Why is Urban Pol full of racist threads?

[Jessiedog]

Well if you take the perspective of the "immigrants", you're bound to think the way you do. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Indeed.

I just don't think it makes a lot of sense for the left- who have no influence on our national politics as it is, to take the perspective of "immigrants" rather than the perspective of their potential supporters who are already part of this country. And that is about the closest I hope to ever get to the cynicism of realpolitik.

Aye!

Fookin' politicians, eh?



Woof

 

[ViolentPanda]

that's probably because you don't interpret immigration rules as inherently racist - some people do.

Anyone who starts a sentence with "its not racist to ..." can normally be guaranteed to be about to start saying something that I interpret as being racist in my experience - either that or doing a stand-up impersonation of Jon Reed, Minister for Authoritarianism



I think it is exactly racist to want immigration controls - how do you intend to decide who is eligible for entry into the UK and who isn't? Presumably all other people who can prove some kind of inherited tie to Britain (i.e. they are British) are allowed in, and the rest have to make a case to support their claim for entry (either they can provide work, they are members of other EU nations, or they are being persecuted (but not economically persecuted)). I can't see how this is not racism.

Thing is that you're never going to get rid of immigration controls completely because as long as they're around, nation-states are going to want to "police" the people entering their countries, whether that's filtering out "undesirables" such as people with criminal records, or operating an "under the counter" unofficial colour bar as a few people of my acquaintance attribute to Australia.
So, even if you can move beyond the no borders v more borders economic migration argument, they're still going to be there.

 

[TonkaToy]

Ah, the notorious and much-discredited "most people" gambit, as popularised by tbaldwin. Whenever you want to attempt to bluster, bullshit or otherwise bamboozle people you just have to claim that "most people" are in agreement with your point of view.

Fair enough then.

Prove your claim that "most people" want immigration controls.

I await your doubtless information-packed reply with bated breath.

If most people wanted open borders, just about every political party there is, would be falling over themselves to offer it - they don't.

Why should I waste my time, googling up, what everyone in the real world already knows?

 

[durruti02]

Meh!

And I guess that's what makes this exploration so interesting.

There's no real argument with the concept of "open borders", in my view, there are just different views on how fast it's needed.

My life is spent among people who's very raison detre is to get to "the west", and personally, I'm with them. Anything that makes it easier to get to the UK (US, Canada, Oz, Western Europe, etc.) as soon as possible, is a good thing in my view. Open borders would benefit far, far more people than it would hurt. By a magnitude of many multiples.

Peeps in the UK (etc, etc.) need to accept a substantial, overall, drop in living standards, if "we" are ever going to get a fair shake.

Time has run out. The time is now. Tear down the barriers!

(Oi'd fookin' love to see a "Calcutta stylee" London, me. Class! .)



Woof

this is one of the stupidest qoutes i have read on PnP.

sure people want to come here .. they are constantly bombarded by propaganda about how great the West is ..

BUT what will it do to help create a movement that can abolish inequality?? absolute fuck all!

p.s. you are always asking for evidence ..

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2005_12_21/uk/uk_agencies_hiring_poor_country_nurses.htm

Rich states told to stop poaching doctors

Recruitment is like rape of poor countries, says BMA chief
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1515990,00.html

 

[revol68]

this is one of the stupidest qoutes i have read on PnP.

sure people want to come here .. they are constantly bombarded by propaganda about how great the West is ..

BUT what will it do to help create a movement that can abolish inequality?? absolute fuck all!

p.s. you are always asking for evidence ..

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2005_12_21/uk/uk_agencies_hiring_poor_country_nurses.htm

Rich states told to stop poaching doctors

Recruitment is like rape of poor countries, says BMA chief
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1515990,00.html

Durruti, fancy replying to my criticisms, about the praticalities of your imaginary scheme. Keyboard Jockey has replied saying he's in favour of a "community capitalism" and thinks internationalism is a slow organic "goal" for the distant future rather than a basis for action now. I think he is wrong but if that's his politics and aims then son's and daughters policy and other calls for a planned capitalism make sense.

