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

[nino_savatte]

No. Wrong again. Same content different emphasis.

This is yours and your pals answer for nearly everything.

It's a case of "I'm always right, even when I'm wrong".

 

[Knotted]

This is yours and your pals answer for nearly everything.

It's a case of "I'm always right, even when I'm wrong".

No it isn't.

 

[nino_savatte]

No it isn't.

Baillement.

 

[Knotted]

Baillement.

Now I agree with you there.

 

[audiotech]

They might work as well, but that doesn't contradict anything I have said.



I didn't use the word 'immigrants' at all. I prefer the word 'migrants' because in many cases they are not here for very long. Neither of these words are well defined in any case, so there is room for confusion. I would be happy to clarify what I mean if necessary.

It does indeed contradict what you've said. As stated, skilled migrants are usually given rights and the demand for their labour is not diminished. Also, there is the flimsiest evidence presented, to suggest that unskilled migrant labour given rights would affect demand, particularly in countries such as the UK, who have a regulated labour market and trade unions operating within it. Most of the material provided in that paper is theoretically driven and therefore suspect.

I didn't use the word 'immigrants' at all.

Rights for migrants, including workplace rights, tends to reduce low skill immigration.

Immigration and migrants in the same sentence at least.

 

[durruti02]

Incidently, MC5, nothing I have said in these last few posts is in support of border controls either explicitly or implicitly. Its perfectly possible to favour open borders while criticising government/buisness attempts to increase immigration. See the Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! article I posted as an example. You needn't be so blockheaded.

it is incredible .. thi is what i try to argue .... you qoute articles research etc at them and they take no notice at all .. what i fail to see is why they come on urban. i hope dthis would be a place for debate yet nino and mc do not wnat to debate but simply wind up etc .. very sad

it is simple really .. if you disagree with a proposition you find contra arguments .. YOU do not try to smear the author

 

[durruti02]

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.

they can't knotted .. they remind me of old dogmatic FE lecturers .. some sort of stalinists who used to be around AA and old school anti colonial stuff .. it really is 'get the darkies to do the dirty work' .. it is as simple as that .. they should be ashamed


p.s. i doubt they have anything to do with unions but hey .. you know what boys??? i signed up a pole to the union last week ( and hopefully a lithuanian this week .. who you know whta??? i got them full time jobs??? .. while you wank away at the key board with pathetic yer little digs and while the left collapses around us some of us are actually doing ..

 

[Knotted]

It does indeed contradict what you've said. As stated, skilled migrants are usually given rights and the demand for their labour is not diminished. Also, there is the flimsiest evidence presented, to suggest that unskilled migrant labour given rights would affect demand, particularly in countries such as the UK, who have a regulated labour market and trade unions operating within it. Most of the material provided in that paper is theoretically driven and therefore suspect.

The bulk of recent immigration from the A8 states is unskilled (at least in the sense that the migrants in question are taking up unskilled work even though many who do so are often highly skilled/educated).

If you must I'll tell you why the evidence presented is not rock solid. Its because it is not theoretically driven. Its empirically driven. The problem is that when you look at correlations such as - strong rights for migrants tends to mean that there is less low skill immigration - then there might be a third hidden factor driving both.

However the empirical evidence is pretty striking. Can you explain why there has been so little immigration from the A8 states into Sweden? What is your take on the L&P dispute?

Immigration and migrants in the same sentence at least.

Well I wasn't going to talk about reduced migrants. They're not becoming midgits you know.

 

[becky p]

How about you try being honest for a change, instead of making things up?

Not possible in your case, I know, because you've shown on many occasions that you have no intention of discussing anything in a straightforward fashion.

What's the matter? Are you that precious of your thoughts that you cannot tolerate opposition?

Did you use the word Irony on another thread.

 

[audiotech]

The bulk of recent immigration from the A8 states is unskilled (at least in the sense that the migrants in question are taking up unskilled work even though many who do so are often highly skilled/educated).

If you must I'll tell you why the evidence presented is not rock solid. Its because it is not theoretically driven. Its empirically driven. The problem is that when you look at correlations such as - strong rights for migrants tends to mean that there is less low skill immigration - then there might be a third hidden factor driving both.

However the empirical evidence is pretty striking. Can you explain why there has been so little immigration from the A8 states into Sweden? What is your take on the L&P dispute?

Well I wasn't going to talk about reduced migrants. They're not becoming midgits you know.

Not theoretically driven?

Economic theory and experience confirm...

