Should immigration always be perceived as ‘a problem’?

First topic message reminder :

Writing for ‘Compass’ in July this year, Lisa Nandy MP said: “For most of my lifetime, politics has been based on a belief that the only way to win elections is to seek out the centre ground, but it is surely an essential plank of a democracy that politicians should provide leadership and not just follow; as Robin Archer of the LSE says, to seek to define and not just seek the centre ground”. She continued by saying that people on the left in politics have to tackle the issues which make us feel uncomfortable – welfare reform, law and order and immigration.
http://www.compassonline.org.uk/news/item.asp?n=13151&offset=50

Let’s tackle the issue of immigration. The right-wing press has been indoctrinating us for years with claims that most immigrants are living on benefits, while at the same time saying that they’ve taken many of our jobs, and of course both scenarios can’t possibly be true. We’re told that the country is already overcrowded; it’s not, only S.E. England is, although we are now the most densely populated country in Europe. We’re told that immigration increases crime (our prisons do indeed hold a disproportionate number of people who weren’t born here) and increases the threat to our security. By increasing the labour force, does immigration suppress wage levels?

In the 1970s, the National Front used to peddle the spurious argument that as there were a million people unemployed in the UK at the time, all we had to do was repatriate a million immigrants and there would be no unemployment. Anyone with half a brain can work out that by reducing the population by a million, you would have a million fewer consumers to buy goods and services, thereby reducing demand and creating unemployment. There would also be a million fewer taxpayers (even those not working pay VAT).

So why have successive UK governments over the last fifty years allowed and even encouraged immigration?
Not out of charity but out of necessity. Firstly, to do jobs which the indigenous population didn’t want to do, or didn’t have the skills to do. The NHS would have collapsed years ago without immigrant doctors and nurses. Secondly, Europe has a declining birth rate, which is threatening to make it difficult to pay for pensions for future generations. Most immigrants are of working age, which means they consume less of the services provided by the state, such as health care and education, and pay more in taxes. Home Office research in 2002 suggested that immigrants paid £2.5bn more in taxes than they took in benefits.

Perhaps if more of us showed a positive attitude to immigrants, welcoming and celebrating diversity instead of perceiving it as ‘a problem’, immigrants might feel less of a need to retreat into ghettos, where some of them succumb to religious fanaticism and terrorism.

tlttf. What a pity that you don’t read articles properly before opening your trap and putting your foot in it as usual. I suppose  that ‘Telegraph’ extract was too long for the attention span of a ‘Daily Mail’ reader.
 
The Office for Budget Responsibility was created by your Tory friends in 2010 to “provide independent and authoritative analysis of the UK’s public finances”. Part of its brief is to assess long-term sustainability, and it produced your so-called “piece of wishful thinking”. I would have thought that even you could work out that an ageing population is not sustainable, because it means there won’t be enough people in work to support those who have retired. Maybe, instead of immigration, you’d prefer it if everyone had to work until they’re 80 before getting a pension?
 
The report, which I have no reason to believe is not independent, says that another 6 million immigrants would improve our public finances. I realise it would be a challenge, but why don’t you try reading the whole article before inflicting any more of your ‘Little Englander’ ignorance on us? You might even wake up and see that immigration can be a solution, not a problem.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10185342/Britain-needs-millions-more-immigrants-to-reduce-strain-of-ageing-population.html

Personal abuse again, why am I not surprised. One question Mr Knowall, what happens when your further 7million become pensioners themselves. Do we swap them for more, or do we expand the land we live on?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/World_population_growth_rates_1800-2005.png/350px-World_population_growth_rates_1800-2005.png


Malthusian alarm about population growth have been with us for the past two hundred years, but according to Wikipedia the World population has not increased since the 1950s.

tlttf wrote:-
what happens when your further 7 million become pensioners themselves.

That’s a fair question, though I think you’ll find the article suggests 6 million. It’s also a difficult question. Immigration is being suggested by the experts as a solution to our population problems now, but nobody can tell what trends might develop over the next fifty years.
 
