what the BNP actually say on immigration ..

[Fong]

Anyone who could spell 'Durutti' would be arguing for open borders rather than maintaining this pathetic nation state patronise the 'white working class' bollocks.

Are you somehow trying to suggest that only white people are working class?

Or are you suggesting that undermining wages and stretching things like public schools don't effect minority groups? They aren't working class and they are not effected by these things?

The arguments against 'liberalism' in this debate have absolutely nothing to do with race, it is about undermining services through over subscription due to a lack of controls and driving down wages and living conditions due to people coming here to work who are used to far less then the average BRITISH person....not the average WHITE PERSON.

If the average wage goes down 15% for the 'working class' then regardless of your skin colour, you will earn 15% less. Doesn't matter if you white, black or pink with polka dots.

I hate getting into these arguments with you people cause you see the word immigration and your brain is incapable of doing anything but switching to the word racism, you have been brainwashed by your opposition to the right and are too stupid to think beyond that.

 

[Fong]

wage restraints.

that's not rascist is it?

Not sure what you mean, could you be a bit more explicit.

I think, my post above to Mallard answers that question, but I am not entirely sure as I find your post a bit vague as you offer no context.

 

[Fong]

*sticks oar in*

fuck the bnp.

fuck the racists who blame immigrants rather than lack of w/c solidarity for the problems of the w/c.

fuck those that profit from exploitation of the international working classes.

*wanders off*

You know I hate the term 'working class' it is a bullshit term from a century ago that has very little bearing on the reality of the world we live in, I wish we could throw it away, and honestly, I don't ever have to deal with this term except on this message board, no one else I know uses this term because it is soo inaccurate as to be almost meaningless in this day and age.

Why don't we just say poor, because that is what we mean when we say working class, middle class people work, they don't get given their cash, when we talk about the working class in this country, we actually mean a great deal of people that don't work and live on benefits and work temp and short term jobs.

So why don't we drop the bullshit term and just say, the poor.

Now lets have a look at the racial make up of the poor.....oh yes, seems to be extremely diverse, far more diverse then any other economical group.

But talk about immigration in terms of its effects on the poor and all of a sudden its racist? Despite the fact that the poor are THE most ethnically diverse group?

It makes no fucking sense at all.

 

[snadge]

Not sure what you mean, could you be a bit more explicit.

I think, my post above to Mallard answers that question, but I am not entirely sure as I find your post a bit vague as you offer no context.

try looking at my past posts on this issue.

employers embrace migrant workers as an excuse to drive previously agreed wage structures down, thus making existing workers scared of the migrant workers who only follow what the EU has allowed,

Fight for previously agreed wage structures, then people who work, regardless of their country of origin will get paid on merit.

fucking simple really.

 

[snadge]

You know I hate the term 'working class' it is a bullshit term from a century ago that has very little bearing on the reality of the world we live in, I wish we could throw it away, and honestly, I don't ever have to deal with this term except on this message board, no one else I know uses this term because it is soo inaccurate as to be almost meaningless in this day and age.

Why don't we just say poor, because that is what we mean when we say working class, middle class people work, they don't get given their cash, when we talk about the working class in this country, we actually mean a great deal of people that don't work and live on benefits and work temp and short term jobs.

So why don't we drop the bullshit term and just say, the poor.

Now lets have a look at the racial make up of the poor.....oh yes, seems to be extremely diverse, far more diverse then any other economical group.

But talk about immigration in terms of its effects on the poor and all of a sudden its racist? Despite the fact that the poor are THE most ethnically diverse group?

It makes no fucking sense at all.

bang out of order fong, sorry but I'm working class and fucking proud of it.

 

[Fong]

try looking at my past posts on this issue.

employers embrace migrant workers as an excuse to drive previously agreed wage structures down, thus making existing workers scared of the migrant workers who only follow what the EU has allowed,

Fight for previously agreed wage structures, then people who work, regardless of their country of origin will get paid on merit.

fucking simple really.

Only if you are a simpleton.

Fight for previously agreed wage structures and you are going to tell someone new to this country who has just travelled 1,000 miles that they shouldn't take a job? Based on that?

