they sickened him each and every time he heard them trotted out based mainly on a deliberate lack of style and a lack of imagination.

One of these was "... stand shoulder to shoulder with..." which was retired not long after due to exhaustion after the second world war. Old as I am I couldn't recall remembering anyone trot it out, well until Blair did in his support of Bush.

Of course it's a reasonable enough thing to say, it suggests courage and loyalty, two great qualities in anyone, but the moment it's used to tie yourself to something that no one with an honest mind would touch with a ten foot barge pole it becomes an abuse of language and a mirror image of the abuse of power involved.

I find that the phrase "Looking after one's own" has been used by racists, crypto-racists and xenophobes for many years. There has been a recent tendency by certain left wing groups (who seem to spend an inordinate amount of time engaged in sectarian bickering) to adopt the use of such language in order to appeal to the xenophobic constituency that forms the core of the BNP vote.

It is only right that I feel some concern over its use, particularly when certain posters have a habit of posting up vague and woolly ideas and then get all defensive when you take them to task over it.

 

[becky p]

and this INCLUDES the idea that we should get poor people from around the world to do our dirty work .. and you support this ..

nino and MC5 fully support that don't they. They seem incapable of understanding the contradictory nature of their stated views.

 

[audiotech]

nino and MC5 fully support that don't they. They seem incapable of understanding the contradictory nature of their stated views.

Tut, tut, Becky, a real pisspoor attempt to spin mine and nino_savette's view that: controls on workers are reactionary and racist, to the idea that somehow this means that myself and nino_savette give credence to the idea that "poor people from around the world should do our dirty work".

Now, in your middle class nirvana, you may not know that many poor people here already do that dirty work for you.

So, why not get involved in activity to support them and assist in a campaign for an increase in the minimum wage for example? Why not link this in to include better conditions and pay for immigrants and migrants too, instead of lining up with the most reactionary and racist organisations that shriek for further controls on workers, often with racist undertones?

 

[Knotted]

So, why not get involved in activity to support them and assist in a campaign for an increase in the minimum wage for example? Why not link this in to include better conditions and pay for immigrants and migrants too, instead of lining up with the most reactionary and racist organisations that shriek for further controls on workers, often with racist undertones?

Do you not understand that this will mean less jobs for migrant workers? You can't have it both ways either you want there to be super exploitative jobs that nobody but migrant workers want to do or you don't.

You really should read that paper I linked to on this question.

 

[becky p]

Do you not understand that this will mean less jobs for migrant workers? You can't have it both ways either you want there to be super exploitative jobs that nobody but migrant workers want to do or you don't.

You really should read that paper I linked to on this question.

I think you got things a bit mixed up between myself and MC5.

But of course your right on one hand MC5 wants to see more migrants here for low paid jobs and on the other he wants to see an end to low paid work. Not exactly a consistent or honest position.

 

[Knotted]

I think you got things a bit mixed up between myself and MC5.

But of course your right on one hand MC5 wants to see more migrants here for low paid jobs and on the other he wants to see an end to low paid work. Not exactly a consistent or honest position.

Yes I did, get mixed up. Weirdly you attribute my quote to MC5. I've noticed this happening to a few other posters. Is there a technical hitch going on here?

ETA: I can see what's happening. For some reason there's two lots of QUOTE= square brackets. I had to one lot out of this post. Odd.

ETAM: Oh I see what's happening. Once this happens once it happens again and again until someone edits carefully. Its to do with the fact that the quotes edit out previous quotes and will leave an extra QUOTE= brackets in because it is not part of the quote, if that makes sense. Not a problem with the board or anything like that, just need to be careful with editing.

 

[audiotech]

Do you not understand that this will mean less jobs for migrant workers? You can't have it both ways either you want there to be super exploitative jobs that nobody but migrant workers want to do or you don't.

You really should read that paper I linked to on this question.

I have not forward the idea that "I want there to be super exploitative jobs that nobody but migrant workers want to do".

