The Independents Immigration lies....

[Anotherfolky]

Every paper is fundamentally dancing to the same tune anyway. None of them are "objective" as they claim to be and all merely reflect the agendas of the parties they back or the (rich) people who own them. Even the guardian which is owned by a non-profit trust often merely parrots whatever new labour is coming out with.

Not entirely true though, the Guardian was reasonably ok and independant about the war

 

[Fong]

If these people are willing to come over here and do jobs that locals can't be bothered with, I don't mind at all.

And most of the Polish girls who seem to be working in just about every bar and cafe that I visit in London are really pretty as well, which is an added bonus!

As usual, the market will soon find a level for wages: the Poles etc living over here have the same living costs as Brits, so they won't work for much less than Brits - if they do, they won't be able to afford to live here for long.

Giles..

There is a problem with that argument when you try and decide what standard of living people are expecting.

Polish people may be expecting to live 8 people to a house, they may be used to living without a car, and basic amenities that we take for granted.

The idea that the market will sort it out, is plain silly, the market won't do anything but accept the lower wages, the market doesn't care what standard of living you have, it doesn't care as long as you can eat enough and get to work, that is all the market gives a fuck about.

You can all be living in shoe boxes, as long as you turn up for work the market don't care.

The problems with 500,000 immigrants that were unexpected go well beyond just jobs, where are 500,000 people supposed to live, aren't we always complaining about a lack of housing, isn't the housing market very competitive and prices raising. Isn't our NHS service in a complete disarry due to accounting errors. We are selling off every aspect of what we pay Taxes for to private companies to make a profit from because we can't afford to run anything according to the government. We have to work another 5 years cause we can't afford the pension bill.

But we got room for an unexpected half a million people, not even planned for, completely unexpected didn't know they were even coming.

How can that make any sense to anyone.

 

[ZAMB]

Whilst Guardian and Independent readers are quite likely to be people who make money out immigration, landlords,solicitors, bosses etc and there editorial lines also reflects that.

BS - their readers are more likely, in my experience, to be people who aren't attracted to the Page three girl mentality, or don't who like their news served up as gossip or as sloganised, pre-packaged opinions that one can just swallow without thought. Makes me wonder if you have actually read either of these papers, as they don't just push one political point of view - they have more variety in their writers - some I agree with, some I don't - and I don't fit into any of the groups that you've named above.

 

[TonkaToy]

Now now be fair theres no doubt that Mr Digby really believes that WE should be paid less. However I fail to see what the difference is between complaints about immigration now and immigration 50 years ago, if theres a problem with wages that should be the focus i.e stopping the undercutting of 'our' standards of living

G'wan. Let's hear your argument then. Tell us how we are supposed to "protect our standard of living" without affecting our ability to have an enterprise friendly economy with a flexible workforce?

Because if you're gonna post union this and union that, the unions aren't going to find 500,000 immigrants, gainful produdtive employment - which means there will still be loads of people chasing jobs that don't exist.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Anything that's a single person over and above the amount of people that are leaving Britain.

So, in effect, you haven't really thought about this, have you?

Tell you what, why not apply your mind to exactly how, under your "one in, one out" ticket, the effects of an ageing native population, and the concomitant drop in tax take are dealt with?

And none of your usual bollocks about taxing the poor more heavily and worshipping the rich as G-ds, please.

 

[nino_savatte]

I think they were preety shit in loads of ways....look at some of the shit housing they built....they paved the way for thatcherism in my view......I
......

You seem to have forgotten something, but as this is narrative and not history, perhaps that isn't so surprising.

I guess you've never heard of Poulson or T. Dan Smith. I guess that means you're neither auld (or clever) enough to remember.

 

[Anotherfolky]

G'wan. Let's hear your argument then. Tell us how we are supposed to "protect our standard of living" without affecting our ability to have an enterprise friendly economy with a flexible workforce?

Because if you're gonna post union this and union that, the unions aren't going to find 500,000 immigrants, gainful produdtive employment - which means there will still be loads of people chasing jobs that don't exist.

Well firstly immigrants wouldnt be arriving here in the thousands if there werent jobs for them to arrive here, fact is that there are labour shortages in specific areas (geographical and otherwise) in the UK. Now there may be or may not be a valid argument to say that those vacancies should or could be filled by the labour force already here and that further waves of immigration will just undercut the living standards of the working class which already exists. However as I said above (badly) that argument was used against immigrants in the 1950s, 1960s, 70s etc and I see no reason why it is more valid now than it was then. The point I was making was that rather than blaming immigrants for wanting to improve their lot the focus should be on defending our wage levels and precisely preventing any attempts to undermine them, i.e standing together rather than dividing.