You however are a socialist, who claims to be moved by internationalism now.

 

[durruti02]

i actually don't cos you called me a cunt which was pathetic .. but for those reading and following the debate ..

i undertand your argument about the reactionary nature of ANY exlusive politics (and that therefore you are against them).. which must include more than closed shop/SnD but also Trade Unions, TRAs .. neighbourhood committees .. it seems anythig that deals with the day to day

fundamentally i believe that you have put the cart before the horse and also have fallen for a leninist position

there is no point in PC ideology if it means nowt to people .. that is the deal .. it is not selfishness .. it is life .. we ned to help rebuild here and now under capitalism .. there is NO revolution tomorrow .. and we need to be involved / help create progressive bodies

your assertion that exclusiveness is anti internationalist/anti socilaist is nonsense .. there is NO internationalism/socialism WITHOUT these w/c orgs ..

equally i think you misunderstand the depth/potential of solidarity in w/c communities ..( maybe a case of glass half full ? half empty?) .. as i said teh case of the UWC is as positive as it is negative .. and that the negativity predated the form

i do accept that thereis a role for ideology .. but of a form that is constructive and progressive .. the statist groups do not relate to or attract people .. especially when they patronise people over e.g. immigration

this is why you need to look at the issue of immigration again .. it is a key issueeu for revolutionaries and how we relate to the w/c and what forms we propose to try to rebuild ..

 

[Barry Kade]

Of course capitalists have allways used immigrants from poorer countries to drive down the wages of settled workers. This is nothing new. For example when Ireland was impoverished by enriching Britain its starving workers 'flooded' here.

Over centuries of labour movement struggle we have learned these hard lessons:

There are two responses to this problem - one is wrong, one right:

1) One is to support immigration controls. But this pits settled worker against immigrant workers. It makes the labour movement the slave of the bosses nationalist ideology that rich and poor Brits should unite against the foreigner - and ignore our exploitation by the British rich. And it doesnt work. It merely creates illegal immigration and therefore migrant workers who will work for even less. But it helps the fascist scum impose their jackboot on our necks.

2) The other? Unionise all workers, settled or migrant. Impose harsh penalties upon any boss who pays below a minimum wage.

Option two is how our class crawled out of the slums - not through whining on about needing immigration controls.

 

[durruti02]

Of course capitalists have allways used immigrants from poorer countries to drive down the wages of settled workers. This is nothing new. For example when Ireland was impoverished by enriching Britain its starving workers 'flooded' here.

Over centuries of labour movement struggle we have learned these hard lessons:

There are two responses to this problem - one is wrong, one right:

1) One is to support immigration controls. But this pits settled worker against immigrant workers. It makes the labour movement the slave of the bosses nationalist ideology that rich and poor Brits should unite against the foreigner - and ignore our exploitation by the British rich. And it doesnt work. It merely creates illegal immigration and therefore migrant workers who will work for even less. But it helps the fascist scum impose their jackboot on our necks.

2) The other? Unionise all workers, settled or migrant. Impose harsh penalties upon any boss who pays below a minimum wage.

Option two is how our class crawled out of the slums - not through whining on about needing immigration controls.

agree .. i have consistently arguing a pro w/c solution see post 148 on one of the threads!!

but what do you do when your workplace has its staff slashed to be replaced by low wage immigrants? you do not wait till they are here to organise them .. you strike to stop it .. no??? sure if you fail they are now here are you try to work together ..

 

[exosculate]

I've said it before and i'll say it again its the SWP types that are ultra-leftist on here. They have no idea how to engage in working class politics.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If most people wanted open borders, just about every political party there is, would be falling over themselves to offer it - they don't.

No they wouldn't.
Political parties aren't here to act for "the people" anymore, we're an occasional itch that they have to sometimes scratch. What they're there for is to provide a framework for capitalism in the uk to run more smoothly.
As soon as it becomes convenient for UK capital for there to be open borders, then there'll be open borders, whether you, me or the electorate at large like it or not.