I don’t believe that any government has admitted immigrants into this country out of charity, but because of necessity. And I certainly don’t believe that standard Tory lie about Labour bringing in immigrants to garner votes. Had that been the case, it would have been contradictory for Blair to get involved in a war with Iraq which was bound to alienate Moslems in the UK. The main difference between the elections of 2001 and 2005 was that very many Moslems deserted Labour for the Liberal Democrats.
 
Since the Second World War, we’ve brought in immigrants to do jobs that the indigenous population either weren’t capable of doing or wouldn’t do in days of relatively full employment. It’s a widespread belief that the NHS couldn’t have survived without immigrant doctors and nurses. However, our current population problems were caused by a reduced birth rate and people living longer, a situation which is being aggravated by post-war baby boomers reaching retirement age. People will probably continue to live longer, and so there must be an adequate workforce to pay the taxes and national insurance to support them.
 
For a population to maintain itself, a country needs a birth rate of 2.1 per woman. (The 0.1 is to cover those who don’t make adulthood because of disease, accidents and murder.) For whatever reason - maybe the cost of bringing up children these days - the birth rate in the UK in 2001 was only 1.6 per woman. If ignored, that would be disastrous. As the OECD has reported: “The most direct consequence of low birth rates is a 'vicious circle' of decreasing population: fewer children today imply fewer women of childbearing age 20 years from now, so the cumulative momentum of current low birth rates will be difficult to reverse.”
 
http://www.oecd.org/els/family/39970765.pdf
 
To put the problem in its historical context: in 1901, there were 1.1 million live births in the UK, in 2001, there were only 700,000. If the indigenous population wasn’t having enough babies, the only solution was to bring in young immigrants, many of whom came from cultures where having three, four or five children was usual. By 2005, the birth rate in the UK had risen to 1.7, and in 2008 it reached 1.96, but that’s still below the required rate of 2.1.
 
To answer your question, it all depends on whether the immigrants, and then their children, have enough babies to help the indigenous population meet that target of 2.1, or whether they become ‘anglicised’ and adopt our tendency to have smaller families. But in the short and medium-term, further immigration is essential.
 
Writing for ‘The New Statesman’, Benjamin Abtan said: “Although Europe needs more immigration, public discourse about it is tinted with mistrust and fear. Indeed, taking into account the demographic evolution in Europe since the end of WWII, and more specifically the steady birth rate decline and the increase in life expectancy, it appears that our continent needs the contribution of immigration to escape the perpetual weakening of social security, the raising of retirement age, and the shrinking of pensions.”
 
http://www.newstatesman.com/austerity-and-its-discontents/2013/07/lets-open-europe-immigration
 
Other sources:-
 
http://www.sociology.org.uk/sc_shop_pdf/sc_AS4AQA_family_e.pdf
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_Union

Where are the politicians who will speak up for Britain’s hard-working immigrants?
 
Extracts from an article by Mark Ferguson:-
 
Whether it’s government funded vans telling immigrants to “Go Home” or the Prime Minister agreeing that immigrants are a “constant drain” on Britain, the anti-immigrant rhetoric is slowly but surely being ramped up again. The media gleefully join in too.

In 1940, Ralph Miliband fled occupied Europe for the relative safety of Britain. He learned English and served for three years in the Royal Navy. He went on to be one of the most widely respected political theorists of his generation. It’s impossible to argue that Miliband didn’t contribute to British life; he gave more than he received, and was certainly not a “constant drain” on the UK. In the 1950s his future wife Marion Kozak came to the UK – after a terrifying wartime experience – and went on to become an academic and campaigner. Together they raised two sons, both of whom have gone on to play an important role in British public life.

That Britain took in Jewish refugees at a time when anti-semitic innuendo was rife in the press shows how brave the politicians of that period were. So in this climate of rising political and media attacks on immigrants, where is the politician who will step forward and stand up for the hard working immigrants who come from abroad, become British and work for the betterment of themselves and their new nation? At the moment British politics seems utterly bereft of such a figure. Ed Miliband is doing his best, but for a party leader to swim against the tide on his own would be electoral suicide. So who will step up? Because someone must be brave enough.
 