You think that will work? You think someone who considers 25% less of what that agreed wage was to be a fucking fortune, and even with a quarter less is earning 10 times what he could at home that he shouldn't take the job? That he shouldn't be sending money home to his family who are in a desperate situation that he should stand in solidarity with you?

What are you fucking insane?

And exactly why would he do that? So you can compete equally and that he has a chance of not getting the job, since he is unlikely to have any recognised qualifications since I don't even know what the qualification is from these countries and its unlikely that most employers will either, or have the capacity to check those qualifications AND he only has a rudimentary understanding of the language.

But he should hold out so he can compete on an equal footing with people with recognised and easily checked qualifications and a solid footing in the language?

Where is the benefit to him? The increase in wages? but he is already earning an absolute fortune as far as he is concerned.

You are living in some nirvana of a delusion if you think this could ever be achieved.

 

[Fong]

bang out of order fong, sorry but I'm working class and fucking proud of it.

Do you consider yourself in poverty or poor?

Cause if you don't, then I would say you aren't working class. As one of the defining factors of being working class has always been struggling to make ends meet.

Whether you want to call yourself working class is irrelevent.

 

[snadge]

Only if you are a simpleton.

Fight for previously agreed wage structures and you are going to tell someone new to this country who has just travelled 1,000 miles that they shouldn't take a job? Based on that?

You think that will work? You think someone who considers 25% less of what that agreed wage was to be a fucking fortune, and even with a quarter less is earning 10 times what he could at home that he shouldn't take the job? That he shouldn't be sending money home to his family who are in a desperate situation that he should stand in solidarity with you?

What are you fucking insane?

And exactly why would he do that? So you can compete equally and that he has a chance of not getting the job, since he is unlikely to have any recognised qualifications since I don't even know what the qualification is from these countries and its unlikely that most employers will either, or have the capacity to check those qualifications AND he only has a rudimentary understanding of the language.

But he should hold out so he can compete on an equal footing with people with recognised and easily checked qualifications and a solid footing in the language?

Where is the benefit to him? The increase in wages? but he is already earning an absolute fortune as far as he is concerned.

You are living in some nirvana of a delusion if you think this could ever be achieved.

so the employer should employ someone on a lesser wage even though they haven't got reconised qualifacations, just because they are willing to do the job?

 

[snadge]

Do you consider yourself in poverty or poor?

Cause if you don't, then I would say you aren't working class. As one of the defining factors of being working class has always been struggling to make ends meet.

Whether you want to call yourself working class is irrelevent.

you haven't got a clue what working class is mate, no I'm not in poverty, a long way from but I know what working class is...

 

[Fong]

so the employer should employ someone on a lesser wage even though they haven't got reconised qualifacations, just because they are willing to do the job?

This already happens dude.

You act like I get to decide. So the employer should....I am not saying what the employer should do.

I am telling you what the employer is doing and I am telling you why the employee won't stand with you in solidarity, because he has NOTHING to gain from doing so, other then a slight increase in wages he already considers huge. And he has everything to lose.

It is quite simple, you are an employer.

You can employ man A, he has no qualifications and can barely speak the language or you can employ man B, he has English and Maths GCSE and speaks fluent english.

You have to pay them the same wage, who you going to employ, the man who you barely understand and don't even know if he understands you, and you don't even know if he can perform basic tasks unless you spend money testing him, or the guy who you can converse with perfectly, and has proved with qualifications that he can do the basic tasks?

This is what is happening, this is why people are talking about driving down the wages.

Because the ONLY way for man A to compete in my example above is to do the job for less.

 

[Fong]

you haven't got a clue what working class is mate, no I'm not in poverty, a long way from but I know what working class is...

Well apparently not.

 

[snadge]

This already happens dude.

You act like I get to decide. So the employer should....I am not saying what the employer should do.

I am telling you what the employer is doing and I am telling you why the employee won't stand with you in solidarity, because he has NOTHING to gain from doing so, other then a slight increase in wages he already considers huge. And he has everything to lose.

It is quite simple, you are an employer.

