New Labour think tank IPPR supports mass immigration

[durruti02]

Exactly. It's such a daft, illogical idea that it doesn't hold any credibility.

Much better than closing the borders, wouldn't you say?

yes i agree entirely ..

now can you deal with what i said

and btw do YOU support the current cheap labour economy we have? do you thinkn it is right migrants are used for cheap labour? do you agree we NEED cheap labourt migrants for cheap food like MC does?

 

[tarannau]

More people than migrants are used as cheap labour Durruti. We need cheap labour, of any kind, if we're actually going to keep producing food at anything other than boutique prices.

There's not much option than a cheap labour economy unless people are willing to pay the premium for ethically or locally produced goods. And judging from the past - the failure of Buy British campaigns, the lack of w/c solidarity, the ever increasing power of the supermarkets and discount chains - that's not going to happen anytime soon.

What you're actually calling for is an expensive labour economy here and cheaper labour elsewhere. Why else all the mention of foreigners and immigrants?

 

[Dhimmi]

Well, they are all going home.

It's all estimates though, no one really knows which way the tide is going.

Some of the Poles I know aren't too happy with the way things are going, the Polish economy has received such a consistent boost since it joined the EU that they're no longer making what they once considered sizeable earnings when everything is taken into consideration.

I don't see why they, and the others, wouldn't be delighted to see their home economy boosted, it's much deserved and a long time coming, and it's not like the Germans nor the Russians made any effort to help right the wrongs they did these countries over the last seventy years.

 

[durruti02]

1)I never went away tosser.

2)The mass of workers are forced to sell their labour power for a wage that covers their subsistence but little else. That's why it's important to organise migrant workers in unions to prevent the relentless push to drive down wages and conditions generally.

3)To do this effectively workers have to unite to fight for the rights of all workers. A common struggle across the labour movement, to improve all our conditions and wages, a fight against both the ravages of neoliberalism and racism.

1)shit i thought you did smear artist .. shame, was hoping do nothings like you would disappear from here

2)er hey sherlock .. wow .. and you know .. thats what i do and am proud to do .. ( what do you do btw? .. some manager or something is it?)

3) and hey ditto sherlock .. but now IF you WERE involved in workplace struggle you would know how casualisation has been used and how in 2008 to a significant extent that relies on migrant labour ..

why? migrants will accept less money and poorer conditions than previous workers .. if they are short term they will also probably not join a union or get involved with union issues as they are meaningless to them .. their use also means less training is needed and less putaside for pensions holidays etc ..

migrant labour, as the cbi/IoD/IPPR/nu lab/tories/the sun etc etc etc etc etc etc, have stated over and over is KEY to neo liberalism in this period ..

it is absurd you still seek to deny this, indeed appear to line yourself up with these scum, in the mistaken belief that to recognise the key role of cheap labour migration in neo liberalism, is somehow to attack those migrants themselves ( as if to attack sweatshops were to attack those who work in them!!! .. a bizarre idea )

 

[durruti02]

More people than migrants are used as cheap labour Durruti. We need cheap labour, of any kind, if we're actually going to keep producing food at anything other than boutique prices.

There's not much option than a cheap labour economy unless people are willing to pay the premium for ethically or locally produced goods. And judging from the past - the failure of Buy British campaigns, the lack of w/c solidarity, the ever increasing power of the supermarkets and discount chains - that's not going to happen anytime soon.

What you're actually calling for is an expensive labour economy here and cheaper labour elsewhere. Why else all the mention of foreigners and immigrants?

"we need cheap labour"?? fuck off you cnical old tory lol "we need cheap labour" shakes head lol .. so you MC5 and uberdog have all now come out in support of cheap labour .. how low have the left sunk ..

 

[tarannau]

why? migrants will accept less money and poorer conditions than previous workers .. if they are short term they will also probably not join a union or get involved with union issues as they are meaningless to them .. their use also means less training is needed and less putaside for pensions holidays etc ..

it is absurd you still seek to deny this, ...

No, it's fucking absurd for you to make such generalisations about migrants.