Why should I waste my time, googling up, what everyone in the real world already knows?

That'd be because they don't, you know they don't, and you're weaselling to get yourself out of a corner.

First you claim "most people" and now you're onto "everyone". Neither of which you can prove, of course. That's the beauty (and the tragedy, if you'd only noticed it) of the "commonsense" argument.

Nice to see people shooting themselves in the foot, especially gonifs such as yourself.

 

[Barry Kade]

Pretend-durruti asks:

"what do you do when your workplace has its staff slashed to be replaced by low wage immigrants? "

How about rephrasing the question: "what do you do when your workplace has its staff slashed to be replaced by low wage scabs? "

Are you saying we should sit back and let our wages be slashed if the replacements were white british workers? Doh!

And its no use saying something like "the unions are not strong enough" or "first we need to rebuild class solidarity before we can wage these fights". We will never rebuild class solidarity if we focus our attention against migrant workers. This will always enslave us to the bosses ideology.

And migrant workers are often more angry and willing to unionise than settled workers. Look at the strikes this summer by the Polish agricultural slaves in Britain! That would teach the TUC a thing or two!

 

[durruti02]

Really? Says who?

.. you clearly know little about immigration ..

 

[TonkaToy]

No they wouldn't.
Political parties aren't here to act for "the people" anymore, we're an occasional itch that they have to sometimes scratch. What they're there for is to provide a framework for capitalism in the uk to run more smoothly.
As soon as it becomes convenient for UK capital for there to be open borders, then there'll be open borders, whether you, me or the electorate at large like it or not.

That'd be because they don't, you know they don't, and you're weaselling to get yourself out of a corner.

First you claim "most people" and now you're onto "everyone". Neither of which you can prove, of course. That's the beauty (and the tragedy, if you'd only noticed it) of the "commonsense" argument.

Nice to see people shooting themselves in the foot, especially gonifs such as yourself.

Because I don't have to. You keep failing to understand. I don't care if you are deluded into thinking that most people support no borders. You're for it and you have to convince people of it. I really can't see many Tory voters looking for it. There are certainly loads of left wing voters about who are not for it. So how you can say that the majority of people support your view is beyond me.

 

[TonkaToy]

No fucking surprise that poltical parties want capitalism in the UK to run smoothly.........because..........guess what..........


...the majority of people in this country want capitalism to run smoothly.

 

[durruti02]

Pretend-durruti asks:

A .... How about rephrasing the question: "what do you do when your workplace has its staff slashed to be replaced by low wage scabs? "

Are you saying we should sit back and let our wages be slashed if the replacements were white british workers? Doh!

And its no use saying something like "the unions are not strong enough" or "first we need to rebuild class solidarity before we can wage these fights".

B ... We will never rebuild class solidarity if we focus our attention against migrant workers. This will always enslave us to the bosses ideology.

C .. And migrant workers are often more angry and willing to unionise than settled workers. Look at the strikes this summer by the Polish agricultural slaves in Britain! That would teach the TUC a thing or two!

A ... .. exactly mate .. it DOES NOT MATTER THE nationality .. except that there are many on here who have siad we should NOT oppose the state bringing in immigrants .. that it is some sort of natural process .. bollox it is an attack on the w/c ..


B ... the horse bolted ..


C ... nonsense .. one or too examples mean nothing .. the guys on strike in haringay last 2 weeks are EXACTLY the opposite .. in fact in general it appears that immigrants are far more likely to put up with poor conditions/low wages/less likely to join unions ..

 

[durruti02]

Still no link for this, I guess?

I asked you the first time you trotted out this slime.



Yer a fuckin' idiot, tbaldwin. A little, nationalist, facist who wishes to jail people for wanting to better the lives of their families.

Disgusting.