There are low paid jobs which are not filled because, it's clear that there are some people who choose not to do them. I don't have problem with that. There are a variety of reasons why this is so, including the fact that they are low paid, temporary and seasonal. Like it, or not, migrants will be employed to fill this labour gap

Organising, migrant workers, immigrants and the low paid generally into a campaign for better pay and conditions is one of the ways in which to redress exploitation and to demonstrate that there is a way forward in unity, rather than division.

That doesn't necessarily mean that there will be less jobs for migrants? As mentioned, these sort of jobs are seasonal and temporary anyway, so, at certain times of the year, in this area of the economy, there will no work available for anyone, let alone migrants.

 

[Knotted]

I have not forward the idea that "I want there to be super exploitative jobs that nobody but migrant workers want to do".

There are low paid jobs which are not filled because, it's clear that there are some people who choose not to do them. I don't have problem with that. There are a variety of reasons why this is so, including the fact that they are low paid, temporary and seasonal. Like it, or not, migrants will be employed to fill this labour gap

Hooray for low pay!!

Organising, migrant workers, immigrants and the low paid generally into a campaign for better pay and conditions is one of the ways in which to redress exploitation and to demonstrate that there is a way forward in unity, rather than division.

Thus reducing the number of jobs available to migrant workers thus reducing migration. Hooray for workers control of migration!

That doesn't necessarily mean that there will be less jobs for migrants? As mentioned, these sort of jobs are seasonal and temporary anyway, so, at certain times of the year, in this area of the economy, there will no work available for anyone, let alone migrants.

Yes it does mean there will be less work for migrants. If the pay and conditions are improved to the extent that more non-migrants will do the work then there will be less work for migrants. Its pretty straight forward. Stop trying to have your cake and eat it.

 

[becky p]

Yes it does mean there will be less work for migrants. If the pay and conditions are improved to the extent that more non-migrants will do the work then there will be less work for migrants. Its pretty straight forward. Stop trying to have your cake and eat it.

I dont think MC5 is capable of admitting that he has got things wrong.
His ideas on this subject seem totally fixed and`rational arguements seem wasted on him.

 

[Knotted]

I dont think MC5 is capable of admitting that he has got things wrong.
His ideas on this subject seem totally fixed and`rational arguements seem wasted on him.

I don't hold that against him personally at all. He's trained in the SWP's 'democratic centralism' which doesn't allow public criticism of the party line by party members. He's doing his duty. To a certain extent I'm actually quite impressed he debates this at all.

Nino, on the other hand, who is supposed to be some kind of 'independent' has no excuse at all.

 

[audiotech]

Hooray for low pay!!



Thus reducing the number of jobs available to migrant workers thus reducing migration. Hooray for workers control of migration!



Yes it does mean there will be less work for migrants. If the pay and conditions are improved to the extent that more non-migrants will do the work then there will be less work for migrants. Its pretty straight forward. Stop trying to have your cake and eat it.

You maybe a cheerleader for poor pay and immigration controls. I'm not.

Less work for migrants in agriculture, involves a myriad of factors, seasonal, the lenghth of contract, geography etc.

Thinking that an improvement in pay will attract other UK workers to that sector of employment is just very lazy and simplistic.

 

[audiotech]

I dont think MC5 is capable of admitting that he has got things wrong.
His ideas on this subject seem totally fixed and`rational arguements seem wasted on him.

Ha! A good joke at last. Makes a change from the usual droll piss-takes.

lol.

 

[Knotted]

You maybe a cheerleader for poor pay and immigration controls. I'm not.

Nobody has mentioned immigration controls at all. No one. Not you not me. Not Becky. Nobody. Nada. Stop trying to wriggle.

Less work for migrants in agriculture, involves a myriad of factors, seasonal, the lenghth of contract, geography etc.

Thinking that an improvement in pay will attract other UK workers to that sector of employment is just very lazy and simplistic.

Its true though. Furthermore the employers' freedom to pay low wages generates low wage jobs. So yes I'm lazily and simplistically understating my arguement. The reality is worse for you.