In some cases it's true, but many migrants have strong union backgrounds and exhibit ethical tendencies - shopping locally and keeping money in the community - that would ashame some w/c 'natives'

 

[tarannau]

"we need cheap labour"?? fuck off you cnical old tory lol "we need cheap labour" shakes head lol .. so you MC5 and uberdog have all now come out in support of cheap labour .. how low have the left sunk ..

Nice, duplicitious misquote. Lovely to see how low you'll sink.

I said we need cheap labour if we're going to produce food at cheap costs. And I'll stick by that - labour intensive farming practices have an obvious cost implication.

Want to tell me how else it could work. Cheap processed and unnatural food aside.

I also note you didn't have the nuts to deal with the substantives on my post either

 

[durruti02]

Indeed.

(expects buttock-clenchingly inept reply involving the words 'spivs' 'bosses,' 'immigrants,' 'cheap migrant' and 'foreigners' with A FEW ranDOm BLOCK CAPITALS THROWN IN+!!@)

fool .. unlike you who i doubt has been anywhere near a union let alone joined up migrants to that union .. that is what i do .. you never bother to read what people say do you?

i have joined up eastern europeans to the union and spent a lot of time this year helping out a group of what were previously badly exploited gujeratis working for contractors .. employed at wages and conditions no local kids would touch with a barge pole

you thought processes are so fucking one dimensional you can not comprehend that it is possible to want to do everything you can to help migrant workers, as i do where i work, while at the same time believing it is wrong that spiv ( just for you dear) cowboy ( and again ) bosses should not be allowed to get away with their cheap labour shit while we have a millions out of work all around us ..

 

[durruti02]

Nice, duplicitious misquote. Lovely to see how low you'll sink.

I said we need cheap labour if we're going to produce food at cheap costs. And I'll stick by that - labour intensive farming practices have an obvious cost implication.

Want to tell me how else it could work. Cheap processed and unnatural food aside.

agriculture is overpriced due to profteering and ridiculous carbon/chemical inputs not cos kids in norfolk want to high wages ..

but hey you are debating instead of swearing at me which is good ..

but what cheap labour does do is also STOP any debate about what food SHOULD cost and how we can produce cheap good food differrently, by permaculture and organics

 

[durruti02]

Nice, duplicitious misquote. Lovely to see how low you'll sink.

I said we need cheap labour if we're going to produce food at cheap costs. And I'll stick by that - labour intensive farming practices have an obvious cost implication.

Want to tell me how else it could work. Cheap processed and unnatural food aside.

I also note you didn't have the nuts to deal with the substantives on my post either

"We need cheap labour, of any kind, if we're actually going to keep producing food at anything other than boutique prices"

well try looking at why .. and try to understand that as long as spivs can import cheap labour we will neother have a real debate about food production NOT deal with it properly

 

[tarannau]

Ah back to spivs and a lack of sense again.

Say it costs 10p to pick a portion of raspberries in the UK. Let's double wages (hoorah) for the good of the workers. Are the raspberries going to be at the same price in the shop? And don't spiel that unsourced bollocks about 'ridiculous carbon/chemical inputs' - certainly not my experience, and I used to spend summers on small farms in Derbyshire. Let's see your proof for that assertion, but it goes against common sense. Even farm shops, shorn of the corporate network, can seem expensive compared to imported goods.

And if they're more expensive, which of course they will be, is the average shopper willing to pay the premium? The lessons of history suggest they won't, switching to cheaper suppliers elsewhere. Prices rises, in this casem just mean the decline of another British industry.

Let's put it another way, the people most complicit in driving this low wage economy are the British people themselves. Until people of all classes confront this issue then nothing changes.

 

[audiotech]

1)shit i thought you did smear artist .. shame, was hoping do nothings like you would disappear from here

2)er hey sherlock .. wow .. and you know .. thats what i do and am proud to do .. ( what do you do btw? .. some manager or something is it?)