For the entire article:-
http://labourlist.org/2013/07/where-are-the-politicians-who-will-speak-up-for-britains-hard-working-immigrants/

I choose the Labour Party - they should definitely be leading a reasoned and fact based debate on the issue and challenging some of the (not so )covert racism that is on the rise

At the moment we have to rely on the courage of Green Party leader Natalie Bennett to put the record straight. These are extracts from a recent speech which she made:-
 
"Fewer than 20% of people in Britain think that immigration is a problem in their local area, yet about 75% are in favour of reducing immigration. It’s very easy to follow the rhetoric of the government and the right-wing media and think that immigration is one of Britain’s chief problems.

A study found that  Britons think 31% of the population is recent immigrants. In fact the figure is 13% – representing about 7.5 million people. (Turn the lens around, and about 5.5 million British people live in other countries around the globe.)

It’s important to acknowledge the contribution of immigrants to Britain. The NHS could not operate without immigrant workers. Our social care system and our education system are significantly dependent on immigrant workers. If you measure this in financial terms, migrants make a net contribution to the UK economy of £3 billion. Because they are often young, healthy, and skilled, their use of public services is limited – much lower than that of the general population.

We need to acknowledge people’s real concerns about their standards of living, the future of their children, the problems of housing, of public services, of unemployment and low wages, but we need to lay the blame where it truly lies. We have a minimum wage which should be a floor under a balanced labour market. Yet this is inadequately enforced, well below the living wage level, and firms are being allowed to use zero-hours contracts and forced casualization to provide jobs that no one can build a life on. This is an issue of labour market regulation, not immigration."
 
The whole speech can be found here:-
http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/natalie-bennett-speaks-up-on.html

When Britain had an Empire, its "immigrant labour" was routinely exploited without the tedious business of actually allowing them to come here. Only the tangible or financial product of that labour needed to be conveyed.

The British People have never been completely weaned off that notion.

'Go home' ad campaign targeting illegal immigrants faces court challenge
 
A government advertising campaign that targets racially mixed areas with mobile billboards warning illegal immigrants to "go home or face arrest" is being challenged through the courts. Vans have been driven around the London boroughs of Hounslow, Barking and Dagenham, Ealing, Barnet, Brent and Redbridge (where there are high numbers of immigrants) carrying the abrupt message on billboards as part of a pilot scheme costing £10,000. (Isn’t it amazing how the Tories can find money for such projects when it suits them?) The campaign – at taxpayers’ expense - has been widely seen as a way for Tory ministers to appear tough on immigration in the face of support for UKIP. Even Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader, described it as "nasty".
 

 
This ‘initiative’ has caused a wave of complaints. Bishop Patrick Lynch, who oversees migration for the Catholic Bishops' Conference, said: "Let's not mince our words, this mobile billboard campaign is a very inappropriate way to discourage illegal immigrants from staying in the UK, not least because the message that is often received is that all immigrants and foreigners are unwelcome in the UK." He said some so-called illegal immigrants were failed asylum seekers, often with children, who had already been through very difficult situations. "These cases need to be dealt with compassionately, especially when there are children involved."
 
Diane Abbott, whose constituency is one of the target areas, warned it had already caused real concern in her constituency. "It is not so much dog-whistle politics as an entire brass band. It is akin to scrawling 'Paki go home' on the side of buildings. I don't believe this policy is going to achieve anything besides stoking fear and resentment."
 
Mike Jones, from the PCS union, has sent a letter of protest to the permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill. He wrote: "This is exactly the thing right-wing racist and fascist organisations such as the BNP, EDL, EVF and others feed off to stir up racial tension and hatred in these very same London boroughs."
 
Then lo and behold, we see this headline:-
 
Thug tells women “go back to your own country”
 
Sunny Hundal writes:-
 
“The woman said she heard the words “f*** off, Muslim bastard” and the defendant was waving his hands and her children were crying and scared. A second woman heard the words “f*** off back to your own country”. Funny choice of words isn’t it? I’m sure I heard something similar like that recently, emblazoned on a van by the Home Office. I’m sure it’s a coincidence that ‘go back‘ and ‘go home‘ are also used by racists when abusing minorities.”
 
The Tories, now that they’re being advised by the cigarette lobbyist Crosby (alias ‘the lizard of Oz’), really have descended from the gutter into the sewer. And do they stink.
 