 

[TonkaToy]

So, in effect, you haven't really thought about this, have you?

Tell you what, why not apply your mind to exactly how, under your "one in, one out" ticket, the effects of an ageing native population, and the concomitant drop in tax take are dealt with?

And none of your usual bollocks about taxing the poor more heavily and worshipping the rich as G-ds, please.

It's obvious by every single post that you post that you haven't thought about it.

What about the effects on the agening native population? (As if there are any)

And who gave you permission to talk about the natives? I thought internationalists like you don't care more for the natives than the foreigners?

Or are the natives only to be discussed when it suits your agenda?

 

[TonkaToy]

Well firstly immigrants wouldnt be arriving here in the thousands if there werent jobs for them to arrive here, fact is that there are labour shortages in specific areas (geographical and otherwise) in the UK.

Funny how you use the arguments that those middle class bosses come out with, only when it suits you.

We have a flexible labour market. When there is a skills shortage, that labour market can adapt to that skills shortage, IF there are no unions about trying to keep people in work in artificial jobs. However, the sight of immigrants with those skills who'll do the work for less is too tempting for any business.

"Let's all say that we need those forigners with the right skill set, before we give the natives the chance to adapt to market..and why not..the foreigners are cheaper."

And you buy into this argument, just because it suits your agenda.

Now there may be or may not be a valid argument to say that those vacancies should or could be filled by the labour force already here and that further waves of immigration will just undercut the living standards of the working class which already exists. However as I said above (badly) that argument was used against immigrants in the 1950s, 1960s, 70s etc and I see no reason why it is more valid now than it was then. The point I was making was that rather than blaming immigrants for wanting to improve their lot the focus should be on defending our wage levels and precisely preventing any attempts to undermine them, i.e standing together rather than dividing.

Find me one fucking Urbanite who has ever blamed an immigrant? No one here is blaming immigrants. Immigration control is not about blaming immigrants.

How can anyone blame an "immigrant" for undercutting someones wages, if he doesn't get into the country in the first place?

I can't work in the USA. Because I dont' have a green card. Do I sit here and honestly think that the USA doesn't like me? Just because I can't work there?

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's obvious by every single post that you post that you haven't thought about it.

Rather than parroting what I've said, how about elucidating (if you're capable that is) exactly what I haven't thought about?

What about the effects on the agening native population? (As if there are any)

Not the effect on, the effects of.
Fuck me, you can't even read simple English, can you?

And who gave you permission to talk about the natives?

Oh, sorry, do I need permission from some nationalist cunt like yourself?

I thought internationalists like you don't care more for the natives than the foreigners?

Obviously you still have a great deal of difficulty comprehending sentences written in English. Oddly though, you're still as able as ever to take a single word and use it out of context.
Get yourself a dictionary and look up the word "native". Who knows, you might (although I doubt it) learn something.

Or are the natives only to be discussed when it suits your agenda?

I don't have an agenda except to ask people who come out with ideas like you have, whether they've actually bothered to think through what they're ranting about.

In your case it's obvious you haven't.

Not that there's anything surprising about that.

 

[Anotherfolky]

Funny how you use the arguments that those middle class bosses come out with, only when it suits you.

We have a flexible labour market. When there is a skills shortage, that labour market can adapt to that skills shortage, IF there are no unions about trying to keep people in work in artificial jobs. However, the sight of immigrants with those skills who'll do the work for less is too tempting for any business.

"Let's all say that we need those forigners with the right skill set, before we give the natives the chance to adapt to market..and why not..the foreigners are cheaper."

And you buy into this argument, just because it suits your agenda.



Find me one fucking Urbanite who has ever blamed an immigrant? No one here is blaming immigrants. Immigration control is not about blaming immigrants.

How can anyone blame an "immigrant" for undercutting someones wages, if he doesn't get into the country in the first place?

I can't work in the USA. Because I dont' have a green card. Do I sit here and honestly think that the USA doesn't like me? Just because I can't work there?

