Newest immigration figures are in

[dylanisabaddog 5,013]

57 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So under EU laws the UK could prevent EU citizens from moving to the UK to live and work? I understand there were a few exceptions for criminals and the jobless but apart from that any EU citizen had the same rights to live and work in the UK as any Briton 

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/we-can-control-eu-migration-we-just-havent-done-it/

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

If they’re undercutting the local workforce (which many in the trades unfortunately were) then they aren’t contributing in any real sense. If everybody else has to drop their prices to compete then nobody but those at the top are any better off from all these new arrivals.

Governments love immigration because more people equals a higher GDP. However it only benefits society if it is increasing GDP per capita, which low skilled immigration doesn’t do 

It's a balancing act. We're now in a situation where we do need people to come in to provide enough of the right Labour, but equally we can now see where those shortages are and put effort into giving all the racist gammony feckless white scroungers who voted for Brexit those skills so they can go get a job.

Edited November 24, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheRock 171]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

 Should I as a single person be living in a 3 bed house? 

 

Yes you have every right to. Especially if you privately own it, or privately rent it without subsidy from the state.

I agree with the dilemma of singletons in social housing, but as you say an effective can of worms was opened by Blair.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

43 minutes ago, TheRock said:

Yes you have every right to. Especially if you privately own it, or privately rent it without subsidy from the state.

I agree with the dilemma of singletons in social housing, but as you say an effective can of worms was opened by Blair.

Do they still give single occupant discounts on council tax?

[TheRock 171]

4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Do they still give single occupant discounts on council tax?

Yes. I think its 25%?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

4 minutes ago, TheRock said:

Yes. I think its 25%?

Sounds like there's an argument for abolishing it, maybe even a tax credit on taking in a lodger in your primary residence.

Edited November 24, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

25 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Sounds like there's an argument for abolishing it, maybe even a tax credit on taking in a lodger in your primary residence.

There's definitely not an argument for abolishing it. If anything, the notion behind the Poll Tax was fairer as it was per person and not per household. The discount sort of sees that single people don't cost anywhere near as much in terms of services, but doesn't pass on enough of the saving.

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

21 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

The real question is how many of those in the boats are fleeing countries at war vs how many are economic migrants looking for free handouts?

That isn't the real question - as you yourself said the much smaller number of asylum seekers isn't included in the 700,000 figure.

The real question is why is our corrupt and utterly incompetent government which promised to control/significantly reduce immigration are handing out 700,000 visas a year and yet still failing to bring in the skilled immigrants that our economy is desperately short of.

Seems crystal clear now that whilst we were EU members FOM delivered far fewer immigrants but with a much better skill mix for the needs of our economy, so this current Tory government created shambles is actually a double whammy.

They thought 'stopping the boats' would provide a very convenient distraction from the real problems of their own making but since they've demonstrated utter incompetence in that as well they are going to have to find another yet dead cat from somewhere 😂

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

23 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

There's definitely not an argument for abolishing it. If anything, the notion behind the Poll Tax was fairer as it was per person and not per household. The discount sort of sees that single people don't cost anywhere near as much in terms of services, but doesn't pass on enough of the saving.

Said before even though I'm centre left I'm in favour of poll tax for local services.

It makes people realize services cost money and value them. Of course there could be a minimum o say £50 (student) or £200/year for the poorest but don't pay it then can't vote! What's a pint of beer a week ?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

14 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Do his prices not rise and fall in line with his competitors and what the going rate is for work? If so why does he not expect wages to do the same? If he can’t get staff then he needs to offer higher wages or better working conditions, it’s as simple as that. If there’s a lack of people with the skills his business needs then he needs to put his hand in his pocket, take on apprentices and train them up. Why should everybody else have to pay for increased costs involved for society (more housing, infrastructure, healthcare and education capacity etc) just so his private business can make a larger profit? 

Your last sentence shows you up for what you are.