You can employ man A, he has no qualifications and can barely speak the language or you can employ man B, he has English and Maths GCSE and speaks fluent english.

You have to pay them the same wage, who you going to employ, the man who you barely understand and don't even know if he understands you, and you don't even know if he can perform basic tasks unless you spend money testing him, or the guy who you can converse with perfectly, and has proved with qualifications that he can do the basic tasks?

This is what is happening, this is why people are talking about driving down the wages.

Because the ONLY way for man A to compete in my example above is to do the job for less.

basic fucking tasks you fucking idiot.

I'm a multi coded welder, I'm having to compete with polish welders who are coming across here with no codings, getting sacked when they dip their tests because they are led to believe that they can compete with me, do you get it yet? employers are giving migrant workers false dreams.


I am part of a non rascist organisation, unlike you, that accepts people for their skills, for a wage that reflects that.

pay less, get shite.

get it yet.

 

[Fong]

basic fucking tasks you fucking idiot.

I'm a multi coded welder, I'm having to compete with polish welders who are coming across here with no codings, getting sacked when they dip their tests because they are led to believe that they can compete with me, do you get it yet? employers are giving migrant workers false dreams.


I am part of a non rascist organisation, unlike you, that accepts people for their skills, for a wage that reflects that.

pay less, get shite.

get it yet.

Unlike me, oh right so once again, I don't agree so therefore I must be part of some racist organisation? What a load of crap.

Oh I am the racist and yet you are the one saying when they pay less they get shit? Cause obviously anyone who isn't from this country is clearly not as good as good ole home grown talent.

I think perhaps I angered you and your true colours are showing.

Oh did you like that accusation of racism? If not, then don't be so fucking quick to accuse everyone else, and maybe they won't be so quick to accuse you.

If you are in a highly trained profession, and tehre are no immigrants with that same level of training, hten you are going to be ok, did I suggest that immigrants are taking down wages of doctors or lawyers?

Err no, I didn't.

I was talking about basic tasks, like measuring in Metric and being able to work out how much wood to cut minus the part for the door. BASIC tasks.

One man in my example can prove with a qualification that the employer can EASILY check that he can do this basic task, the other one cannot prove he can do this task without the employer taking the time and money to test him or ring up a country somewhere in eastern europe and try and find out from someone who is unlikely to speak english, from a collapsed Soviet system as to whether the qualification he is told the man posses even exists and if it does, what level of education does it mean?

So the employer only takes the risk when he gains from it.

That is capitalism, risk for reward.

You people who talk about solidarity of the workers live in a fucking dream world I swear.

 

[refugee]

That is capitalism, risk for reward.

Our risk. Their reward.


Do you think the (any) state should decide where we seek employment?

 

[bluestreak]

You know I hate the term 'working class' it is a bullshit term from a century ago that has very little bearing on the reality of the world we live in, I wish we could throw it away, and honestly, I don't ever have to deal with this term except on this message board, no one else I know uses this term because it is soo inaccurate as to be almost meaningless in this day and age.

Why don't we just say poor, because that is what we mean when we say working class, middle class people work, they don't get given their cash, when we talk about the working class in this country, we actually mean a great deal of people that don't work and live on benefits and work temp and short term jobs.

So why don't we drop the bullshit term and just say, the poor.

Now lets have a look at the racial make up of the poor.....oh yes, seems to be extremely diverse, far more diverse then any other economical group.

But talk about immigration in terms of its effects on the poor and all of a sudden its racist? Despite the fact that the poor are THE most ethnically diverse group?

It makes no fucking sense at all.

well, my definition of working class is pretty much "the poor". i wandered off because i've done this argument before and i'm bored of it. the only argument (IMO) against immigration is the effect that it has on wages for the poor / WC. to me the logical answer therefore is unionism and solidarity, rather than infighting based on where you come from. if one working class person wants to fuck over another for being a victim of the economic system i think they're a scab and an idiot. many would attack me for this, and a fair few on here has. but as far as i'm concerned if your solution to systematic economic exploitation of the poor is to attack a section of the fellow poor just trying to make things meet like yourself... well, that's the actions of a cunt. and if the only reason they are differentiated from others in "the poor" when they're attacked is because of their race / ethnicity / country of origin etc., that;s racism. it might not be by other people's standards but it is by mine.

if the working classes of all countries won't unite in their communities to demand the best conditions and instead fall to infighting then fuck 'em. my two cents, i'm going to bed, you can all call me what you want.