3) and hey ditto sherlock .. but now IF you WERE involved in workplace struggle you would know how casualisation has been used and how in 2008 to a significant extent that relies on migrant labour ..

why? migrants will accept less money and poorer conditions than previous workers .. if they are short term they will also probably not join a union or get involved with union issues as they are meaningless to them .. their use also means less training is needed and less putaside for pensions holidays etc ..

migrant labour, as the cbi/IoD/IPPR/nu lab/tories/the sun etc etc etc etc etc etc, have stated over and over is KEY to neo liberalism in this period ..

it is absurd you still seek to deny this, indeed appear to line yourself up with these scum, in the mistaken belief that to recognise the key role of cheap labour migration in neo liberalism, is somehow to attack those migrants themselves ( as if to attack sweatshops were to attack those who work in them!!! .. a bizarre idea )

I'm a rank and file union organisor (not a paid bureaucrat like yourself?) and campaign for improved working conditions and pay, so do fuck off with your shit.

 

[Das Uberdog]

"we need cheap labour"?? fuck off you cnical old tory lol "we need cheap labour" shakes head lol .. so you MC5 and uberdog have all now come out in support of cheap labour .. how low have the left sunk ..

I'm not in support of cheap labour, I'm in support of socialism. However I at least recognise that cheap labour is necessary for the development of the capitalist economy, and that, yes - if we all got paid high wages, then prices would rise, and those higher wages wouldn't be high enough.

You see it's this thing called capitalism, which creates a situation whereby without its actual fundamental removal from the economic base, workers will always continue to be exploited.

You have to at least recognise that the proportionately more affluent Brits maintain their position only as a result of labour reforms, fought hard and bitterly for over the course of the last few hundred years. However, these reforms were, well - reformist - and brought in by governments over the years to appease the workers demands for true socialism. This wealth is built on sand. British workers are now uncompetitive to employ globally, Britain's wealth must instead rely upon the globally competitive labour market to produce its wealth, hence the beginning of Western economic stagnation and the development and rise of the East.

These labour reforms you're defending were never a means to an end, they were a last dash attempt to regain control over an unruly population, and run contrary to the nature of the prevalent economic system. Of course they will be gradually undermined (unless demands are made for the progression from the current economic system to another). However, whilst they're here, they're useful political tools for the ruling classes to use to divide people of different regions of the globe. You've fallen hook line and sinker.

 

[audiotech]

why? migrants will accept less money and poorer conditions than previous workers .. if they are short term they will also probably not join a union or get involved with union issues as they are meaningless to them .. their use also means less training is needed and less putaside for pensions holidays etc ..

Migrant workers go to where there's employment and a number are, as a reported case highlighted recently, exploited mercilessly, particularly as private domestic workers. Unlikely to join a union perhaps? But nevertheless, others do join unions. A recent unite campaign to recruit migrants saw the whole workforce join up.

In a global economy we see a global proletariat at 3billion - a doubling of size in just decades. The future is the working class and it's global.

 

[audiotech]

migrant labour, as the cbi/IoD/IPPR/nu lab/tories/the sun etc etc etc etc etc etc, have stated over and over is KEY to neo liberalism in this period ..

Of course The Sun is continually promoting migrant labour and seeing it as "the key" to neo-liberalism?

btw, the key to neo-liberalism was cheap credit that drove the global economy, including the UK.

 

[audiotech]

....as if to attack sweatshops were to attack those who work in them!!! .. a bizarre idea )

Some of the worst sweatshops were in the area and City of my forebears. These were filled with Jewish slipper workers, tailors, the then recently arrived immigrants, who were subject to some of the worst working conditions imaginable, with pay driven down to almost starvation levels. United with other workers they fought against the 'detested system'.

It's remarkable that at this time when the 'workers of the world' were thinking nothing was possible without revolution, the local Jewish workers still thought they could improve their position.

Action continued, backed by gasworkers. Non union shops were attacked by crowds of workers who 'hooted and howled and broke windows'. There were also reports of Socialists praising the enthusiasm and activity of 'our Jewish comrades'.

At a gasworkers Eight Hours demonstration at a local moor, the author of the abortive Eight Hours Bill of 1889, welcomed the tailors:

They were engaged in a class war and he rejoiced to hear that the foreign workers of Leeds had unanimously come forward and joined their union. That showed that they did not intend to be mere sojourners but were prepared to take their part in a struggle which was a bond of union between workers in almost all parts of the world.

Back in 1889 many countries had little in the way of a working class, never mind a working class organised.