You haven't a clue have you. We are not talking about unskilled jobs. We are talking about high end decorating. Most of those capable are probably self employed. If you want to expand your business, put more vans on the road and all that entails, you cannot just say I will pay more and expect to get the quality. You have to get skilled men. In Cornwall, they are not available. He has an apprentice. But then you would know that at its so simple.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

So seven years after the vote and four years since we left, the argument still rages about immigration. And some of it is so John Bull pathetic it makes me want to weep. Its the usual British moan that our inadequacy and broken society is down to immigrants.  Its not our fault.

Half the boat people are coming for free handouts we  are told. One idiot on QT said they get straight off the beach and go to the benefits office. Funny how most end up on a lifeboat or some other boat and get taken elsewhere than the benefits office. There are a lot of people in this country who have contributed nothing and want handouts.

Of course we have to have controlled immigration. But surely the 1.2 million who came in according to the latest figures, were allowed in for a reason. Skills or financial security for instance. If not, then the right wing Government we have had in for the last 13 years have to take the blame. But all they say is, we have to stop the boats. That is a totally different problem. 

[sonyc 5,541]

From the Telegraph (Ryan Nelson) today (quoted in the daily Knowledge newsletter):

 

 

The real scandal behind British migration

We found out yesterday that having taken control of Britain’s borders with Brexit, the Tories have allowed net migration to rise to an all-time high, says Fraser Nelson in The Daily Telegraph. New arrivals are settling at a rate of 3,000 a day; we had more net migration in January this year than in the Windrush period – “or, come to think of it, the whole of the last century”. But those tempted to view this through the lens of the culture wars have it wrong. We are “very good at integration”, at “finding great newcomers and welcoming them”. The problem is that the massive influx of immigrants is papering over what would otherwise be a “full-scale crisis” in the welfare state.

I recently asked Manchester mayor Andy Burnham if he knew that 18% of his city was on out-of-work benefits. “He didn’t.” The figures are worse for Birmingham, Glasgow and Liverpool (20%), Middlesbrough (23%) and Blackpool (25%). In the 1980s this would have been a scandal: “How could a fifth, or a quarter, of entire cities be on the dole?” But mass migration offers an alternative – “one we have silently chosen” – so we don’t notice the missing workers. The numbers are truly shocking. Some 2.8 million are currently claiming sickness benefits, a figure expected to rise to 3.4 million by 2030. The tricky thing is that welfare reform is a “suicide mission” for politicians. Employers like skilled, affordable migrant labour, the Treasury likes the taxes they bring – and no one has to think about those millions of poor, workless Britons being swept under the carpet. “Who wants to bring all this to an end?”

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

There's definitely not an argument for abolishing it. If anything, the notion behind the Poll Tax was fairer as it was per person and not per household. The discount sort of sees that single people don't cost anywhere near as much in terms of services, but doesn't pass on enough of the saving.

On the other hand, council tax reflects the size of a property, and if your living accommodation is more than you personally need then that can be considered a luxury, when housing is limited in a country with a disastrous situation regarding decline in biodiversity?

If everyone's dead set on ever-increasing population, surely that's a strong argument for encouraging people to share living space? Plus there's a need for tax revenue.

Edited November 24, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

On the other hand, council tax reflects the size of a property, and if your living accommodation is more than you personally need then that can be considered a luxury, when housing is limited in a country with a disastrous situation regarding decline in biodiversity?

If everyone's dead set on ever-increasing population, surely that's a strong argument for encouraging people to share living space?

You'll find in places with overheated property markets that they're having to share space anyway. Council tax reflects the value of a property, not necessarily the size (although size is often related to value). It doesn't necessarily reflect the income of the person living in it.

As far as I'm concerned, council tax should be income-based per taxpayer, not property-based per household. At the moment you can have the ridiculous situation where two working adults in the same apartment as me pay less per head than I do, even though they'd create much more waste and generally require far more services than me.