Woof

jessie maybe you should read what the third world nurses leaders are saying! before you carry on getting it wrong


..http://society.guardian.co.uk/commen...485880,00.html


The NHS goes global

Poaching doctors and nurses from poorer countries will have dire consequences, says Malcolm Dean

Wednesday May 18, 2005
The Guardian


The numbers are hard to believe. Six years on from the health service's ethical recruitment code, more than a third of new nurses (11,500) and two-thirds of new doctors recruited last year were overseas trained, many of them poached from poor states. Cynics may dismiss the new joint campaign by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing to put more pressure on ministers to plug the brain drain from developing states. They may see it as an act of professional self-protection. But they are wrong.
They should heed instead the appeals for help at last year's RCN conference from the leader of the South African nurses association, who was still watching 300 nurses a month moving overseas, despite the appeals from Nelson Mandela to the developed world to stop it. Some 6,000 nurses in four years came to the UK alone.

Or they could talk to the head of Kenya's nursing union, who complained even earlier about their most experienced nurses being poached by British private nursing agencies.

The government has committed the UK to a code of ethics that bans recruitment from developing countries except where there is an inter-governmental agreement permitting it. Yet of the top 20 countries from which the UK recruits, 12 are on a banned list.

Some 7,000 South African doctors were already on the permanent register of the UK's General Medical Council by 2003 - equivalent to half the number working in South African public hospitals - when Britain launched its plan for private independent treatment centres that were required to recruit from overseas. The South African Medical Association responded: "You are increasing your ability to poach by opening these centres that you cannot man yourself." And, indeed, one of the half-dozen overseas corporates that won a contract was South African.

Ghana is in even more serious trouble, with just 1,500 doctors for a population of 20m. Two-thirds of its young doctors leave the country within three years.

A new report, commissioned by the RCN from James Buchan, of Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, shows the startling rise in non-EU overseas trained nurses registering in the UK in the last decade. It grew from fewer than 2,000 in 1994/95 up to 15,000 in 2001/02. In the last five years, more than 50,000 overseas trained nurses have been registered here - most from "banned" African countries.

The chairman of the BMA, James Johnson, was right to talk of the "devastating consequences" on developing nations of the failure of developed states to train sufficient medical staff.

A report produced by Medact, the international health charity, estimated the cost to Ghana alone from the loss of medical staff came to £100m. The gain to developed states was much bigger. It costs almost £250,000 to train a doctor in the UK.

True, the picture is more complicated than some statistics suggest. Three countries - the Philippines, India and Indonesia - have an intergovernmental agreement with the UK because of surplus numbers. The Philippines deliberately produces a surplus to attract remittances from abroad. Nurse numbers from there peaked at 7,000 in 2001-02 but have fallen since. Remittances (from all sectors) are now providing developing states with almost twice as much as international aid, more than £75bn a year.

Yet, as the UN Commission on Migration has warned, too high an expectation has been placed on these financial flows. Socially, they break up families while economically, they deprive the developing countries of entrepreneurial talent.

Then, as Hilary Benn, the international development secretary, wrote in our letter columns last week, the shortage of health workers in developing states has other causes apart from migration. He listed inadequate investment in health services, poor working conditions, poor pay and lack of career development. He pointed to the UK's aid programme that is helping to meet these shortfalls - more than £560m to Africa in the last five years. But divided equally, that would come to little more than £2m for each African country each year.

The current code was tightened in 2004. A loophole under which overseas staff could be taken on by the NHS as locums on renewable short-term contracts that could be extended indefinitely was blocked. But it should be tightened further. There is nothing to stop private hospitals, private nursing homes or 250 private recruitment agencies from poaching.

What is needed even more urgently is a debate about how developed nations which use overseas trained staff should compensate the developing nations for their loss. Some 22 Commonwealth countries have signed up to such an approach, but not the UK. It would not just be ethical but in our own self-interest. An RCN survey of overseas nurses working in London, published today, suggests four in 10 are considering a move to another country that offers better pay, such as the US. As the RCN asserts, the NHS expansion is "being built on sand".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Because I don't have to. You keep failing to understand. I don't care if you are deluded into thinking that most people support no borders.