 

[TonkaToy]

bang out of order fong, sorry but I'm working class and fucking proud of it.

Are you proud to be English or British?

 

[Fong]

Our risk. Their reward.


Do you think the (any) state should decide where we seek employment?

I think every state has an obligation to the people in that state to protect them from employees from other states that do not have to deal with the same as those resident in the state.

For example.

I as a single man, can go anywhere and earn less then a family man in almost any country in the world, because I don't have to buy childrens clothes, pay for their travel, their schooling, even if the tutition is free it generally costs anyway, I don't have to buy food for a family or provide for a family.

I can work for less.

is it fair for a state to allow me to enter and compete for a job that a family man, or someone who might want to start a family there would be competing for, knowing full well that they cannot possibly compete with me on wages?

No.

Even if I am a family man, as is the case sometimes, but my family doesn't reside in the state in which I work, and I send my wages back to a state where the cost of living is a quarter of what it is in the state where I work, that also is unfair, because the cost of living is what derives the level of wages for that state.

In essence, do I believe a state should tell us where to work no, but I think a state should be able to either stop me entering, or force my wages to be equal to those I am competing against.

f the working classes of all countries won't unite in their communities to demand the best conditions and instead fall to infighting then fuck 'em. my two cents, i'm going to bed, you can all call me what you want.

Best case scenario.

But frankly, unrealistic.

As I said to snadge, the idea that you can persuade someone to join in solidarity while they gain nothing and lose every advantage is just not sane behaviour.

It won't happen, because those people can't afford it to happen, remember as immigrants they likely are not even entitled to benefit so aren't in a position to show you solidarity, they are here to work, often times they have families to support at home and they can't afford to stand around on a picket line, they didn't travel all that way just so they can stand around not working.

 

[snadge]

Are you proud to be English or British?

No

 

[ViolentPanda]

IF someone sees the curtailment of immigration as a key component of their political philosophy then they ARE like the BNP in the fact that they share a policy even though their aims with that policy may be radically divergent

Translated as WC people are all rascists zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Only if the person doing the translating is as pigshit thick as you are, cuntlugs.

 

[durruti02]

well, my definition of working class is pretty much "the poor". i wandered off because i've done this argument before and i'm bored of it. the only argument (IMO) against immigration is the effect that it has on wages for the poor / WC. to me the logical answer therefore is unionism and solidarity, rather than infighting based on where you come from. if one working class person wants to fuck over another for being a victim of the economic system i think they're a scab and an idiot. many would attack me for this, and a fair few on here has. but as far as i'm concerned if your solution to systematic economic exploitation of the poor is to attack a section of the fellow poor just trying to make things meet like yourself... well, that's the actions of a cunt. and if the only reason they are differentiated from others in "the poor" when they're attacked is because of their race / ethnicity / country of origin etc., that;s racism. it might not be by other people's standards but it is by mine.

if the working classes of all countries won't unite in their communities to demand the best conditions and instead fall to infighting then fuck 'em. my two cents, i'm going to bed, you can all call me what you want.

that all sounds fine in theory .. but the practise is what should the unions be doing? if your workforce was to be replaced by lower wage workers youwould fight it wouldn't you?? .. it is that simple .. it is NOTHING to do with race .. it is ALL about the bosses USING and ABUSING immigrnats to fck up or wages and conditions

 

[trashpony]

that all sounds fine in theory .. but the practise is what should the unions be doing? if your workforce was to be replaced by lower wage workers youwould fight it wouldn't you?? .. it is that simple .. it is NOTHING to do with race .. it is ALL about the bosses USING and ABUSING immigrnats to fck up or wages and conditions

Yes bosses will use and abuse immigrant populations - to them, labour is labour. What the unions should be doing is reaching out to the immigrant communities - they would I'm sure rather work for higher wages - they take low pay because even if it's shit, it's still better than what they can earn at home.