There's a word for that. That word is singlism.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

25 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

You'll find in places with overheated property markets that they're having to share space anyway. Council tax reflects the value of a property, not necessarily the size (although size is often related to value). It doesn't necessarily reflect the income of the person living in it.

As far as I'm concerned, council tax should be income-based per taxpayer, not property-based per household. At the moment you can have the ridiculous situation where two working adults in the same apartment as me pay less per head than I do, even though they'd create much more waste and generally require far more services than me.

There's a word for that. That word is singlism.

I like the land tax idea best. I think opposition to the poll tax was entirely justified. A flat tax for breathing isn't really on, but a tax based on your territorial footprint makes total sense to me in a scenario of finite land.

Edited November 24, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

2 hours ago, sonyc said:

From the Telegraph (Ryan Nelson) today (quoted in the daily Knowledge newsletter):

 

 

The real scandal behind British migration

We found out yesterday that having taken control of Britain’s borders with Brexit, the Tories have allowed net migration to rise to an all-time high, says Fraser Nelson in The Daily Telegraph. New arrivals are settling at a rate of 3,000 a day; we had more net migration in January this year than in the Windrush period – “or, come to think of it, the whole of the last century”. But those tempted to view this through the lens of the culture wars have it wrong. We are “very good at integration”, at “finding great newcomers and welcoming them”. The problem is that the massive influx of immigrants is papering over what would otherwise be a “full-scale crisis” in the welfare state.

I recently asked Manchester mayor Andy Burnham if he knew that 18% of his city was on out-of-work benefits. “He didn’t.” The figures are worse for Birmingham, Glasgow and Liverpool (20%), Middlesbrough (23%) and Blackpool (25%). In the 1980s this would have been a scandal: “How could a fifth, or a quarter, of entire cities be on the dole?” But mass migration offers an alternative – “one we have silently chosen” – so we don’t notice the missing workers. The numbers are truly shocking. Some 2.8 million are currently claiming sickness benefits, a figure expected to rise to 3.4 million by 2030. The tricky thing is that welfare reform is a “suicide mission” for politicians. Employers like skilled, affordable migrant labour, the Treasury likes the taxes they bring – and no one has to think about those millions of poor, workless Britons being swept under the carpet. “Who wants to bring all this to an end?”

Interesting SC. It does make you wonder how many of these 'out-of work' benefits are by choice not by necessity. I may also offer a candid opinion that many in this group may correlate with those also be those most likely to be anti-immigrant as in 'they've taken our jobs'.

Is this true in your view as you work more closely than I to this?     

I'm very keen to support those that need help but they need to help themselves as well.

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

You'll find in places with overheated property markets that they're having to share space anyway. Council tax reflects the value of a property, not necessarily the size (although size is often related to value). It doesn't necessarily reflect the income of the person living in it.

As far as I'm concerned, council tax should be income-based per taxpayer, not property-based per household. At the moment you can have the ridiculous situation where two working adults in the same apartment as me pay less per head than I do, even though they'd create much more waste and generally require far more services than me.

There's a word for that. That word is singlism.

Income tax, PAYE etc is income based and progressive.

Local taxes simply to pay for local services I'm happy on a per person basis (with lower rates for those that are truly poor). We all use the same local streetlamps, bins etc. Of course that means too that local councils shouldn't be 'political' but simply a deliverer of local required services. 

What I dislike about the current system is that many who don't pay in also vote what to to pay out! No representation without some  taxation! Ergo a minimum poll tax.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[sonyc 5,541]

36 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Interesting SC. It does make you wonder how many of these 'out-of work' benefits are by choice not by necessity. I may also offer a candid opinion that many in this group may correlate with those also be those most likely to be anti-immigrant as in 'they've taken our jobs'.

Is this true in your view as you work more closely than I to this?     

I'm very keen to support those that need help but they need to help themselves as well.

