Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Polly Toynbee # 1 "Of course the wealthy want an immigration free-for-all"

D

durruti02

love and rage!
Ok i think i made a mistake arguing we should not debate what she is saying on a new thread .. actually it can just get confused on existing threads so i've posted both up back again .. and shoot away .. :D

The use of cheap foreign Labour may boost our GDP, but it enriches the well-off at the expense of the low-paid

Polly Toynbee
Tuesday October 11, 2005
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1589105,00.html
<snip>
 
The rich will usually be in favour of free market migration policies....And Rich Liberals will usually adopt the classic marie antoinette line.........

Its obviously good news for Rich owners and landlords....The more flexible the Labour force is,the better for them.....the less regulation.....the higher the profits.........
 
tbaldwin said:
Its obviously good news for Rich owners and landlords....The more flexible the Labour force is,the better for them.....the less regulation.....the higher the profits.........
Click to expand...
Yeah and the answer to that isn't to stop immigration you muppet, it's to fight for good wages, conditions and services for all so how about stop wailing and playing up to the far-right agenda, recognise this simple and minor fact which has been obvious basically forever and get on with trying to do this.
 
Unionising, etc, may work with manageable levels of immigration, but what we are seeing now is unprecendented. Following media reports(yes, always read with caution) there seems to be real resentment growing from those who are seeing their wages cut and it is likely that the large rise in unemployment is directly linked to the exponential rise in migrant labour engendered by the NU labour and the CBI. Migration is a fact, inevitable in current economic circumstances, though a recession may alter things, i just don't see why the left has to be a cheerleader, doing ideological somersaults so as to not agree with NL and the CBI.

btw, a BBC report shows how the home office is ignoring migrants who forged documnts such as NI, while going after failed asylum seekers who often may turn out to be genuinely fleeing terrible persecution. Doesn't that show the real bias form the govt for cheap labour at any price, while attacking many who may really need help. May start a new thread on it.


Illegal worker warnings 'ignored'
An immigration worker
Immigration Service staff have not dealt with reports, agencies say
Reports from employers about possible illegal workers are sometimes being ignored by the Immigration Service, a BBC investigation has found.

Recruitment agencies say that when they pass on concerns about fake papers, the response is often that nothing can be done because of a lack of resources.

They believe the service's priority is to deal with failed asylum seekers.

The Home Office says it is committed to tackling illegal working but has to prioritise its resources.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4800537.stm
Click to expand...
 
icepick said:
Yeah and the answer to that isn't to stop immigration you muppet, it's to fight for good wages, conditions and services for all so how about stop wailing and playing up to the far-right agenda, recognise this simple and minor fact which has been obvious basically forever and get on with trying to do this.
Click to expand...

Only twats really have any confidence in this arguement now....How many extra homes do you think we should build in the South East so that we can have unrestricted immigration 10 million 40 million? Or are you going to restrict it in someways after all.......
Got an idea about how all those new people will impact on water supplies or how taking skilled workers from poorer countries will impact on their development?

The far right have always loved mass migration....Enoch powell was pro immigration at first....George Bush is pro immigration ......
 
FridgeMagnet said:
Sorry, is this two massive C&Ps? Edit down and summarise please, you know the rules.

edit: fine then, I'll do it
Click to expand...

excuse me i did edit them down .. by about 50% .. but whatever .. cheers :rolleyes:
 
icepick said:
Yeah and the answer to that isn't to stop immigration you muppet, it's to fight for good wages, conditions and services for all so how about stop wailing and playing up to the far-right agenda, recognise this simple and minor fact which has been obvious basically forever and get on with trying to do this.
Click to expand...


i agree with your solution ... but will you agree/admit that there is a massive wave of immigration ENTIRELY related to neo liberalism with its aim to cut wages and union organmisation??

it is a fundamental problem that the left are seen as muppets and fools as they pretend what is happenning is not .. that black is white .. that there is no immigration ( that was once being argued on these threads!!) and that it is just some benign natural phenomena instead of a movement dictated by capital ..
 
durruti02 said:
i agree with your solution ... but will you agree/admit that there is a massive wave of immigration ENTIRELY related to neo liberalism with its aim to cut wages and union organmisation??
Click to expand...
At the turn of the last century in France and in America the syndicalist unions fought back at the bringing in of immigrants to undercut wages and to be used as strike breakers. But they did it by welcoming migrant workers into their homes. That way the immigrants didn't want to undercut the host working class communities. This is solidarity in action, and it worked to the advantage of both communities. And both communities recognised their common class bonds outweighed the divisions the capitalists had hoped to play on. Another effect was that the pull of migrant workers into those communities lessened.

