Reply to: Immigration - social trouble on its way

[wendigo100]

If there is a genuine skills shortage (evidence for which is extremely questionable), large scale immigration is not the only solution worthy of consideration.

Agreed. What happened to education*3?

[BobTheCrate]

In short, large scale immigration is not the answer to solving high unemployment.

Large scale immigration from significantly poorer countries is only the answer to creating and maintaining synthetically low paid jobs.

Large scale immigration does not :-

Take any account of housing problems created as a result.
Take any account of the negative social implications.
Take any account of the strains it puts on public services.

If there is a genuine skills shortage (evidence for which is extremely questionable), large scale immigration is not the only solution worthy of consideration. Where it is the only solution on the table, it is because the real motives are not just to fill a claimed skills gap.

[Bagpuss]

Did you read my post?
I am pure Lancastrian.
I said we fill our own menial jobs (mostly) without relying on imports, but the fact is that there is high unemployment in some areas. I see lots of locals fighting over street sweeper, till driver or burger flipper jobs just to have a job. There are not enough of those jobs to go round and there are very few "large" employers.
The inverse seems to be true in the South in that there are large amounts of skilled jobs being filled locally and large amounts of menial jobs being filled by imports because the locals have "proper" work.


P.S. Lets stop telling those Southern softy, shandy drinking, soft as tulipe poofters how good it is up here or they will move in and ruin the place.

Sorry I skimmed it, I just get p1ssed off by the perception that me and mine have been taking the p1ss. I work hard posting on forums all day I'll have you know.

Now I'm off to feed my whippets some beef dripping, oh sh1t!

[The Lone Gunman]

What the hell are you talking about? I resent the implication that 'Northerners' are scroungers and being proped up by the south. Maybe this is true of some run down areas of the north east and samll areas Yorkshire/humberside where heavy industry was, but on the whole it is not.

Consider this..
"Recently described by the Financial Times as a genuine rival to 'overheated London' the North West is one of the most vibrant and dynamic parts of the UK. "
Yes the FT, but what would they know? Apparently this must be the benefit money! Rather than the local thriving private sector economy.

Did you read my post?
I am pure Lancastrian.
I said we fill our own menial jobs (mostly) without relying on imports, but the fact is that there is high unemployment in some areas. I see lots of locals fighting over street sweeper, till driver or burger flipper jobs just to have a job. There are not enough of those jobs to go round and there are very few "large" employers.
The inverse seems to be true in the South in that there are large amounts of skilled jobs being filled locally and large amounts of menial jobs being filled by imports because the locals have "proper" work.


P.S. Lets stop telling those Southern softy, shandy drinking, soft as tulipe poofters how good it is up here or they will move in and ruin the place.

[snaw]

Snaw/Snore: Learn to read.

Fungus/Fanny: You were attacking Mrs T. Remember? I responded to that.

No I attacked one of her policies, or more specifically her lack of policy as it related to areas that she left devastated. I think some of her other policies were much needed and did great good, if you lived in the right areas. I didn't attack her but I'll have a go if you want - I can't stand the old bint, never could, never will. Learn to read.

Fungus said "What you suggest does not work. If you keep people comfortable in fake jobs, you keep the cost of labour high due to wage competition with the fake employers, and hence companies cannot get off the ground. "

I don't recall suggesting keeping people in fake jobs. Learn to read.

Fungus said "Oh. So I have to subsidise someone to be unemployed because they cannot be bothered to get off their backside and find a job somewhere else do I? Damned lazy good for nothings. "

Well looking beyond the economic factors which might prevent someone relocating to entirely different part of the country to find a low paid job (Assuming they're the ones we're talking about), and the social factors (Childrens schooling, family, social networks, fear of the unknown), well yes you do. I don't think that should necessarily be a comfortable existence, but I got no problem with you having to help. Democracy I'm afraid, until you're in a majority who believe otherwise you'll just have to suck it up.