I think there are a number of people who claim benefit as a choice in my recent work role,  there always have been. Yet, my overwhelming experience (through a service that supported people who you could certainly say were the furthest from the job market - through (a) informal learning (b) training and skills (c) job search help (d) enterprise coaching (f) post work support ...plus work with numerous employers. Sometimes it worked that people were prepared to go on to training (often the precursor to a job). Actual into work coaching was the easy part.

Guess which category the majority fell into? Yes, the first one. It took us a long time to 'settle' some people, to gain skills at socialising, confidence building (won't go into all the methods) and interpersonal skills. We developed many methods and in many settings. The barriers to employment were huge. Some folk couldn't read, spoke poorly, couldn't spell (not great for work that required COSHH adherence - but you could work on anything). Once someone believed in themselves the rest was one great learning curve for them. 

Their barriers often stemmed from terrible experiences derived from growing up, disfunctional families, drug addiction etc. Some kids would take themselves to school because parents hadn't woken up. I could go through all the barriers but it would take too long. However, it was clear many people without guidance would fall through the net. Sad but true.

A life on benefits is no life (and our benefits system is amongst the least generous of many OECD countries). We saw intergenerational worklessness too. Running through families  Fecklessness, whatever you want to call it. But, with guidance people could (and can today) be someone else. But they need a path. Like any of us do from time to time. We need someone to be around - when maybe those that should be are not.

There is a lot to say about good parenting. Biggest and most important role. Get a solid base and domestic stability and most folk thrive, to go on and do their own thing.

I had over 40 years of experience so I understand things quite deeply I would say, .... I would always give anybody time. You never knew when a breakthrough might come. 

There's a saying about any old sock and fitting a shoe. There are jobs for everybody. We need to support families, struggling families. The 20% if you like. Some can't be helped but the vast majority can. Sort this out and we would be sound as a country. There would be huge benefits in reduced costs to the health service, in education, less criminality and so on. Easy to write. 

Some people even started up their own businesses though and those were the lovely stories. In our job creation scheme 83% were still in work post scheme (i.e. their roles became permanent or they had enough work experience and confidence).

Anyway, a long answer to say I don't subscribe to the scrounger theory. That is just the Tory way of demonising the working man and woman. It often boils down to social class. And that won't change I don't believe. As for anti-immigrant views I can't comment really from experience one way or the other. I sense the answer lies in education. Plus, being open enough to try to understand the other person.

Edited November 24, 2023 by sonyc

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,198]

9 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

So under EU laws the UK could prevent EU citizens from moving to the UK to live and work? I understand there were a few exceptions for criminals and the jobless but apart from that any EU citizen had the same rights to live and work in the UK as any Briton 

FOM allows people to live in, and look for work (therefore, the jobless), in their chosen country.

However, FOM also requires those people to be able to support themselves. I know this; I did it.

I had to submit paperwork in advance, including bank statements, then register with authorities upon arrival. No option of state benefits.

With relatively low levels of unemployment, undercutting isn't going to be a huge problem. A bigger problem in the UK (and maybe elsewhere?), in my opinion, is some "employers" using gig economy "contractors" at cheap rates with no safeguards or rights....but I guess that's for another discussion 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

2 hours ago, sonyc said:

I think there are a number of people who claim benefit as a choice in my recent work role,  there always have been. Yet, my overwhelming experience (through a service that supported people who you could certainly say were the furthest from the job market - through (a) informal learning (b) training and skills (c) job search help (d) enterprise coaching (f) post work support ...plus work with numerous employers. Sometimes it worked that people were prepared to go on to training (often the precursor to a job). Actual into work coaching was the easy part.

Guess which category the majority fell into? Yes, the first one. It took us a long time to 'settle' some people, to gain skills at socialising, confidence building (won't go into all the methods) and interpersonal skills. We developed many methods and in many settings. The barriers to employment were huge. Some folk couldn't read, spoke poorly, couldn't spell (not great for work that required COSHH adherence - but you could work on anything). Once someone believed in themselves the rest was one great learning curve for them. 