Capitalists in America in particular learned, and in successive decades got their defence in first with propoganda painting union organisers and activists as foreign, lazy and 'Other', setting up a false unity of "us", the American factory boss/non unionised worker/honest hard worker versus the lazy/foreign/wants to disrupt "our" livelihood/anarchist. Divide and rule at its best. And in those circumstances of mistrust of unions and outsiders, migrant workers could be brought in to undercut wages once more.

There is no reason that I can see that the syndicalist response of my first paragraph cannot be made to work today. It also seems to me that what we have currently is a situation more like my second paragraph.
 
Totally agree. By building unionisation not only can solidarity between new and existing communities be built up but it can provide the means to fight back against any wage cut/attack on working conditions the bosses may try to pull off.
 
danny la rouge said:
At the turn of the last century in France and in America the syndicalist unions fought back at the bringing in of immigrants to undercut wages and to be used as strike breakers. But they did it by welcoming migrant workers into their homes. That way the immigrants didn't want to undercut the host working class communities. This is solidarity in action, and it worked to the advantage of both communities. And both communities recognised their common class bonds outweighed the divisions the capitalists had hoped to play on. Another effect was that the pull of migrant workers into those communities lessened.

Capitalists in America in particular learned, and in successive decades got their defence in first with propoganda painting union organisers and activists as foreign, lazy and 'Other', setting up a false unity of "us", the American factory boss/non unionised worker/honest hard worker versus the lazy/foreign/wants to disrupt "our" livelihood/anarchist. Divide and rule at its best. And in those circumstances of mistrust of unions and outsiders, migrant workers could be brought in to undercut wages once more.

There is no reason that I can see that the syndicalist response of my first paragraph cannot be made to work today. It also seems to me that what we have currently is a situation more like my second paragraph.
Click to expand...


excellent post.
 
danny la rouge said:
At the turn of the last century in France and in America the syndicalist unions fought back at the bringing in of immigrants to undercut wages and to be used as strike breakers. But they did it by welcoming migrant workers into their homes. That way the immigrants didn't want to undercut the host working class communities. This is solidarity in action, and it worked to the advantage of both communities. And both communities recognised their common class bonds outweighed the divisions the capitalists had hoped to play on. Another effect was that the pull of migrant workers into those communities lessened.

.
Click to expand...


So how might we today go about doing this in say the construction industry or the hospitality industry?
 
I think each community really needs to find its own response, because there are different circumstances and pressures on different communities and industries. I do agree with durruti02's general thrust that the left too often wants to impose ready made blueprints on working class communities. So I think it's the general principle that matters, rather than the actual practicalities.

But as an example, one of the pressures on some working class areas is that that is where people seeking asylum are housed. This needn't be a problem in and of itself, and in Sighthill in Glasgow (which I choose as an example because I know the area) the community has worked very well together, campaigning on issues of mutual benefit to asylum seekers and non asylum seekers alike.

The infrastructure and facilities in Sighthill have long been underfunded or non existent, and the campaigns have been about improving those for the whole community. However it remains the case that over two thirds of Glasgow's asylum seekers are housed in Sighthill. I don't know the figures for middle class areas such as Kelvingrove, but I'm willing to bet that's because there aren't any. And yet there is empty housing and other unused buildings in those areas. I passed just such a building in Kelvingrove the other day. Kelvingrove borders the working class area of Maryhill. Could people not set up their own facilities in those buildings?

According to official figures, the vast majority of mirgants in Glasow are from the countries that have recently joined the EC. The number of official asylum seekers is a much smaller figure, and those are anyway housed by the authorities. (Albiet concentrated in working class communities, and in particular Sighthill) So the real pressure on housing comes from Poles etc. Could working class communities not help by identifying empty housing in middle class areas that might be suitable as squats? Maybe even setting up unofficial hostals?

I should note here, though, that speaking to people there is often conflation of asylum seeker with EC accession country migrant and even the indigenous non white population. I think this blurring has been caused and played on by the tabloid press. Leaving the clearing up of this morass to state campaigns like the "Fresh Talent Initiative" seems to me irresponsible.
 
There is a premise here which needs pointing out. This is that all business has adequate control over their market, and thus enough profits, to pay their workers more than their competitors will for labour.