Sources:-
 
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/26/go-home-ad-campaign-court-challenge?view=mobile
 
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/07/31/thug-tells-women-go-back-to-your-own-country/

When someone really loves - it shows. The Tories never let down the drawbridge.

I guessed people usually sat one side or other of the dividing line on this issue, depending weather they were Left or Right leaning.....But it seems that some on the Left are now seeing the realities of the problems that vast EU Migration can, and has caused.

So are these people at Demos Little Englanders (a phrase some like to use when seeking to shut down the debate) or are they seeing the realities of the stress placed upon our welfare state with higher numbers of EU migrants than any politician dared to concede

A series of radical proposals to tighten immigrations controls will be presented to David Cameron today, including stopping EU migrants claiming benefits in their first two years in Britain

The left-wing think-tank Demos will also urge the Prime Minister to reserve more job for British workers, cap the number of foreign jobseekers, and exclude the poorest nations from the EU.

Demos will tell a Government review of Britain’s relationship with the European Union that Britain has seen “the biggest peacetime movement in European history”, with more than 1.5 million migrants coming since 2004.
Its Director David Goodhart writes that this influx has been a “bewildering development” for many in this country, with the negatives not fully appreciated.

According to Home Office research, the proportion of workers from Eastern Europe has increased by a factor of 10 over the last decade.
A further wave is expected when workers from Romania and Bulgaria become eligible to look for work in the UK from next January.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10212823/EU-migrants-should-be-banned-from-claiming-benefits-for-two-years.html

blueturando. Your party political broadcast for UKIP and far-right Tory headbangers doesn’t merit a separate thread, since there is already this one for your mythical ‘problem’ of immigrants.
 

The left-wing think-tank Demos

Demos might be ‘left-wing’ to UKIP crackpots, but then they also claim that the EU is a socialist organisation. (What do they like to call it – EUSSR, is it?)  Sorry to ruin your sad little argument, but Demos calls itself “Britain’s leading cross-party think-tank”. One of its former directors, Richard Reeves, was a special adviser to Nick Clegg in this rancid government for two years. Anyway, no bona fide left-wing organisation would advocate leaving people to starve for two years.
 
http://www.demos.co.uk/
 
How many of the EU migrants who have come to the UK since 2004 have gone home (especially to Poland)? How many British people are living in other EU countries, as they’re entitled to do under EU legislation? How strange that your squalid propaganda doesn’t tell us that!
 

A further wave is expected when workers from Romania and Bulgaria become eligible to look for work in the UK from next January.

“Wave” – yes, let’s have some scaremongering. Why not go all the way and call it a ‘tsunami’, as that disgusting UKIP poster, where more than the entire populations of Romania and Bulgaria were supposed to be coming here, implied?
 
BBC surveys in Romania and Bulgaria suggest most people would move here only with a firm work offer. Of those questioned, more people intended to seek work in the EU, including the UK, in 2013 than in 2014. In the past, people from Romania and Bulgaria who have worked in other EU countries have usually opted for places they can reach by car - or where the culture and language are closer to their own.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22221841
 
As to “economic sense”, the apparently schizophrenic ‘Daily Telegraph’ was happy, just a couple of weeks ago, to post an article telling us that we need another six million immigrants:-
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10185342/Britain-needs-millions-more-immigrants-to-reduce-strain-of-ageing-population.html

The Times and The Telegraph were just reporting the Think tanks findings. The newspapers did not carry out the study.

If you disagree with Demos then thats fine, I was just posing the question. Do you want opposing and differing views on politics and political issues...or would you rather that everyone posted from the same hymn sheet?

Paradoxically, it is precisely those tourist-facing British industries such as Travel and Hospitality that are so reliant upon immigrant workers.

I don't blame the migrants...not one bit. I blame policy makers and industry for failing to train and educate our own workforce to fill these roles...Surely that should be our priority? It seem Left and Right have abandoned our own unemployed in favour of the easier 'ready made' migrant worker option

There are not many offices of Job Centre+ who do not advertise vacancies for jobs which will not look attractive to native Brits. e.g. Carers, Office cleaners, Hotel workers, hospital porters, holiday-cover temps, crop harvesters etc., etc.