Their barriers often stemmed from terrible experiences derived from growing up, disfunctional families, drug addiction etc. Some kids would take themselves to school because parents hadn't woken up. I could go through all the barriers but it would take too long. However, it was clear many people without guidance would fall through the net. Sad but true.

A life on benefits is no life (and our benefits system is amongst the least generous of many OECD countries). We saw intergenerational worklessness too. Running through families  Fecklessness, whatever you want to call it. But, with guidance people could (and can today) be someone else. But they need a path. Like any of us do from time to time. We need someone to be around - when maybe those that should be are not.

There is a lot to say about good parenting. Biggest and most important role. Get a solid base and domestic stability and most folk thrive, to go on and do their own thing.

I had over 40 years of experience so I understand things quite deeply I would say, .... I would always give anybody time. You never knew when a breakthrough might come. 

There's a saying about any old sock and fitting a shoe. There are jobs for everybody. We need to support families, struggling families. The 20% if you like. Some can't be helped but the vast majority can. Sort this out and we would be sound as a country. There would be huge benefits in reduced costs to the health service, in education, less criminality and so on. Easy to write. 

Some people even started up their own businesses though and those were the lovely stories. In our job creation scheme 83% were still in work post scheme (i.e. their roles became permanent or they had enough work experience and confidence).

Anyway, a long answer to say I don't subscribe to the scrounger theory. That is just the Tory way of demonising the working man and woman. It often boils down to social class. And that won't change I don't believe. As for anti-immigrant views I can't comment really from experience one way or the other. I sense the answer lies in education. Plus, being open enough to try to understand the other person.

Is it the Tory way of demonising them or is it more the remainer way of demonising them these days? This was a major cause of leaving the EU and a significant driver of anti free movement sentiment that continues to be completely ignored, favouring dismissing everyone who voted for it as 'gammon racists'.

Edited November 24, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Fen Canary 871]

7 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Your last sentence shows you up for what you are.

You haven't a clue have you. We are not talking about unskilled jobs. We are talking about high end decorating. Most of those capable are probably self employed. If you want to expand your business, put more vans on the road and all that entails, you cannot just say I will pay more and expect to get the quality. You have to get skilled men. In Cornwall, they are not available. He has an apprentice. But then you would know that at its so simple.

How many apprentices has he trained over the years? It obviously isn’t enough, or the pay on offer wasn’t enough to retain them. You can’t bemoan a lack of talent if you’re unwilling to put your hand in your pocket and train people to have the skills your business needs and pay them enough to retain those skills. If there is a shortage then he needs to train lots more, and if he’s struggling to attract trainees willing to do the work at the pay offered he either needs to pay higher wages or offer better working conditions. Why should the rest of society have to put up with the downsides of immigration (more competition for jobs, more competition for housing, more crowded public services etc) just so his company can be more profitable?

I find it strange how many of those who claim to be of the left always seem to be on the side of the wealthy businesses who want to use immigration as a tool to keep wage costs down

[Fen Canary 871]

1 hour ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

With relatively low levels of unemployment, undercutting isn't going to be a huge problem. A bigger problem in the UK (and maybe elsewhere?), in my opinion, is some "employers" using gig economy "contractors" at cheap rates with no safeguards or rights....but I guess that's for another discussion 

I find this to be a contradiction in itself. Saying immigration undercutting wages isn’t a problem, then explaining how unscrupulous employers use immigration to undercut wages and working conditions 

[sonyc 5,541]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Is it the Tory way of demonising them or is it more the remainer way of demonising them these days? This was a major cause of leaving the EU and a significant driver of anti free movement sentiment that continues to be completely ignored, favouring dismissing everyone who voted for it as 'gammon racists'.

I think that many working class communities have felt badly let down by Westminster in general - by the system I mean. I believe it is so London centric. Politicians are far more career focussed too. I do see some of the current major Labour figures as competent that said. And locally, it needs saying that I've known very, very genuine and conscientious Tory councillors who really looked out for their constituents. They represented them.