Oh I am sorry (no honestly I am), I fully accept that there is a significant difference between blaming immigration for undercutting wages and blaming immigrants - the fact that one often leads to the other is by and by. If there are immigrants who will undercut (why do I have to repeat myself here???) wages then that is a different issue, however there are clearly labour shortages and to claim otherwise is just silly frankly. However even leaving that aside I see no reason whatsover why people shouldnt work where ever they like on the planet (and that includes you if you want to work in the US).

 

[tbaldwin]

Oh I am sorry (no honestly I am), I fully accept that there is a significant difference between blaming immigration for undercutting wages and blaming immigrants - the fact that one often leads to the other is by and by. If there are immigrants who will undercut (why do I have to repeat myself here???) wages then that is a different issue, however there are clearly labour shortages and to claim otherwise is just silly frankly. However even leaving that aside I see no reason whatsover why people shouldnt work where ever they like on the planet (and that includes you if you want to work in the US).

The Independent today had an article by regular columnist Mary Dejevsky that basically repeated all the things Durruti etc etc have been saying on immigration etc...
That its OK for the Middle classes but has a very different effect on working class people...And poorer countries"some of the brightest and best educated of a generation-the very people they need to advance the countrys prosperity"

More and more people are changing their minds in the immigration debate and Liberal Lefties still supporting Free Market migration policies look more and more like Dads on Margate Beach looking at the Sea coming in to destroy their sandcastles.....

 

[Anotherfolky]

The Independent today had an article by regular columnist Mary Dejevsky that basically repeated all the things Durruti etc etc have been saying on immigration etc...
That its OK for the Middle classes but has a very different effect on working class people...And poorer countries"some of the brightest and best educated of a generation-the very people they need to advance the countrys prosperity"

More and more people are changing their minds in the immigration debate and Liberal Lefties still supporting Free Market migration policies look more and more like Dads on Margate Beach looking at the Sea coming in to destroy their sandcastles.....

Well whilst sitting in my council flat in Islington I'll bow to your superior knowledge of the middle classes but I'll ask again why is it that current immigration should be a concern for its effect on the working classes more than previous ones?

 

[tbaldwin]

Another Folky...Cos the Working Class are far more likely to be competing for Jobs and Housing.

Most Black and Asian people are firmly against mass migration...

 

[Anotherfolky]

Another Folky...Cos the Working Class are far more likely to be competing for Jobs and Housing.

Most Black and Asian people are firmly against mass migration...

And that was the case in the 1950s 1960s and 1970s was it not?

So the point remains why are concerns more valid now than in decades gone by?

Incidentally its quite odd that you quote the opposition to mass immigration of Black and Asian people, does that make it more valid than if it was just white people?

 

[tbaldwin]

And that was the case in the 1950s 1960s and 1970s was it not?

So the point remains why are concerns more valid now than in decades gone by?

Incidentally its quite odd that you quote the opposition to mass immigration of Black and Asian people, does that make it more valid than if it was just white people?

1 Yes

2 Cos the levels of Unemployment and Underemployment have massivelly increased...The UKs population is now at an all time high.

3 Possibly.....But the point is made to show people that the arguements against mass migration are not all made by closet White British Nationalists.

 

[TonkaToy]

Oh I am sorry (no honestly I am), I fully accept that there is a significant difference between blaming immigration for undercutting wages and blaming immigrants - the fact that one often leads to the other is by and by. If there are immigrants who will undercut (why do I have to repeat myself here???) wages then that is a different issue, however there are clearly labour shortages and to claim otherwise is just silly frankly. However even leaving that aside I see no reason whatsover why people shouldnt work where ever they like on the planet (and that includes you if you want to work in the US).

We have a flexible labour market. I keep telling you that. Those shortages would end up going away. However, it's WAAYY more tempting for the companies to turn around and say that they'll have the cheaper immigrant NOW rather than give what is one of the most flexible labour markets in the world, time to adapt.

Re the text I highlighted in red. No disrespect, but it makes you an idealist that doesn't accept the reality that every other country on the planet can and does have immigration controls to protect their own citizens from instability.

That's the way it is. So to tell the whole world that they can come to the "Clapham Common" of the planet, while our own citizens can't go where they please, would be madness, especially if we were to offer full social security and healthcare to everyone.

Tony Blair ignored the pleas not to allow all the Poles to come here, when our EU partners all had opt-outs to exlcude the Poles from their labour markets. Instead, ALL of the Poles that could have otherwise gone to other countries, have come here.