By encouraging division, unions are playing straight into the bosses' hands.

 

[durruti02]

Yes bosses will use and abuse immigrant populations - to them, labour is labour. What the unions should be doing is reaching out to the immigrant communities - they would I'm sure rather work for higher wages - they take low pay because even if it's shit, it's still better than what they can earn at home.

By encouraging division, unions are playing straight into the bosses' hands.

of course they should be reaching out .. but this is AFTER the horse has bolted isn't it??

the point is we should surely be stopping the bosses replacing workers like at irish ferries and GG and generally in constructin BEFORE we need to recruit immigrants to the unions ..

 

[Fong]

Yes bosses will use and abuse immigrant populations - to them, labour is labour. What the unions should be doing is reaching out to the immigrant communities - they would I'm sure rather work for higher wages - they take low pay because even if it's shit, it's still better than what they can earn at home.

By encouraging division, unions are playing straight into the bosses' hands.

Yet you go no way at all to explaining how these people can compete on an even playing field.

You go no way to explaining why an employer will choose an immigrant worker who has qualifications they can't check and a sometimes rudimentary understanding of the language.

You have in no way explained how this 'reaching out' will work?

Oh you could earn more money IF you can get a job while competing equally with people from this country, which you probably can't, due to the fact that no one can check the qualifications you have, you can't afford to not work due to not getting benefits and your understanding and control of the English language is nowhere near as good as someone who has always lived here, not to mention the fact that your family is near starving at home and completely reliant on you bringing in some money. Not to mention the fact that htey just travelled halfway across Europe to get here..just so they could work, but now apparently they will just say no.

But yet the unions are going to be able to 'reach out' and get them to shun work for low wages?

Like I said earlier to snadge and Blue, you people live in a fantasy world that has no bearing or relationship to reality.

The unions just reach out, yeah and how does that work?

Lets show you a bit of realism....

Employer says to immigrant worker, you can have this job, 25% less wages....immigrant worker says....no, I want to earn the same as that resident british person over there.....employer says....Ok, and hires the resident british person over there....immigrant can't sign on, can't get housing benefit, knows no one in the country, gets no help from no one.....employer says to immigrant worker, you can have this job, 50% less wages....immigrant worker says...Thanks, thats 5 times more then I could earn at home.

That is the reality, the dream world you think exists, doesn't exist outside your own mind.

 

[Fong]

The problem is there are two answers to this problem.

1, Control Immigration.
2, Control Wages.

2 will never happen in a capitalist country that believes in the free market setting wages, and we live in a capitalist country that believes in the free market setting the wages.

Therein lies the problem, free market, the market should never be free, if it was, we would still have slavery, so we restrict it, we ban the use of child labour, why? because the 'free market' would use child labour and not think twice, because it is a formula, not an ethical way of living.

To those that say the state shouldn't control labour markets, just remember that, we would have child labour, we did before the state controlled labour markets.

We need control of the labour market, if we didn't it would take the piss, as it currently is, anyway it can.

 

[TonkaToy]

No

Why not?

 

[audiotech]

The problem is there are two answers to this problem.

1, Control Immigration.
2, Control Wages.

Wages are controlled. Most wage agreements are related to the retail price index.

There has been a raft of immigration controls and nationality acts implemented by both conservative and labour governments since the sixties.

 

[TonkaToy]

Wages are controlled. Most wage agreements are related to the retail price index.

There has been a raft of immigration controls and nationality acts implemented by both conservative and labour governments since the sixties.

It's easier to control immigration than it is wages.

Problem solved.

Next!

 

[belboid]

It's easier to control immigration than it is wages.

Problem solved.

Next!

No they're not, thickie.

 

[TonkaToy]

No they're not, thickie.

It's very easy to control immigration on this island of ours.

Problem solved. Now all we need to do is get rid of Nu Labour and have the real thing installed - Vote Conservative.

 

[TonkaToy]

Also, please refrain from calling me names Belboid.

I am proud to be English, because in England, despite the trials of life, we are polite and nice.

Being nice doesn't cost anything you know.