 

[becky p]

Thinking that an improvement in pay will attract other UK workers to that sector of employment is just very lazy and simplistic.

Do you not think there might be a possible connection.

 

[audiotech]

I don't hold that against him personally at all. He's trained in the SWP's 'democratic centralism' which doesn't allow public criticism of the party line by party members. He's doing his duty. To a certain extent I'm actually quite impressed he debates this at all.

Nino, on the other hand, who is supposed to be some kind of 'independent' has no excuse at all.

Well done, thrown out the 'robotrot' line already. Now Knotted, with those remarks, you are now showing how bereft of ideas you really are.

 

[Knotted]

Well done, thrown out the 'robotrot' line already. Now Knotted, with those remarks, you are now showing how bereft of ideas you really are.

Then state where you disagree with SWP policy. It would be a complete coincidence if you happened to agree with it all, so there must be something. State it. Prove me wrong. Demonstrate your independent thinking.

 

[Knotted]

To MC5,

I'm not particularly bothered about whether you are a 'robotrot' or not. I'll deal with what you write anyway. My main point is that I have no intention of personalising this. I must admit that I find your posts exasperating - I find the SWP line on this exasperating - and that more than anything else is making me irritable.

 

[audiotech]

Nobody has mentioned immigration controls at all. No one. Not you not me. Not Becky. Nobody. Nada. Stop trying to wriggle.



Its true though. Furthermore the employers' freedom to pay low wages generates low wage jobs. So yes I'm lazily and simplistically understating my arguement. The reality is worse for you.

I see that 'control of migration' has been mentioned on this thread by you.

This is semantics anyhow. You talk about the control of workers and you're arguing that workers should do the controlling of other workers. You're right, that is really quite difficult for me to understand.

'freedom to pay low wages'? Some employers pay low wages it is true, but the labour market was regulated the last time I looked.

Ending low pay is is one I have campaigned for. This, involving unity in action. You, on the other hand, appear to want the divisive act of one group of workers controlling another group? The result will be a no win situation for both.

 

[audiotech]

Do you not think there might be a possible connection.

I perhaps should have put the word *just* into the sentence to have then made it more accessible for you.

Age, fitness, mobility, house prices, accommodation, if you have a family etc, etc all have a bearing on the sort of work I am referring to.

Becky, do you not realise that in your contributions to these threads, you come across like some little girl who should be patted on the head and told to go to their room, as the grown ups are talking now?

 

[Knotted]

To quote from the working paper by Martin Ruhs and Philip Martin

This paper argues that the relationship between the number and rights of migrant workers employed in low-skilled jobs in high-income countries is characterized by a trade-off: countries with large numbers of low-skilled migrants offer them relatively few rights, while smaller numbers of migrants are typically associated with more rights. The primary reason for this trade-off is that rights can create costs for employers, and rising labour costs are typically associated with a reduced demand for labour. A second reason stems from the political imperative in most high-income countries to minimize the fiscal costs of low-skilled immigration, either by keeping migrant numbers low or by restricting migrants’ access to the social welfare system. We have given empirical examples that illustrate the relevance of the numbers vs. rights trade off in practice.

http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/Working papers/WP0640-Ruhs-Martin.pdf

The comparison of Sweden with the UK with regards migration from the eight Eastern European states that joined the EU in 2004 is particularly instructive. Sweden's policy is actually more liberal, for example there are fewer restrictions on access to welfare. But at the same time Sweden has a system of collective bargaining. The trade unions can and do campaign against non-union rates of pay. The result? Migrant workers flood into the UK, but trickle into Sweden.

You cannot sing hyms to migration and defend migrant rights. The two are not compatible.

 

[audiotech]

Then state where you disagree with SWP policy. It would be a complete coincidence if you happened to agree with it all, so there must be something. State it. Prove me wrong. Demonstrate your independent thinking.

The SWP don't have policies. I have not been in the SWP for over seventeen years. That makes me very independent.

 

[Knotted]

I see that 'control of migration' has been mentioned on this thread by you.