Err, the paper in it's preamble. The 'experience' they write of seems limited.

In Sweden the unions appear to be organised to demand "equality of treatment" for migrants.

The last bit is an attempt at humour I take it? How very droll.

 

[audiotech]

they can't knotted .. they remind me of old dogmatic FE lecturers .. some sort of stalinists who used to be around AA and old school anti colonial stuff .. it really is 'get the darkies to do the dirty work' .. it is as simple as that .. they should be ashamed


p.s. i doubt they have anything to do with unions but hey .. you know what boys??? i signed up a pole to the union last week ( and hopefully a lithuanian this week .. who you know whta??? i got them full time jobs??? .. while you wank away at the key board with pathetic yer little digs and while the left collapses around us some of us are actually doing ..

Remember Stalingrad old bean - where's the tea walla?

Well done for recruiting people to your union btw. In my workplace we are all unionised. So, my time has been well spent thanks.

 

[Knotted]

Not theoretically driven?

Err, the paper in it's preamble. The 'experience' they write of seems limited.

I'll quote that sentence in full:

Economic theory and experience confirm that moving workers from low-income to high-income countries benefits migrants and raises global income while creating small net economic benefits in receiving countries, largely because the migrants hold down wages and prices (see, for example, Borjas, 1995; Rodrik, 2002; Freeman, 2006).

The focus of the paper is not on this question. Academics are trying to say something new. The above quote is old news, it is as you say part of the preambe, they are setting the scene as it were. If you want to know what the paper is about, read the abstract, its what its there for.

In Sweden the unions appear to be organised to demand "equality of treatment" for migrants.

So you except the evidence from the Swedish experience as evidence then? Make your mind up.

Also you should understand that a lot of the evidence is discussed in the papers that are referenced.

The last bit is an attempt at humour I take it? How very droll.

Well you wanted me to say exactly that. I've no idea why.

 

[nino_savatte]

Now I agree with you there.

What? That your posts are entirely predictable and that you will do anything to avoid discussion? Aye, baillement sums you up.

 

[Knotted]

What? That your posts are entirely predictable and that you will do anything to avoid discussion? Aye, baillement sums you up.

No, just that accussation - denial - accussation - denial - accussation etc. etc. is very boring. Glad we agree.

You may have the last word again:

 

[audiotech]

I'll quote that sentence in full:



The focus of the paper is not on this question. Academics are trying to say something new. The above quote is old news, it is as you say part of the preambe, they are setting the scene as it were. If you want to know what the paper is about, read the abstract, its what its there for.



So you except the evidence from the Swedish experience as evidence then? Make your mind up.

Also you should understand that a lot of the evidence is discussed in the papers that are referenced.



Well you wanted me to say exactly that. I've no idea why.

Eh?

I've read all the paper thanks, including the abstract.

I didn't refer to any evidence. I said it appears that Swedish unions are organised. I'll pop a question mark in next time.

 

[nino_savatte]

No, just that accussation - denial - accussation - denial - accussation etc. etc. is very boring. Glad we agree.

You may have the last word again:

Another post that is full of self-love. Your ego is so large that it even has its own MP.

Hijack-lies-misrepresentations-empty arrogance.

 

[Knotted]

Eh?

I've read all the paper thanks, including the abstract.

I didn't refer to any evidence. I said it appears that Swedish unions are organised. I'll pop a question mark in next time.

OK fair enough. Sweden has a collective bargaining system. I believe that includes no strike agreements, though.

 

[tbaldwin]

What? That your posts are entirely predictable and that you will do anything to avoid discussion?

nino do yourself a favour take a couple of weeks off. And maybe think about the many good points that have been made by people who you really want to dismiss as thick and/or racist.

 

[nino_savatte]

nino do yourself a favour take a couple of weeks off. And maybe think about the many good points that have been made by people who you really want to dismiss as thick and/or racist.

Nice try baldwin but if there is one person from whom I will not take advice, it's you.

You continue to smear those who disagree with your insane melange of diluted syndicalism and knee-jerk populism. There has to be a counterbalance to yours and durutti's constant threads on immigration. Sorry, but you have dominated this forum for far too long. You are now being called to account for your ideas.

 

[tbaldwin]

Nice try baldwin but if there is one person from whom I will not take advice, it's you.

You continue to smear those who disagree with your insane melange of diluted syndicalism and populism. There has to be a counterbalance to yours and durutti's constant threads on immigration. Sorry, but you have dominated this forum for far too long. You are now being called to account for your ideas.

nino i just think that you might not be such a bad bloke in real life. But you spend too much time jumping down peoples throats on here, to actually think about what there saying.