Advocates of full employment through coercion speak with forked tongue. Though IDS would no doubt "do it if he had to".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/66236.stm

In 1994 embarkation controls were abandoned by the Major administration for those visiting European Union countries from ferry ports and small airports, in a cost-cutting exercise.

As a result, nett figures for immigration cannot now be calculated.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmhaff/654/65403.htm

This is how the press breeds hatred for immigrants
 
Extracts from an article by Ian Dunt:-
 
Anyone who has ever glanced at the newspaper section of a supermarket knows what the press does to immigrants. It libels them, abuses them, humiliates them and stokes up resentment against them.

New research from Oxford University shows just how pervasive and systematic this hate campaign is. After studying 58,000 articles in every national newspaper in Britain – over 43 million words – researchers found the word most closely associated with 'immigrant' was, you guessed it, 'illegal'. It almost trips off the tongue; the two words feel intimately connected, like 'pub' and 'pint' or 'library' and 'book'. One goes with the other. For tabloids, other words closely associated with 'immigrant' were 'coming', 'stop', 'influx', 'wave', 'housing' and 'sham'. For asylum seekers it was 'failed'.

Some immigrants are illegal. Some are mothers, or orphans, or carers. Some keep the NHS ticking over. Some are business owners. Some own football clubs. Some run theatres. When was the last time Roman Abramovich and Kevin Spacey were described as immigrants?

Recent reports by the OBR suggest immigration is vital to paying down the deficit. Perhaps the word 'deficit defeating immigrants' should be given a little print space. Don't hold your breath. The press knows what it's doing. It's demonising immigrants. Its aim is to make us think of them as less than human beings. They are not humans, they are immigrants. And soon they won't even be that. They'll be 'illegals'. And then you won't have to worry about them at all anymore.
 
For the whole article:-
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/08/08/comment-this-is-how-the-press-breeds-hatred-for-immigrants

None of which matters since "the immigrants" are breeding faster than we are, so it's they, and their children, who will be working to pay for our pensions.

Thanks.  Much appreciated.

I’ve left it for a day or so, just to see if anyone dared pick up the shambles that was the 'incompetent' Chris Bryant trying to blame Tescos and Next for employing Eastern European workers on lower wages over local people, but my guess was right and not a word was written.
 
So following the mess he made by wrongly accusing both companies of this and then hastily U-turning for his political life, it's left me wondering. Is it whats said on xenophobia, anti immigration and little Englander attitudes...or is as I suspect, who says it that matters more. I can imagine how many pages would have been written by now if the Tory immigration spokesperson has said this, following by a lengthy blog ost by skwalker detailing how mass immigration was so wonderful and how the 'right'/Tories threatens the very fabric of our multi cultural society, but alas no posts forthcoming....Can someone please take time to explain this one to me
 
Mr Bryant is now scrambling around trying divert and deflect from his almighty Faux pas, confessing that Labour was wrong to have open boarders and should have introduced and point based system earlier
 
Is Mr.Bryant right is what he says? Is this a move to the Right for the Labour Party? Or is he just chasing voters and will say anything to garner them? Maybe the lack of posts condemning what he said says he is right in what he said and should not have back tracked?!

Tell me if I am wrong, but is the forum 'Left inclined' or Labour Party inclined? To me it looks like the latter win hands down over any pretention of being 'Left' wing at all

Why don't you ask Mr Bryant yourself?
 
https://twitter.com/ChrisBryantMP

Sorry, Blue, didn't hear the interview, so didn't feel I could comment in detail.
And, to be fair, it's been a bit quiet on here lately anyway.

Did you hear it?
Maybe you could let us have your comments on what he said?

Have just read the speech - it's quoted in full in an article in the Garauniad.
Not sure what all the fuss is about - he comments on the way recruitment using agencies in other countries can be used to undermine pay, conditions and employment rights - he's dead right - there's a local firm here does the very same thing, and it's unfair, both to the people who are recruited overseas, and then arrive to find they have a casual and/or zero hours contract instead of the proper jobs they hoped for, and it's unfair to the locals, who are also having to face very stiff competition for these same zero hours contracts.