I don't think that and haven't claimed to think that. All I'm requiring you to do is give some proof for you claim that "most people" (your words, remember?) support immigration controls.

You're for it and you have to convince people of it.

Again, you're (unsurprisingly) making assumptions.

I really can't see many Tory voters looking for it. There are certainly loads of left wing voters about who are not for it. So how you can say that the majority of people support your view is beyond me.

Again, I haven't claimed the majority of people support my view, only you have done that.

Now come on, some proof for your claim please.

 

[ViolentPanda]

jessie maybe you should read what the third world nurses leaders are saying! before you carry on getting it wrong


..http://society.guardian.co.uk/commen...485880,00.html


The NHS goes global

Poaching doctors and nurses from poorer countries will have dire consequences, says Malcolm Dean

Wednesday May 18, 2005
The Guardian


The numbers are hard to believe. Six years on from the health service's ethical recruitment code, more than a third of new nurses (11,500) and two-thirds of new doctors recruited last year were overseas trained, many of them poached from poor states. Cynics may dismiss the new joint campaign by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing to put more pressure on ministers to plug the brain drain from developing states. They may see it as an act of professional self-protection. But they are wrong.
They should heed instead the appeals for help at last year's RCN conference from the leader of the South African nurses association, who was still watching 300 nurses a month moving overseas, despite the appeals from Nelson Mandela to the developed world to stop it. Some 6,000 nurses in four years came to the UK alone.

Or they could talk to the head of Kenya's nursing union, who complained even earlier about their most experienced nurses being poached by British private nursing agencies.

The government has committed the UK to a code of ethics that bans recruitment from developing countries except where there is an inter-governmental agreement permitting it. Yet of the top 20 countries from which the UK recruits, 12 are on a banned list.

Some 7,000 South African doctors were already on the permanent register of the UK's General Medical Council by 2003 - equivalent to half the number working in South African public hospitals - when Britain launched its plan for private independent treatment centres that were required to recruit from overseas. The South African Medical Association responded: "You are increasing your ability to poach by opening these centres that you cannot man yourself." And, indeed, one of the half-dozen overseas corporates that won a contract was South African.

Ghana is in even more serious trouble, with just 1,500 doctors for a population of 20m. Two-thirds of its young doctors leave the country within three years.

A new report, commissioned by the RCN from James Buchan, of Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, shows the startling rise in non-EU overseas trained nurses registering in the UK in the last decade. It grew from fewer than 2,000 in 1994/95 up to 15,000 in 2001/02. In the last five years, more than 50,000 overseas trained nurses have been registered here - most from "banned" African countries.

The chairman of the BMA, James Johnson, was right to talk of the "devastating consequences" on developing nations of the failure of developed states to train sufficient medical staff.

A report produced by Medact, the international health charity, estimated the cost to Ghana alone from the loss of medical staff came to £100m. The gain to developed states was much bigger. It costs almost £250,000 to train a doctor in the UK.

True, the picture is more complicated than some statistics suggest. Three countries - the Philippines, India and Indonesia - have an intergovernmental agreement with the UK because of surplus numbers. The Philippines deliberately produces a surplus to attract remittances from abroad. Nurse numbers from there peaked at 7,000 in 2001-02 but have fallen since. Remittances (from all sectors) are now providing developing states with almost twice as much as international aid, more than £75bn a year.

Yet, as the UN Commission on Migration has warned, too high an expectation has been placed on these financial flows. Socially, they break up families while economically, they deprive the developing countries of entrepreneurial talent.

Then, as Hilary Benn, the international development secretary, wrote in our letter columns last week, the shortage of health workers in developing states has other causes apart from migration. He listed inadequate investment in health services, poor working conditions, poor pay and lack of career development. He pointed to the UK's aid programme that is helping to meet these shortfalls - more than £560m to Africa in the last five years. But divided equally, that would come to little more than £2m for each African country each year.