The supply of workers depends on the skill levels required. Low skill jobs anyone can do and so employers are in a strong position. Skilled workers are more in demand and thus are not at the mercy of the market.

The conclusion is thus that everyone needs the opportunity to enskill themselves, and the government would do well to encourage this.

It is absolutely inevitable that the poor, if unable to find jobs in the poor areas, often due to a lack of economic activity, then they will move to the rich areas, usually for a small period of time, to work hard and send money home. This is why Bush/Blair are concentrating on trying to get democracy and the market to catch on in all these countries because these usually lead to more economic activity, which benefits the whole population aggregately (though obviously the rich/skilled benefit more).
 
Divisive Cotton said:
You've made this claim before. Would you actually like to make an attempt at backing up your sentence.
Click to expand...
Look. On all sorts of genuine threads I've withered on for hours defending my position and marxist politics. But this vile stuff just needs abuse. I'll spend this evening surrounded by people well to the right of me who when they have a political thought inevitably it will be racist and anti-immigrant. To have to come on here and read an elleged lefty and his pals giving left cover to that crud is frankly revolting.
 
bolshiebhoy said:
Look. On all sorts of genuine threads I've withered on for hours defending my position and marxist politics. But this vile stuff just needs abuse. I'll spend this evening surrounded by people well to the right of me who when they have a political thought inevitably it will be racist and anti-immigrant. To have to come on here and read an elleged lefty and his pals giving left cover to that crud is frankly revolting.
Click to expand...

It's not vile, and it's not racist. But these threads have been going on for the best part of a year now and have run their course - arguments are just being rewritten again and again.

Although I haven't agreed with everything, I think that contributions (mostly) have been of a great standard - it's even forced Revol to elevate his contributions above his usual "cock" insults.

I don't think effects people's political activity really

a. The need to organise all workers, immigrant or not is still a priority.
b. Mass immigration is not a new 21st century phenomenon.

But,

a. Immigration is at a very intense level - previous mass immigration tended to be localised, primarily in the East End of London.
b. This is being promoted and encouraged by the bosses and the political class - for both ideological and economic reasons.
 
Divisive Cotton said:
previous mass immigration tended to be localised, primarily in the East End of London.
Click to expand...
I know. I know. They're getting everywhere aren't they? I'll walk into my local in Swindon tonight and the table staff will be Polish. In Swindon for goodness sakes. It's just not on!

'This' as you call it is people deciding to move around the planet. Good luck to them.
 
When i first joined this board (as cliffite) around 2003 this was a place where two sections of the left trots and anarchists argued over politics and the direction of the mass movement. Mass marches or specialised direct action. Posters like commie fred, Nigel Irritable, Butchers, Icepick, rebel warrior, belboid who all seem to have left.

What is left is failed anarchists and IWCA hangers on discussing why the left shouldn't support immigrants trying to find a better life. Where did everybody go?
 
levien said:
What is left is failed anarchists and IWCA hangers on discussing why the left shouldn't support immigrants trying to find a better life. Where did everybody go?
Click to expand...
Absolutely right. But you don't know where? I'll pm ye.
 
I just wonder how far right durutti is going to go in calling up 'supporters' for this crap. Right-wing labourites, check, right-wing liberals, check - whose next?

Also, one other thing I heard on yesterdays news - a polish woman doctor who moved over here, saying yes she sknows its bad she left Poland, but the rates they pay are so disgustingly low - ovberall health investment there is about 10% of britains apparently - and thats as a percentage of natinal income - that working ther is impossible. If they improved conditions there she would be happy to return. Her (ande others') refusal to work for such a poorly paid system may well end up forcing the Polish government to actually increase the rates of pay and investment in the health service. Surly that would be a good thing?
 
today's topcs seem more relevant to 'ordinary' people, don't they? the "mass movement" only concerns 'activists', whereas immigration concerns a whole lot more of the population. In that sense it's more representative of society on here. Although I wish some of the posters you mentioned still posted here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mojo pixy
Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?
74 75 76 77 78
Replies
2K
Views
64K
Elpenor
E
Fez909
Japanese attitudes towards immigration vs UK
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
197
Views
5K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
editor
  • Poll
Do you want a separate sub forum for the General Election 2024?
2 3
Replies
83
Views
3K
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
V
Hooray,hooray,hooray; we're Tory free today
Replies
0
Views
202
vanya
V
Cloo
Transphobes gunning hard for 'paedophilia' angle all of a sudden
35 36 37 38 39
Replies
1K
Views
52K
teqniq
teqniq
Back
Top Bottom