The 'bond' talked about in that potted history of immigration and class struggle has now grown to 3 billion in all parts of the world. You need to focus on the global proletariat a bit more durrootwo.

 

[treelover]

In a global economy we see a global proletariat at 3billion - a doubling of size in just decades. The future is the working class and it's global.

Imo, you and your cohorts are fantasists who have held back any chance of a effective left for years.

 

[audiotech]

Imo, you and your cohorts are fantasists who have held back any chance of a effective left for years.

It's about the working class being effective you fool.

 

[shagnasty]

New people to this country should be unionised .the biggest thing to help them is to increase their ability to speak english which i think a lot of unions are doing .On tarannau point sadly we by human nature want to sell at the highest price and buy at the lowest price .You can't get people to buy dearer goods on sentiment !sadly!

 

[Mikey77]

Exactly. It's such a daft, illogical idea that it doesn't hold any credibility.

FWIW Durutti, I'm the grandchild of an indentured worker - all the way from China to Guyana - to work the fields. And then my immediate family moved over here as a result of colonialism.

I don't have this arbitrary definition of 'foreigner' like you - my concern is making the best for all the world's poor and balancing a nasty global core and periphery system. In essence Durrutti just wants to ghettoise and restrict the working class, pulling up the drawbridge and saying 'we Brits are alright jack,' by using restrictive, protectionist labour practices

And, before you start, remittances from my grandfather helped elevate my family out of poverty both in China and beyond...

If you extend this logic then sweatshops in the far east are OK because they might elevate people somewhat. I don't see how the point about your family counters the point about migrant workers being exploited and therefore other workers being less able to organise themselves against exploitation.

If anyone has the "alright jack" attitude it would seem to be you. Ultimately you are happy with everyone being worse off as long as immigrants are not worse off than them.

 

[tarannau]

If you extend this logic then sweatshops in the far east are OK because they might elevate people somewhat. I don't see how the point about your family counters the point about migrant workers being exploited and therefore other workers being less able to organise themselves against exploitation.

If anyone has the "alright jack" attitude it would seem to be you. Ultimately you are happy with everyone being worse off as long as immigrants are not worse off than them.

The answer is to offer good protection to all, migrants and otherwise, in your country, not stick up preventionist barriers. Sweatshops are are an example of what happens if you encourage a high(er) wage economy at home whilst not changeing purchasing patterns - the industry goes elsewhere at lower prices, a demand which we feed by going for the lower cost items and not considering paying more. You stick barriers up, keep the problem of low wages out of sight elsewhere and selfishly reap the benefits.

Despite Durrutti's gross oversimplifications, migrants aren't some homogenous group of willing patsies that you can discount and treat as one. Their situation, and that of their home countries, is affected massively by the West and how we source our goods.

And for all the divisive rubbish that you're spouting Mikey, I don't want either migrants or 'natives' to be worse off. I want them to be treated the same - and that either means adapting our purchasing habits or treating both equally with open borders. Sadly, given human nature and British buying habits, it's only the latter which seems a real option.

 

[Mikey77]

And for all the divisive rubbish that you're spouting Mikey, I don't want either migrants or 'natives' to be worse off.

You are content for native workers to be worse off as long as migrant workers are not worse off than them - that is the crux of your point, and is more of a priority to you than giving non migrant workers the best chance of organising themselves. In your fantasy world everyone is mobile, everyone is organised and capitalism is already defeated. In practice this fantasy is only a way to satisfy the issue that concerns you most, whether everyone ends up in the shit or not.

 

[durruti02]

I'm a rank and file union organisor (not a paid bureaucrat like yourself?) and campaign for improved working conditions and pay, so do fuck off with your shit.

paid bureaucrat?? .. smearing again is it?? prick .. as most people know i do a manual low wage local govt job and have done for twenty years and been a non paid steward much of that time .. and in that i have seen how migration has been used by the bosses ..

you live in a totally fantasy world that is so fucking out of touch you have ended up supporting the ultra exploitation on migrants by the bosses as it is good for the british working class, cheap food and all!!

jesus, if i said that, you would announce i was the next leader of the BNP, you fool LOL

 

[durruti02]

These labour reforms you're defending were never a means to an end, they were a last dash attempt to regain control over an unruly population, and run contrary to the nature of the prevalent economic system. Of course they will be gradually undermined (unless demands are made for the progression from the current economic system to another). However, whilst they're here, they're useful political tools for the ruling classes to use to divide people of different regions of the globe. You've fallen hook line and sinker.

what "labour reforms [am i] defending"??

i am arguing that workers control where they live and work .. creating the building blocks of a new world in the here and now instead of the student fantasy world you live in where socialism will never happen

 

[durruti02]

I'm not in support of cheap labour

well why did you say " we need cheap labour" and then argue the case that somehow it is good for the working class???

