Newest immigration figures are in

[FenwayFrank 2,469]

23 minutes ago, duke63 said:

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.

That's quite handy, when the government stops their benefits they won't notice 😉

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

I see even Cleverly (a most inappropriate name for his skill set) thinks the Rwanda policy is a lemon (for lemons!)

[duke63 545]

3 hours ago, FenwayFrank said:

That's quite handy, when the government stops their benefits they won't notice 😉

That’s one thing many are very good at- working the benefits system. 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,198]

21 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

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 

Not how I see it. The gig economy exists regardless of immigration. 

However, back to the levels of immigration, many voted for Brexit to control it, then eventually backed up that vote in the 2019 election.....and unsurprisingly the current government has made a mess of it.

So how what should the UK do to control it, and how do they go about implementing it?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

6 hours ago, duke63 said:

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.

Call me a radical, but doesn't that suggest that maybe someone in politics should be suggesting training and opportunities as a way of addressing that rather than leaving more and more people on the scrap heap?

[duke63 545]

5 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Call me a radical, but doesn't that suggest that maybe someone in politics should be suggesting training and opportunities as a way of addressing that rather than leaving more and more people on the scrap heap?

Indeed but politicians will do what is right for them personally and their Party. Rarely does that coincide with what is right for the Country and the people in it.

If it costs money then the Tories will not do it as they see tax cuts as the only way forward even though 13 years has shown that as complete bollicks..it remains to be seen what the Tory-lite Labour Party will do.

 

[Herman 9,837]

 

[Naturalcynic 675]

29 minutes ago, Herman said:

 

Many of whom are “students” and who were then allowed to bring their families here too.  The Conservatives have had 13 years to get a grip on migration, legal or otherwise, and have utterly failed.  But I don’t see any radical policies from Labour to suggest that they’ll be able to do much about it either.  Sure, we could try to pretend that net migration of 700,000 per year really isn’t a problem and is a fuss about nothing, but the overwhelming majority simply won’t accept that argument.  So who do the concerned members of the electorate vote for in the coming election?

[sonyc 5,541]

22 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

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.

Well, if that is truly your view, we will disagree on this. And I would add to make that a line in the sand for me. Because if an area having many children in poverty means it's probably a s***hole then I couldn't disagree with anyone more. As posted above it needles me and goes deeply. Probably there is not a matter that could go more deeply. As stated, a line.

It's when I realise how the Tory supporters (those that rarely criticise) just don't understand people living in more economically challenging areas. They are maybe immune. I thought Barble Bleu(e) was someone who tried to be fair and reasonable but even he sees no issue with the words used by Cleverly.

And you think it's been a throwaway comment and the outrage is faux. The outrage isn't faux for me. It's as serious as it gets. I'd be grateful if you'd just put me on ignore, ir not to reply to any of my posts - which you're very likely not to agree with. Maybe just view my posts as "s*** too. I would be okay you thinking that. But about other people living in poverty then I somehow very protective.  Nor PM me too with any of my words used. I'm happy to accept too that I'm wrong, that my view isn't valid. I'm happy for you to win this argument. I cannot help having an absolute conviction about something however. Too important a part of who I really am.

Sorry LYB to be so direct as I don't wish to be rude or use insulting words. It's a polite request. It is a line that I am drawing as the issue runs deep into the beliefs and values I have (and my family does actually). I have spent 40 years working with people living in "sh*tholes" as I have respect for them, a very deep respect and care. It underlines my whole politics. Just needed to explain.

The one point I can agree It is damning I would agree about levelling up and ironic too given his own party has been in power for 13+ years. The problems of underinvestment go back many many decades. Plus, it's not all on the Tories but the system, the way this country has been managed.

Sotto voce is no excuse for me. Stockton is a big discussion this morning on Radio 4 and you'll know what the people of Stockton feel. Or possibly, more probably, you won't.

We all have our different values and there's much I agree with in everyone who posts here, some of whom are of different political views. 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

12 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Well, if that is truly your view, we will disagree on this. And I would add to make that a line in the sand for me. Because if an area having many children in poverty means it's probably a s***hole then I couldn't disagree with anyone more. As posted above it needles me and goes deeply. Probably there is not a matter that could go more deeply. As stated, a line.

It's when I realise how the Tory supporters (those that rarely criticise) just don't understand people living in more economically challenging areas. They are maybe immune. I thought Barble Bleu(e) was someone who tried to be fair and reasonable but even he sees no issue with the words used by Cleverly.

And you think it's been a throwaway comment and the outrage is faux. The outrage isn't faux for me. It's as serious as it gets. I'd be grateful if you'd just put me on ignore, ir not to reply to any of my posts - which you're very likely not to agree with. Maybe just view my posts as "s*** too. I would be okay you thinking that. But about other people living in poverty then I somehow very protective.  Nor PM me too with any of my words used. I'm happy to accept too that I'm wrong, that my view isn't valid. I'm happy for you to win this argument. I cannot help having an absolute conviction about something however. Too important a part of who I really am.

Sorry LYB to be so direct as I don't wish to be rude or use insulting words. It's a polite request. It is a line that I am drawing as the issue runs deep into the beliefs and values I have (and my family does actually). I have spent 40 years working with people living in "sh*tholes" as I have respect for them, a very deep respect and care. It underlines my whole politics. Just needed to explain.

The one point I can agree It is damning I would agree about levelling up and ironic too given his own party has been in power for 13+ years. The problems of underinvestment go back many many decades. Plus, it's not all on the Tories but the system, the way this country has been managed.

Sotto voce is no excuse for me. Stockton is a big discussion this morning on Radio 4 and you'll know what the people of Stockton feel. Or possibly, more probably, you won't.