Overall, I'm not a Tory and have never voted for them, so take my comments perhaps with a pinch of salt, but my views are shaped by the likes of Cleverly recently, those of the blasé Johnson in recent times ("let the bodies pile high"). If you've only been to private schools and have never really struggled then ....

As for gammon racists I've also known a few and not always Tories. So I don't speak as a remainer in demonising anybody. As noted in my post above too, my whole working life was focussed on service to others and I worked solidly (and lived) in working class communities. I may have got into university myself (the first in my family, as is the experience of many) and made my own way but when I look at my parents and go back further, it's clear who I am and who I identify with. I don't feel comfortable with some folk who look down on others. Never will either.

It was Osborne that spoke of people lying in bed a few years back and it's generally been the Tories who speak of the deserving versus the undeserving. Policies have pretty constantly focussed on squeezing the poorest (housing benefit, universal credit, means testing, complicated processes for benefit claims and so on) whilst giving bigger tax breaks to richer people. That was my gist in my comment. It's why I was angered by a lack of reaction to Cleverly's sh*thole comment. This is a person, head of one of the four great offices in government who has said this. He is a UK cabinet minister and he is meant to represent the best interests of the country. His country too. Imagine then stating that view about a town in your own country! What bloody chance have they (we) got with that kind of thinking? How is in still in post? Wouldn't you / I as a PM be embarrassed by one of our senior reports by that comment? But nothing will happen will it. Just "mis-spoke" will be the rationalisation.

They are f***ers LYB. That's what this pleb thinks if I'm 100% honest.

 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by sonyc

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

How many apprentices has he trained over the years? It obviously isn’t enough, or the pay on offer wasn’t enough to retain them. You can’t bemoan a lack of talent if you’re unwilling to put your hand in your pocket and train people to have the skills your business needs and pay them enough to retain those skills. If there is a shortage then he needs to train lots more, and if he’s struggling to attract trainees willing to do the work at the pay offered he either needs to pay higher wages or offer better working conditions. Why should the rest of society have to put up with the downsides of immigration (more competition for jobs, more competition for housing, more crowded public services etc) just so his company can be more profitable?

I find it strange how many of those who claim to be of the left always seem to be on the side of the wealthy businesses who want to use immigration as a tool to keep wage costs down

You are getting weirder. You know nothing about the person or what he is trying to achieve. A local lad trying to run a business. How many apprentices do you think he should have? 10 or 20 even. Just rope your neck in and mind your own business. And business is something you clearly know nothing about. Typical wannabe Tory.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

2 hours ago, sonyc said:

I think that many working class communities have felt badly let down by Westminster in general - by the system I mean. I believe it is so London centric. Politicians are far more career focussed too. I do see some of the current major Labour figures as competent that said. And locally, it needs saying that I've known very, very genuine and conscientious Tory councillors who really looked out for their constituents. They represented them.

Overall, I'm not a Tory and have never voted for them, so take my comments perhaps with a pinch of salt, but my views are shaped by the likes of Cleverly recently, those of the blasé Johnson in recent times ("let the bodies pile high"). If you've only been to private schools and have never really struggled then ....

As for gammon racists I've also known a few and not always Tories. So I don't speak as a remainer in demonising anybody. As noted in my post above too, my whole working life was focussed on service to others and I worked solidly (and lived) in working class communities. I may have got into university myself (the first in my family, as is the experience of many) and made my own way but when I look at my parents and go back further, it's clear who I am and who I identify with. I don't feel comfortable with some folk who look down on others. Never will either.