You claim to be a Socialist but seem to reject anything you regard as populist....So what kind of Socialism do you want....Unpopular Socialism?

 

[nino_savatte]

nino i just think that you might not be such a bad bloke in real life. But you spend too much time jumping down peoples throats on here, to actually think about what there saying.

You claim to be a Socialist but seem to reject anything you regard as populist....So what kind of Socialism do you want....Unpopular Socialism?

If you aren't smearing me or making up lies about me, you're patronising me. How dare you accuse me of "jumping down people's throats", when you do exactly the same thing when you are asked to provide evidence or when someone challenges you. You're out of order.

I don't want your kind of 'socialism' that's for sure.

 

[nino_savatte]

Oh and let's deal with the biggest smear/lie/myth of all (this week), shall we? I don't sit at my pc all day.

I can't to see the next lie.

 

[tbaldwin]

If you aren't smearing me or making up lies about me, you're patronising me. How dare you accuse me of "jumping down people's throats", when you do exactly the same thing when you are asked to provide evidence or when someone challenges you. You're out of order.

I don't want your kind of 'socialism' that's for sure.

So what kind of Socialism do you want?

 

[nino_savatte]

So what kind of Socialism do you want?

Ah, now you're trying a different tack, the trouble for you is this: I can see exactly where this is leading.

I answered your question: I don't want your kind of socialism, with its crude mix of watered down syndicalism and knee jerk populism.

If that isn't good enough for you, tough shit.

Presumably you have never heard of national syndicalism.

 

[tbaldwin]

Ah, now you're trying a different tack, the trouble for you is this: I can see exactly where this is leading.

I answered your question: I don't want your kind of socialism, with its crude mix of watered down syndicalism and knee jerk populism.

If that isn't good enough for you, tough shit.

Presumably you have never heard of national syndicalism.

I didnt ask you for what you dont want nino. I asked you to say what you do want? I think its a far more interesting question.
You seem to spend far too much time attacking other people's opinions rather than putting forward positive ideas of your own.

 

[nino_savatte]

I didnt ask you for what you dont want nino. I asked you to say what you do want? I think its a far more interesting question.
You seem to spend far too much time attacking other people's opinions rather than putting forward positive ideas of your own.

You're projecting again, baldwin, you always attack those who oppose your position on immigration. I have never once seen you challenge an opposing pov. Instead, you try to smear your opponent or, if that doesn't work, you resort to outright lies. You've done it with VP and you've done it with me.

The trouble with you is that you do not want to hear opposing povs because, as far as you're concerned, you're right. If you took the time to read a little history, instead of engaging in knee jerk reactionism, we might get somewhere. But your views on immigration are largely informed (if that's the right word) by ideas that have been around since the Empire.

You also seem to have a problem with those of us who read or have an education. With that sort of attitude, debate or discussion is impossible.

Look to yourself before you criticise others.

 

[becky p]

How dare you

Sounds like you have the makings of a catchphrase there.

 

[Lock&Light]

Sounds like you have the makings of a catchphrase there.

It's a catchphrase he first developed at least four years ago.

 

[nino_savatte]

Another instance of juvenile backslapping from Urban's own pair of paramecia....no, that's an insult to paramecia.

Schlock/Shite.

Schmuck/Schnook/Schlmiel/Schlong/Schmo

 

[nino_savatte]

After L&L's and beckyp's constant attempts to derail this thread, let's get it back on track>

Yesterday, on Question Time, Alan Johnson accused Margaret Hodge of using the language of the BNP. Indeed, those who insist that 'immigrants' are given top priority in terms of housing, have never once provided a shred of evidence for their assertion. To whit, there is no preferential treatment. With regards to refugees, however, there are those who would point to them and demand that they are not even provided with accommodation of any description. Such notions smack of a lack of humanitarianism; it's a case of "So what? You fled your country and came here, what do expect? Special treatment"?

Refugees, migrant workers, immigrants: they are all different.

Anyway, here's the article.

The problem with that is that’s the kind of language of the BNP, and it’s grist to the mill of the BNP, particularly as there is no evidence that there’s any problem in social housing caused by immigration, none whatsoever,” Mr Johnson, the deputy Labour leadership candidate, said on the BBC’s Question Time programme.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1839402.ece

Margaret Hodge: the protector of paedophiles.