Fungus said "I've never understood so-called working class pride. My ancestors are mostly working class - knife grinders, miners, agricultural labourers - and I can't say I am proud that they had to do menial jobs but I am proud that in the 19th century one of them bettered himself becoming a skilled engineer and owner of an engineering works. He pulled himself up out of the dirt by dint of hard work and as a consequence his descendants did well for themselves. "

Well beyond the fact I was responding to a direct acusation by DA that I was somehow ashamed of my roots, I don't as a rule go around feeling full of working class pride. Equally I don't as a rule go around with a chip on my shoulder resenting those who aren't working class or came from there. As I've stated, fair play to you if you do well and get the chance to give your descendants a better life. To be honest I don't really understand what you're issue is - you're clearly proud that one of your ancestors did well, but should that mean every other person who's ancestors didn't should walk around feeling ashamed of themselves (Or as DA bizarrely suggests, feel ashamed that they the did)?

[The Lone Gunman]

Also: It is in El Gordos interest (in some ways) as these migrant workers are keeping inflation down. The real rate for these jobs should be much higher but the migrants can get away with less because they share housing and dont pay tax or NI. The losses of tax and NI are less important than what would be massive inflation if wages actualy had to keep up with costs like housing and increased taxation.

Follow the German example. Force employers to offer reasonable rates and pay the same or better rates to migrants.

[Bagpuss]

It has been my experience that "Northeners" are filling their own low paid jobs and still have high unemployment. Most cleaners and burger flippers round here speak with local accents, whereas whilst in London this weekend I never saw a single cockerneee accented person doing any menial work.

What the hell are you talking about? I resent the implication that 'Northerners' are scroungers and being proped up by the south. Maybe this is true of some run down areas of the north east and samll areas Yorkshire/humberside where heavy industry was, but on the whole it is not.

Consider this..
"Recently described by the Financial Times as a genuine rival to 'overheated London' the North West is one of the most vibrant and dynamic parts of the UK. "
Yes the FT, but what would they know? Apparently this must be the benefit money! Rather than the local thriving private sector economy.

[John Galt]

Christ almighty - I'm not arguing in favour of the current benefit system as it stands, have never done so and have no intention of ever doing so. Clear enough?

Just because I believe some form of benefit system is essential to cover for those people in society in need doesn't mean that I think what we have now is great. Just because there are jobs available doesn't mean everyone locally available fits the requirement or even would get those jobs, or indeed that people in other areas of the country should be forced to relocate to do those jobs. Sure, some people abuse the system when there are jobs available, that isn't an argument for getting rid of system entirely, nor an argument against the need for immigration.

No need to shout! I see your argument Snaw but you are being really blinkered. How can you balance the need for immigration against almost 4 million unemployed? There is no need at all for anyone to be unemployed in this country. Why can't we have a system where benefit payments are increased BUT the claimant has to work for it doing community work etc? Surely this would solve everything and it would mean that people were not getting other people's money for doing feck all

[The Lone Gunman]

Oh. So I have to subsidise someone to be unemployed because they cannot be bothered to get off their backside and find a job somewhere else do I? Damned lazy good for nothings.

Not having a pop at you, but this statement shows a lack of understanding of what is a much bigger issue and there will be a lot agreeing with you.

Simply. If all the unemployed moved to London, London would burst and all the infra structure would collapse. You are better off supporting them at home. The best solution would be to motivate non London centric businesses to move to the sticks. There are willing work forces, cheaper housing, much nicer rural areas and a lot less foreignors about the place.

It has been my experience that "Northeners" are filling their own low paid jobs and still have high unemployment. Most cleaners and burger flippers round here speak with local accents, whereas whilst in London this weekend I never saw a single cockerneee accented person doing any menial work.

[snaw]

But Snaw haven't you just defeated your own argument. If unemployment rates are highest in London and that is where all the jobs are either there are loads of scroungers around who are encouraged to remain so because of ludicrous benefit payments or there really are loads of jobs to go round and we don't need immigrants

Christ almighty - I'm not arguing in favour of the current benefit system as it stands, have never done so and have no intention of ever doing so. Clear enough?

Just because I believe some form of benefit system is essential to cover for those people in society in need doesn't mean that I think what we have now is great. Just because there are jobs available doesn't mean everyone locally available fits the requirement or even would get those jobs, or indeed that people in other areas of the country should be forced to relocate to do those jobs. Sure, some people abuse the system when there are jobs available, that isn't an argument for getting rid of system entirely, nor an argument against the need for immigration.

[BlasterBates]

ee ay up an' I thawt we ad it tough..