We all have our different values and there's much I agree with in everyone who posts here, some of whom are of different political views. 

 

It's fine. I think it depends what you mean by sh1thole. It's interesting that you seem to interpret it as an insult against the people who live there. It's one way of looking at it, for sure. The general well-being of an area is about services, education, law and order, opportunities, trust and relationship with authorities, trust and relationships within the community. Most of those things aren't about the individuals and they're things that government should be interested in tackling and things people in the area should be interested in holding authorities to account over.

As always, I'll defer to your insight on the subject.

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

16 hours ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

Not how I see it. The gig economy exists regardless of immigration.

I'm really surprised that this doesn't get aired much more frequently - the gig economy has for a long time been a far bigger factor in forcing wages (and job security) down than immigration, whether from the EU or non-EU.

[sonyc 5,541]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's fine. I think it depends what you mean by sh1thole. It's interesting that you seem to interpret it as an insult against the people who live there. It's one way of looking at it, for sure. The general well-being of an area is about services, education, law and order, opportunities, trust and relationship with authorities, trust and relationships within the community. Most of those things aren't about the individuals and they're things that government should be interested in tackling and things people in the area should be interested in holding authorities to account over.

As always, I'll defer to your insight on the subject.

 

Yes I do. That's because any area IS about the people that live there. People make places as well as being defined by them in some circumstances. Thinking of my mining ancestors in South Wales. They had (and it's still there) a very proud and strong community. That community transcended the quality of the environment. Our top politicians in the country might do well to understand that.

[duke63 545]

Every urban area outside London and the other major cities is in deep ****. No investment and no vision on how to make them work.

Supermarkets have killed pretty much all town centres as small shops can no longer make it financially viable.

I suspect we are heading back to the dark days of the early 80s when some decided the best way of getting the Government to take notice was to riot and burn down what was left of their own communities.

[Barbe bleu 833]

23 minutes ago, sonyc said:

It's when I realise how the Tory supporters (those that rarely criticise) just don't understand people living in more economically challenging areas. They are maybe immune. I thought Barble Bleu(e) was someone who tried to be fair and reasonable but even he sees no issue with the words used by Cleverly.

The language wasn't ideal in the place it was used but I'm not going to get upset about an MP using words that reflect the language used by millions and millions of the people they represent. I think there is a time for formality and etiquette and there is a time for authenticity, the balance here was a little out but let's not pretend that what was said (whatever that actually was) is not fully reflective of what is said in normal conversion.

To the actual point no one here is suggesting that the people in deprived places are less deserving of respect or that they don't have the same dreams and attitudes as people from anywhere else.   And no one is suggesting that being with people in poorer places is any less fun, a point of an earlier post if i recall. But uts not really about people it's about place.

The built environment one grows up and lives in can determine a hell of a lot about one's life and its important to recognise that because without recognition there will be no change.   

If you need to speak truthfully and not tactfully in order to drive up standards for all isn't it better that you do that? I'd rather label hundreds of places sh*tholes and thus encourage positive change than to pretend that all places are equal and ignore that people who live in low quality environments have shorter, less fulfilling lives 

 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

30 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Yes I do. That's because any area IS about the people that live there. People make places as well as being defined by them in some circumstances. Thinking of my mining ancestors in South Wales. They had (and it's still there) a very proud and strong community. That community transcended the quality of the environment. Our top politicians in the country might do well to understand that.

Funnily enough, that's exactly what Maggie Thatcher was alluding to with the 'no such thing as society' comment that was widely taken out of context and that David Cameron rebranded as 'the big society'

Thatcher's complaint was that excessive expectation for government to fix problems was taking away interest in communities in working together to improve their own communities.

At the risk of offending, what you're saying is textbook one-nation Tory philosophy. Ironically, Keir Starmer is probably the closest thing to a one-nation Tory at the moment.

Akin to individuals who need help sorting their life problems out though you can't dismiss the importance of government putting effort into providing resources and initiatives to provide a viable platform to improve things.

Edited November 26, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

Just thinking

If we exile all the current Tory MPs to Rwanda - then the observance of human rights in both countries will likely rise!

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

6 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Just thinking

If we exile all the current Tory MPs to Rwanda - then the observance of human rights in both countries will likely rise!

LOL, but Kagame's star has really dimmed over the last few years as Rwanda has descended into autocracy. He was looking a really promising leader for the way he got Rwanda back on its feet after their civil war, but it's clear that civil liberties have nosedived since then.

He could have been an Ibrahim Prize winner, but that REALLY fouled things up. Sirleaf got there in Liberia, after all.

Edited November 27, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[Fen Canary 871]

On 26/11/2023 at 20:29, Herman said:

 

Are you suggesting importing 130k Europeans is fine, but 130k Nigerians is a bad thing? To me where they’re coming from is irrelevant, it’s the sheer numbers I disagree with.

However at least now the government can control they numbers if they wanted to, the amount entering the country lies solely with them and they aren’t hamstrung by free movement laws. Therefore if people aren’t happy with immigration they’re free to vote for another party who promises to reduce it.

[Herman 9,837]

I find the massive irony rather amusing. Brexit got over the line thanks to the racist vote so I assume they are fuming at what they voted for. The fact that a party that has been promising to reduce immigration for over a decade have failed spectacularly, yet still get a large vote is also rather "amusing".

I personally have no problem with immigration or where someone comes from so long as they are here to contribute, whether through work or study, my main issue is where are they going to live as the government have failed also to build enough accommodation. Their free market, privatisation of the housing market has also failed and are contributing to the destabilisation of the country.

And by the way, just repeating your ill founded ideas about FOM doesn't make it true. Have a good day, hopefully you'll think about what you have voted for and how a lot of our problems are started by ideologues like yourself.