It's not immigration I'm against, it's uncontrolled immigration.

 

[TonkaToy]

Rather than parroting what I've said, how about elucidating (if you're capable that is) exactly what I haven't thought about?

Not the effect on, the effects of.
Fuck me, you can't even read simple English, can you?

Oh, sorry, do I need permission from some nationalist cunt like yourself?

Obviously you still have a great deal of difficulty comprehending sentences written in English. Oddly though, you're still as able as ever to take a single word and use it out of context.
Get yourself a dictionary and look up the word "native". Who knows, you might (although I doubt it) learn something.

I don't have an agenda except to ask people who come out with ideas like you have, whether they've actually bothered to think through what they're ranting about.

In your case it's obvious you haven't.

Not that there's anything surprising about that.

Go and post on USENET, Stormfront or the Daily Mail website, if you can't post without resorting to calling people names.

I have not called you any names. Other people are reading this forum and no one is going to take you seriously if you resort to calling people "cunts" and "twats"

I don't need to rant about anything. I am on the normality side of this argument. On case you haven't noticed, every single country in the world has immigration controls.

So if you want any different, I don't have to justify immigration controls.

Back to the ageing population. So what?

You are mathimatically wrong. Under a one in one out system, the population should age naturally. To argue that we need more and more young people over and above what we would have naturally, would be unsustainable and plain wrong.

 

[tbaldwin]

Back to the ageing population. So what?

You are mathimatically wrong. Under a one in one out system, the population should age naturally. To argue that we need more and more young people over and above what we would have naturally, would be unsustainable and plain wrong.

I think its a shame that VP should fall for such national interest bollocks as well.
This country could and should improve the state pension and the so called pension time bomb is fueled by the Pension companies and the media they advertise in...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Go and post on USENET, Stormfront or the Daily Mail website, if you can't post without resorting to calling people names.

When you practice what you preach then maybe you'll have the right to make such demands, until then don't come it.

I have not called you any names. Other people are reading this forum and no one is going to take you seriously if you resort to calling people "cunts" and "twats".

Even when it's an apt description?

I don't need to rant about anything. I am on the normality side of this argument. On case you haven't noticed, every single country in the world has immigration controls.

Really?
And you can prove that sweepingly generalised statement, can you?
This should be fun.

So if you want any different, I don't have to justify immigration controls.

Ah, your same old non-argument.

Back to the ageing population. So what?

You are mathimatically wrong. Under a one in one out system, the population should age naturally.

Really?
How are you going to do that unless you match the age of the immigrant to the age of the emigrant?

To argue that we need more and more young people over and above what we would have naturally, would be unsustainable and plain wrong.

Why would it be "unsustainable" under your "one in, one out" ticket?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think its a shame that VP should fall for such national interest bollocks as well.
This country could and should improve the state pension and the so called pension time bomb is fueled by the Pension companies and the media they advertise in...

It isn't about "national interest", it isn't about "pensions crisises", it's about demographics. National interst can change, crisises can be solved, but demographics are much harder to alter.

Produce a decent argument about how you'll offset the demographic problems caused in just about every avenue of social life by an ageing society, and then you can afford to be sarky. Until then do try not to frame everything you read with your own narrow interests.

 

[durruti02]

Now now be fair theres no doubt that Mr Digby really believes that WE should be paid less. However I fail to see what the difference is between complaints about immigration now and immigration 50 years ago, if theres a problem with wages that should be the focus i.e stopping the undercutting of 'our' standards of living

the differrence is that we had full employment then and up till the late 7ts

.. we now have between 3 and 4 million unemployed ( one million job seekers 2 million put on incapacity in the 8ts and 9ts to massage the unemeployment figures PLUS hundreds of thousends more students )

it is purely to save training costs and to create a low wage/ low tax economy that we have the current immigration

the other major differrence is that the level of racism was i believe FAR higher then than now .. i am NOT coming across people being racist about immigration HOWEVER much they are oppossed to it

 

[tbaldwin]

It isn't about "national interest", it isn't about "pensions crisises", it's about demographics. National interst can change, crisises can be solved, but demographics are much harder to alter.

Produce a decent argument about how you'll offset the demographic problems caused in just about every avenue of social life by an ageing society, and then you can afford to be sarky. Until then do try not to frame everything you read with your own narrow interests.

demographics...........baby boom.........all shit arguements......