My ancestors lived at bottom of a lake.

[Fungus]

Snaw/Snore: Learn to read. You were attacking Mrs T. Remember? I responded to that.

Snaw said: "Your points - the people you mention could have been let down gently by trying to encourage other industries to replace the ones destryoyed, there are many ways for governments to do this, but MT didn't give a toss about a group of people who were never going to win her any more seats. "

What you suggest does not work. If you keep people comfortable in fake jobs, you keep the cost of labour high due to wage competition with the fake employers, and hence companies cannot get off the ground.

Snaw said: "The jobs available aren't distributed in the areas where they all live, and I don't believe people should have to decamp form their homes to do so."

Oh. So I have to subsidise someone to be unemployed because they cannot be bothered to get off their backside and find a job somewhere else do I? Damned lazy good for nothings.

Snaw said: "I got no guilt at all about my roots (I'm proud of them)"

I've never understood so-called working class pride. My ancestors are mostly working class - knife grinders, miners, agricultural labourers - and I can't say I am proud that they had to do menial jobs but I am proud that in the 19th century one of them bettered himself becoming a skilled engineer and owner of an engineering works. He pulled himself up out of the dirt by dint of hard work and as a consequence his descendants did well for themselves.

Fungus

[Emperor Dalek]

He said: "It's right the national exchequer should transfer money to poorer people and that you have some kind of system that protects the poorest people.

I sympathise with poor people, but giving them more money won't help them.

[xoggoth]

If you read both links bagpuss you would see there are other sentences referrring to the North and some figures for all regions, only one of the items is specificallly about the North East. Admittedly the North East is the worst case by a long way.

[John Galt]

I'm a confused snob?!?! You're half right, I'm confused with your logic in calling me a snob. I don't see how you come to the conclusion I believe above critisism, I got no guilt at all about my roots (I'm proud of them), and got no issues with my success nor anyone else's for that matter, more power to them. Typical DA - I'm sure it'll not sink in but you really need to stop making assumptions for others based on your own very limited world view. I don't think people who don't come from those roots are incapable of speaking for/about them, I just think YOU are. You've got zero idea of the reality, but lequally loads of patronising views on what's best for them.

Your points - the people you mention could have been let down gently by trying to encourage other industries to replace the ones destryoyed, there are many ways for governments to do this, but MT didn't give a toss about a group of people who were never going to win her any more seats. Witness the absolute collapse of the Tory party of Scotland during her reign. I have never argued for a continuation of those industries because clearly they had issues (And I've stated this to you many times, but you never feckin listen), I have repeatedly critisised the policies afterwards, which basically were ones of neglect. I blame the union leaders just as much for pursuing the path of conflict as much as they did, but that was never my fight and will never be. I grew up in the aftermath and it's that I have an issue with.

As for unemployment, I'm all for people helping themselves, and have no sympathy for people who abuse the system, but I don't make your assumption that those 3.7 million people are. The jobs available aren't distributed in the areas where they all live, and I don't believe people should have to decamp form their homes to do so.

The particularily in Scotland bit I think is the icing on the cake - London actually is the worst, and I imagine where most of the jobs are:



Equally you waffle on about Lithunania as being a model of success, a country which still has an unemployment rate above ours, based partly on a huge exodus to the west and a long term unemployment rate which is extremaly high. There are better examples of socialist countries where the things you critisise have equally resulted in rip roaring success, and an amazing quality of life.

I don't for a second believe any of these issues are anything less than extremely complex, and influenced by a great number of factors. You on the other hand consistently on this board see them in black and white - stop welfare, provide education and the word will be a rosy place. Want to give us an example in the world of this Utopia you imagine or does it just esxist purely as a theory in your head?

Fungus - learn to read, no one was attacking privitisation or calling for a return to state ownership so save your pontificating on Mrs T's successes for another thread and stick to the topic at hand; though somehow we managed to get from immigration to DA banging on his again about his time tested theories on what's best for the underpriveleged in Britain.

But Snaw haven't you just defeated your own argument. If unemployment rates are highest in London and that is where all the jobs are either there are loads of scroungers around who are encouraged to remain so because of ludicrous benefit payments or there really are loads of jobs to go round and we don't need immigrants