This is semantics anyhow. You talk about the control of workers and you're arguing that workers should do the controlling of other workers. You're right, that is really quite difficult for me to understand.

Implicitly controling immigration bia trade union organisation is quite different to controlling immigration via state policy.

You understand workers control perfectly well. You had no problems on the closed shop thread in seeing the reactionary content of libertarian 'I'll do what I want regardless of what the union says'. Stop playing games.

'freedom to pay low wages'? Some employers pay low wages it is true, but the labour market was regulated the last time I looked.

Ending low pay is is one I have campaigned for. This, involving unity in action. You, on the other hand, appear to want the divisive act of one group of workers controlling another group? The result will be a no win situation for both.

Well in that case appearances are deceptive. We are talking about low pay principally for migrant workers. They are part of the working class as well you know - they are the first to suffer from increased migration.

If you are campaigning against low pay, then great. But considering that your political organisation has what, 1000 members, considerable resourses, reasonalbe influence, why hasn't there been an effective campaign? What exactly have the SWP done for immigrants?

 

[audiotech]

Implicitly controling immigration bia trade union organisation is quite different to controlling immigration via state policy.

You understand workers control perfectly well. You had no problems on the closed shop thread in seeing the reactionary content of libertarian 'I'll do what I want regardless of what the union says'. Stop playing games.



Well in that case appearances are deceptive. We are talking about low pay principally for migrant workers. They are part of the working class as well you know - they are the first to suffer from increased migration.

If you are campaigning against low pay, then great. But considering that your political organisation has what, 1000 members, considerable resourses, reasonalbe influence, why hasn't there been an effective campaign? What exactly have the SWP done for immigrants?

Controlling immigration via the unions. The day that happens (it won't btw) is the day I rip my union card into little pieces.

I don't at all understand the politics of controlling other workers, sorry. Workers control to me is an entirely different prospect to the one you advocate.

I don't see how further regulation on migrants diminishes their suffering any?

The SWP is not my political organisation as I have pointed out ffs. However, when I was active in the SWP they always defended and campaigned for workers rights, regardless of whether they were immigrants, or not.

 

[audiotech]

To quote from the working paper by Martin Ruhs and Philip Martin



http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/Working papers/WP0640-Ruhs-Martin.pdf

The comparison of Sweden with the UK with regards migration from the eight Eastern European states that joined the EU in 2004 is particularly instructive. Sweden's policy is actually more liberal, for example there are fewer restrictions on access to welfare. But at the same time Sweden has a system of collective bargaining. The trade unions can and do campaign against non-union rates of pay. The result? Migrant workers flood into the UK, but trickle into Sweden.

You cannot sing hyms to migration and defend migrant rights. The two are not compatible.

I'll have a read of that later and get back to you.

 

[Knotted]

Controlling immigration via the unions. The day that happens (it won't btw) is the day I rip my union card into little pieces.

The key word that you miss out is 'implicit'. Ordinary good strong trade union tactics should implicitly effect the labour market so as to discourage immigration ie. it undermines what durrutti calls the 'pull' factor. If you can understand this then you will understand that there is not a gulf seperating us, but merely a rather nasty pot hole.

The SWP is not my political organisation as I have pointed out ffs. However, when I was active in the SWP they always defended and campaigned for workers rights, regardless of whether they were immigrants, or not.

Sorry, my mistake.

 

[Knotted]

I'll have a read of that later and get back to you.

Thanks.

 

[Dhimmi]

It is only right that I feel some concern over its use, particularly when certain posters have a habit of posting up vague and woolly ideas and then get all defensive when you take them to task over it.

Quite, but thought it best to explain what I thought rather than a more simplistic "Well yes and no.".

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino, on the other hand, who is supposed to be some kind of 'independent' has no excuse at all.

What's that supposed to mean? Just because I don't share your thoughts on this issue is no reason to for you to come out with crap like this.

Please don't say that this was meant as a 'joke' because you would be lying and I know how much you like to cheat.