The current code was tightened in 2004. A loophole under which overseas staff could be taken on by the NHS as locums on renewable short-term contracts that could be extended indefinitely was blocked. But it should be tightened further. There is nothing to stop private hospitals, private nursing homes or 250 private recruitment agencies from poaching.

What is needed even more urgently is a debate about how developed nations which use overseas trained staff should compensate the developing nations for their loss. Some 22 Commonwealth countries have signed up to such an approach, but not the UK. It would not just be ethical but in our own self-interest. An RCN survey of overseas nurses working in London, published today, suggests four in 10 are considering a move to another country that offers better pay, such as the US. As the RCN asserts, the NHS expansion is "being built on sand".

Did you not pay any attention to fridgemagnet on your new thread when he asked you not to cut and paste massive articles?

 

[ViolentPanda]

No fucking surprise that poltical parties want capitalism in the UK to run smoothly.........because..........guess what..........


...the majority of people in this country want capitalism to run smoothly.

More claims without proof?

Why aren't I surprised?

 

[Streathamite]

No fucking surprise that poltical parties want capitalism in the UK to run smoothly.........because..........guess what..........


...the majority of people in this country want capitalism to run smoothly.

oh really? you've spoken to every 56 million of us have you? or are you just assuming?

 

[TonkaToy]

oh really? you've spoken to every 56 million of us have you? or are you just assuming?

I don't need to speak to 56 million..they have a vote and I don't see anti-capitalists anyhwere near our government...thank God.

 

[rauscher]

Is it a surprise that western capitalism uses the ex-colonies to its own ends? Who cares if a few (million) blacks die and a Labour or Tory politician can point to a well staffed NHS? But what does this have to do with immigration? Are there millions of nurses flooding into the country? Or maybe even thousands? In their green uniforms?

 

[TonkaToy]

I am a little Englander.

I am pro British.

I am proud to be both English and British, because in our fine country, our people believe in free enterprise and capitalism.



If people don't like capitalism, I suppose we could always have them kicked out of the country. I mean there should be plenty of socialist countries who won't mind taking poor socialist refugees off us, because I'm told socialists welcome poor immigrants with open arms.

 

[rauscher]

Immigration is not and never has been a threat to Britain. It's bullshit. The ideology of morons. And Tonka Toy, you are a moron. A very well chosen name. A shallow tin thing without a brain. White Brits who eat fish and chips and darker indians who make great curries and even darker west indians who make great music get on just fine. Shove that up your racist arse and let the rest of us get on with our lives.

 

[TonkaToy]

Immigration is not and never has been a threat to Britain. It's bullshit. The ideology of morons. And Tonka Toy, you are a moron. White Brits who eat fish and chips and darker indians who make great curries and even darker west indians who make great music get on just fine. Shove that up your racist arse and let the rest of us get on with our lives.

Another argument won. Another red / liberal who get's frustrated like a little child and resorts to calling people names, including completly unfounded accusations of racism.

Next time read the thread. I don't know how many countless times people have to post that they are not against immigration, but understand that the country needs immigration controls and not open borders - yet people like rasucher, still come along with proof that they havent bothered to read the thread.

 

[rauscher]

So Tonka Toy (well named) what are you favour of?

 

[TonkaToy]

So Tonka Toy (well named) what are you favour of?

Controlled immigration that is reciprical between countries.

1 man in from country X
1 man out to country X

That's the fairest system you can have for all the countries outside of the EU.

 

[rauscher]

Within the EEC? Still waiting Tonka Toy.

 

[TonkaToy]

Within the EEC?

The European Union is a special case, though I question the wisdom to unilaterally open the borders to the newer members. All of us should, or none of us should.

 

[TonkaToy]

Within the EEC? Still waiting Tonka Toy.

It's a fucking message board. You do understand how messagboards work, don't you? I can fuck off and give you an answer in 3 weeks time if it so pleases me.