The people who will retire at 65 have been paying in NI and Tax for years.....This money SHOULD have accumulated to pay them a decent pension.....
But of course this would be the last thing that private insurance/pension companies would want..
So the arguement goes that the govt has not accumalated this money.....That the only way to increase pensions is if we work longer or have more workers.....
Shit arguements........Lies from the Pension companies who are massivelly powerful and have their line echoed by the media.....

That pro immigrationsits are now using some of the arguements of the lovely media and pension companies i suppose shouldnt suprise me...But it is a bit depressing..

 

[durruti02]

Well firstly immigrants wouldnt be arriving here in the thousands if there werent jobs for them to arrive here, fact is that there are labour shortages in specific areas (geographical and otherwise) in the UK. Now there may be or may not be a valid argument to say that those vacancies should or could be filled by the labour force already here and that further waves of immigration will just undercut the living standards of the working class which already exists. However as I said above (badly) that argument was used against immigrants in the 1950s, 1960s, 70s etc and I see no reason why it is more valid now than it was then. The point I was making was that rather than blaming immigrants for wanting to improve their lot the focus should be on defending our wage levels and precisely preventing any attempts to undermine them, i.e standing together rather than dividing.

i agree with most of what you are saying especially the last sentances but!

there are NO labour shortages! .. THIS is the BIG LIE

what there are are people who are not adequately trained

AND maybe more importantly millions of w/c people who REFUSE to take jobs at shit wages/conditions that they poles are prepared to work for ..

 

[fractionMan]

So the arguement goes that the govt has not accumalated this money.....That the only way to increase pensions is if we work longer or have more workers.....
Shit arguements........Lies from the Pension companies who are massivelly powerful and have their line echoed by the media.....

That pro immigrationsits are now using some of the arguements of the lovely media and pension companies i suppose shouldnt suprise me...But it is a bit depressing..

You're a total muppet.

There is no "money in the NI coffer". It goes in and then straight out again and has done for years. Your cries of "it's all lies...powerful pension companies...media lines" make you sound like a total loon.

But don't let the facts get in your way!

 

[belboid]

the differrence is that we had full employment then and up till the late 7ts

.. we now have between 3 and 4 million unemployed ( one million job seekers 2 million put on incapacity in the 8ts and 9ts to massage the unemeployment figures PLUS hundreds of thousends more students )

fucks sake - those figures are entirely fictitious - and you're old enough to know better!

'full employment' up to the late 70s? complete nonsense. and as for you (effectively) claiming that people on incapacity are just dole dodgers!

 

[tbaldwin]

You're a total muppet.

There is no "money in the NI coffer". It goes in and then straight out again and has done for years. Your cries of "it's all lies...powerful pension companies...media lines" make you sound like a total loon.

But don't let the facts get in your way!

What facts are those? The facts that you find in the media supported by the pensions companies?

if you think the govt cant afford to pay everyone a decent pension thats fair enough....A lot of right wingers were opposed to a national pension in the first place.....Arguing that it would be prohibitivelly expensive etc.....Obviously after privatising nationalised industries Pensions and Benefits were also going to be next in their "to do lists"
And the facts are the UK has fucking loads of money to pay everyone a decent pension....

 

[belboid]

i agree with most of what you are saying especially the last sentances but!

there are NO labour shortages! .. THIS is the BIG LIE

I thought unemplyment numbers were 'THE BIG LIE'? or are they only 'the big lie'?

 

[tbaldwin]

and as for you (effectively) claiming that people on incapacity are just dole dodgers!

Those were his exact words were they........Or did you just make that up?

 

[belboid]

What facts are those? The facts that you find in the media supported by the pensions companies?

if you think the govt cant afford to pay everyone a decent pension thats fair enough....A lot of right wingers were opposed to a national pension in the first place.....Arguing that it would be prohibitivelly expensive etc.....Obviously after privatising nationalised industries Pensions and Benefits were also going to be next in their "to do lists"
And the facts are the UK has fucking loads of money to pay everyone a decent pension....

there would be were taxes appropriately set (something you rarely if ever mention).

And dont you realise what fMs point was, or are you deliberately trying to obfuscate? You complained (not unreasonably) about what private pension companies are up to, when the majoy pensions shortfall is in public pensions. So your ill tempered and ill thought out shouts were almost utterly irrelevant.