It was Osborne that spoke of people lying in bed a few years back and it's generally been the Tories who speak of the deserving versus the undeserving. Policies have pretty constantly focussed on squeezing the poorest (housing benefit, universal credit, means testing, complicated processes for benefit claims and so on) whilst giving bigger tax breaks to richer people. That was my gist in my comment. It's why I was angered by a lack of reaction to Cleverly's sh*thole comment. This is a person, head of one of the four great offices in government who has said this. He is a UK cabinet minister and he is meant to represent the best interests of the country. His country too. Imagine then stating that view about a town in your own country! What bloody chance have they (we) got with that kind of thinking? How is in still in post? Wouldn't you / I as a PM be embarrassed by one of our senior reports by that comment? But nothing will happen will it. Just "mis-spoke" will be the rationalisation.

They are f***ers LYB. That's what this pleb thinks if I'm 100% honest.

 

 

I wasn't speaking about you at all. I think you absolutely nailed it, and nailed what I was driving at with my earlier facetious remarks. Any hint of jibe in my comment was squarely aimed at some of the people who acknowledged your post as a valid point, since they rarely show anything like the degree of thoughtfulness that you do. I also appreciate your insight from the coalface, so to speak. 

The failure of ever-growing proportions of lower class Brits going by the wayside in favour of taking advantage of labour from overseas is on both of the main parties, who have been equally guilty of failing to tackle the problem as it has become bigger. 

I honestly don't care who addresses it, but their disenfranchisement remains a problem and, as you rightly say, should be tackled head on if the underlying causes of our departure from the EU, which to a fair extent weren't directly about the EU at all, are to be addressed. 

Great to see you back.

Edited November 24, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[sonyc 5,541]

No offence taken in the first instance.

I think one big solution is a proper long term industrial / skills strategy. Arguably one that can have the support of all parties so that win / lose elections or not, the principal long term aim of finding a life purpose through work is within reach of everyone. That the quest becomes a new kind of Beveridge Plan. The idea that stuff is lost and we need to rethink, to begin again for the most part.

Even better if such a strategy is attuned to what skills sets are needed in the future (as well as the common interpersonal / softer skills). Then, if areas or towns and cities could be recognised for particular expertise then so much the better. The latter would create a 'narrative' for people all round the country (I realise that word is overused).

My point is that having a purpose in a place feeds into people potentially having more identity and belonging. Many communities have lost an identity they used to have..... Identities that were so often bound up in a local.pride... e.g. fishing villages, woollen towns and so on.

I listened once to a German fella on a trip about how in Germany they link together schools, employers and future skills requirements in a kind of package and align all that with regional and local job centres. Of course Germany is finding greater challenges now.

Any of the above won't happen though. I'm steadily losing my idealism I must admit. We seem far too short termist. Levelling Up might have been a basis of a start but it was just bluster by you know who.

Edited November 25, 2023 by sonyc
Typos - too late to be posting sh*t I think

[Naturalcynic 675]

11 hours ago, sonyc said:

I think that many working class communities have felt badly let down by Westminster in general - by the system I mean. I believe it is so London centric. Politicians are far more career focussed too. I do see some of the current major Labour figures as competent that said. And locally, it needs saying that I've known very, very genuine and conscientious Tory councillors who really looked out for their constituents. They represented them.

Overall, I'm not a Tory and have never voted for them, so take my comments perhaps with a pinch of salt, but my views are shaped by the likes of Cleverly recently, those of the blasé Johnson in recent times ("let the bodies pile high"). If you've only been to private schools and have never really struggled then ....

As for gammon racists I've also known a few and not always Tories. So I don't speak as a remainer in demonising anybody. As noted in my post above too, my whole working life was focussed on service to others and I worked solidly (and lived) in working class communities. I may have got into university myself (the first in my family, as is the experience of many) and made my own way but when I look at my parents and go back further, it's clear who I am and who I identify with. I don't feel comfortable with some folk who look down on others. Never will either.