 

[tarannau]

You are content for native workers to be worse off as long as migrant workers are not worse off than them - that is the crux of your point, and is more of a priority to you than giving non migrant workers the best chance of organising themselves. In your fantasy world everyone is mobile, everyone is organised and capitalism is already defeated. In practice this fantasy is only a way to satisfy the issue that concerns you most, whether everyone ends up in the shit or not.

Nobody is being made worse off if equal treatment and protection is available to all. Unless, of course, you're proposing that 'native' workers are somehow worthy of a higher rate of salary than others. I fail to see how concepts of organisation and mobility fail to apply to each group equally, no matter how many artificial divisions you want to make between them. And you're accusing me of tilting the agenda to 'satisfy the issue' that concerns me most - in fact I'm simply arguing for equal treatment.

Where the fuck have I come close to suggesting that 'capitalism is already defeated?' You seem to take 2+2 and come up with answer = x gibberish.

 

[durruti02]

You need to focus on the global proletariat a bit more durrootwo.

oh ffs you prick, what is helping to organise gujarati colleagues and orgnaising a meeting in solidaity with mexican immigrants in New York against their London based slum landlord then prick?? what you want me to do?? orgnaise honduran migrants in mexico too???

.. i do all that but STILL i can comprehend that NOT prioritising building from the base means you are building on sand and that migration is being uised AND that it is important to confront this

.. and as we see that is the swp left today .. baseless middle class liberals with next to no support in the w/c class .. and not even BOTHERED about that but content to be outsiders ..

 

[durruti02]

Despite Durrutti's gross oversimplifications, migrants aren't some homogenous group of willing patsies that you can discount and treat as one. Their situation, and that of their home countries, is affected massively by the West and how we source our goods.

tarannau .. i have never said what you say above and we have had this before .. so again

NOT ALL migrants by any means are exploited or used

HOWEVER migration and migrants are currently being used in this country on a large scale for cheap labour, to allow bosses to undercut unions, to save money on training etc etc etc the cbi and iod etc etc support and defend this .. why do you?

do you reallyu deny this??

 

[durruti02]

Migrant workers go to where there's employment ....

why is there employment/vacancies in a country where there are 3 million unemployed?

 

[Mikey77]

Nobody is being made worse off if equal treatment and protection is available to all. Unless, of course, you're proposing that 'native' workers are somehow worthy of a higher rate of salary than others.

In your fantasy world someone will always be in the shit. That's the problem. Not everyone is mobile, so someone is always there to be taken advantage of, (including those who are mobile) - and all that on the basis that every country does open its borders.

I fail to see how concepts of organisation and mobility fail to apply to each group equally, no matter how many artificial divisions you want to make between them. And you're accusing me of tilting the agenda to 'satisfy the issue' that concerns me most - in fact I'm simply arguing for equal treatment.

Well at least you are honest about your failure. Your priority is open borders at any price - including immigrant workers making it less likely that other workers can organise against unscrupulous employers. This is your number one priority, and then if workers happen to unite - good. If not, then you are still content because migrant workers are no worse of financially than native workers - everyone is in the shit in your fantasy world.

Where the fuck have I come close to suggesting that 'capitalism is already defeated?' You seem to take 2+2 and come up with answer = x gibberish.

If it isn't your fantasy world cannot work. Some workers somewhere will always be exploited, and cheap labour and bad conditions will be available as an alternative to your open borders dream. But, you have to admit that migrant workers making more in the UK is a priority for you above an organised workforce. You don't mind if there is less a chance of the latter happening as long as the former happens.