It was Osborne that spoke of people lying in bed a few years back and it's generally been the Tories who speak of the deserving versus the undeserving. Policies have pretty constantly focussed on squeezing the poorest (housing benefit, universal credit, means testing, complicated processes for benefit claims and so on) whilst giving bigger tax breaks to richer people. That was my gist in my comment. It's why I was angered by a lack of reaction to Cleverly's sh*thole comment. This is a person, head of one of the four great offices in government who has said this. He is a UK cabinet minister and he is meant to represent the best interests of the country. His country too. Imagine then stating that view about a town in your own country! What bloody chance have they (we) got with that kind of thinking? How is in still in post? Wouldn't you / I as a PM be embarrassed by one of our senior reports by that comment? But nothing will happen will it. Just "mis-spoke" will be the rationalisation.

They are f***ers LYB. That's what this pleb thinks if I'm 100% honest.

 

 

If that’s what he said then I’d agree that it was inappropriate and offensive to those living there and highly unlikely to help persuade them to vote Conservative. I really don’t think public profanities have any place in Parliament.  Whether he should still be in post is up to Sunak, but it would be a touch hypocritical for others to demand his sacking while Angela “Tory scum” Rayner continues as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.

[sonyc 5,541]

2 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

If that’s what he said then I’d agree that it was inappropriate and offensive to those living there and highly unlikely to help persuade them to vote Conservative. I really don’t think public profanities have any place in Parliament.  Whether he should still be in post is up to Sunak, but it would be a touch hypocritical for others to demand his sacking while Angela “Tory scum” Rayner continues as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.

I take your point about language. Rayner will always be someone that the likes of the Mail will like to attack self-identifying as being a working class woman, one furthermore in a position of power and influence.I think I recall her comment was during a conference and about Johnson wasn't it?

The trouble with such a comment is that it could normalise such language. To the detriment of places like parliament. It means also that you cannot be taken so seriously when you use such language.

I'm not sure your example is equivalent but I take the general point and it has some validity. You'll know too that Johnson has made many sexist, racist and homophobic comments - all on record. 

I think the matter is ultimately about judgement (we all may think many things about a lot of people or matters but we don't say them). As he is a recent appointment I think his comment was ill-judged. To castigate a whole town like that doesn't even hold true. It shows a lack of awareness to a quite astounding degree.

Rayner may be unsuitable for high office, I don't know. It won't have done her many favours in the country at large (and I happen to agree with her about Johnson even though I might not use the word "scum" - I prefer a more childish and less nuanced term like  f***er. Then I'm not in the UK government cabinet).

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by sonyc

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

10 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I take your point about language. Rayner will always be someone that the likes of the Mail will like to attack self-identifying as being a working class woman, one furthermore in a position of power and influence.I think I recall her comment was during a conference and about Johnson wasn't it?

The trouble with such a comment is that it could normalise such language. To the detriment of places like parliament. It means also that you cannot be taken so seriously when you use such language.

I'm not sure your example is equivalent but I take the general point and it has some validity. You'll know too that Johnson has made many sexist, racist and homophobic comments - all on record. 

I think the matter is ultimately about judgement (we all may think many things about a lot of people or matters but we don't say them). As he is a recent appointment I think his comment was ill-judged. To castigate a whole town like that doesn't even hold true. It shows a lack of awareness to a quite astounding degree.

Rayner may be unsuitable for high office, I don't know. It won't have done her many favours in the country at large (and I happen to agree with her about Johnson even though I might not use the word "scum" - I prefer a more childish and less nuanced term like  f***er. Then I'm not in the UK government cabinet).

 

It was a sotto voce comment not intended for the record. Labour chose to make a thing of it for the choice of language. It's opportunism and faux outrage built on a throwaway comment.

Frankly, if there are that many children in poverty there, it probably is a ****hole. It'd be a smarter approach to ask whether it was somewhat damning of the leveling up scheme that even government ministers acknowledge the squalor.

[duke63 545]

The UK is an ageing nation that has a poor skill set. Unless we want to have very few nurses and doctors, then we have no option but to 'import' the Labour. Its the same in many industries.

The reason there are a lot of unemployed is because many of these people lack not just work based skills, but life and social based skills and are very little use to many employers.