I guess Chris Bryant may have made a small factual error, for which he apologised (unlike the likes of IDS, who tells lies daily, has been censured more than once for misuse of statistical information and NEVER apologises) - but in essence it wasn't to my mind a bad speech - worth reading -as I said, I look forward to your comments.

blueturando. The idea of the opening post on a thread is to introduce a topic which might provoke some discussion, which I suppose you can just about claim to have done with this yawn, even though almost everyone will have forgotten it in a day or two. However, new threads are not for moaning about what you think we should be discussing (rather like Cameron telling Miliband the questions he wants him to ask), and they’re not for criticising the ethos of the forum and making unprovoked jibes about individual posters like Steve Walker.
 
Andy McSmith wrote this:-
 
“The Tories have been everywhere, even sending vans into areas with a high concentration of immigrants to tell those who are here illegally to ‘go home’ – but from Labour, scarcely a word. Mr Bryant, the shadow immigration minister, decided to put that right by delivering a big speech that disavowed ‘cheap and nasty’ anti-immigrant sentiment and praised the work of great immigrants through the centuries, from Simon de Montfort to Winston Churchill (De Montfort was a controversial figure, and Churchill was not an immigrant, although his mother was – but let’s not get picky). His target audience was precisely the unemployed or struggling Britons who feel crowded out of the jobs market by the incomers.”
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcsmiths-sketch-some-will-see-only-the-pratfall-but-chris-bryant-has-got-hold-of-the-agenda-8758172.html
 
Chris Bryant doesn’t sound like a ‘Little Englander’ to me. His speech promised that a Labour government would hand over to local government the power to enforce minimum wage legislation, and that it would double the fines for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. He also promised a mandatory register of commercial landlords, to prevent employers from making migrant workers on short-term contracts live in overcrowded sub-standard accommodation. Interesting stuff, but hardly any need for your histrionics – “shambles”, “scrambling around”, “almighty faux pas” – we could be forgiven for thinking that you’ve been reading too many tabloids. We might also suspect that it’s you, not Chris Bryant, who is trying with this non-story to “divert and deflect” – away from real news items about the most vicious right-wing government this country has had in living memory.

I’ve left it a for a few hours, just to see if blueturando dared to comment on the disgusting news that the filthy Tory and Lib Dem spivs had misappropriated £520,000 from a deceased pensioner’s estate. But my guess was right and not a word has been written.
 
Joan Edwards wrote her will in 2001 and left her money to whoever was the government of the day to use in the national interest, and what happened? The Tories bagged £420,000 of it and gave the remaining £100,000 to their Lib Dem poodles to keep them quiet. Now they’ve been found out, the money is being handed over to the Treasury, where it was meant to go in the first place. I hope someone checks that it actually gets there - and I don't mean into Osborne's grubby hands.
 
To me that’s not good enough. ‘Government’ and ‘political parties’ are not synonymous, and the Tories and Lib Dems know it. If the rest of us take money which clearly doesn’t belong to us, giving it back wouldn’t be enough, we’d rightly be prosecuted.
 
I can just imagine the article which would have been written by blueturando by now if Labour had stolen money like this. And his mate would have been here at 6am with a copy/paste from a tabloid. Can someone please take the time to explain that one to me? It's not really necessary though; hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to the nasty party and its supporters.
 
Any Tory who comes here and complains because we haven't written about non-stories of his choosing, such as Chris Bryant’s speech on immigration, should set an example by drawing our attention to each and every piece of sleaze and corruption which is instigated by this government of scumbags. That, of course, would be a full-time job.

blueturando. The idea of the opening post on a thread is to introduce a topic which might provoke some discussion, which I suppose you can just about claim to have done with this yawn, even though almost everyone will have forgotten it in a day or two

You mean like the yawn fest post on Rees-Mogg? I don't expect debate on my post as choosing to ignore is more palatable than dealing with the truth for some people

I’ve left it a for a few hours, just to see if blueturando dared to comment on the disgusting news that the filthy Tory and Lib Dem spivs had misappropriated £520,000 from a deceased pensioner’s estate. But my guess was right and not a word has been written

I agree and I am totally disgusted with both coalition partners over this. The money should have gone to a good cause, not the pockets of the Tories and Lib dems. I just hope they have a change of heart and donate this money to a good charity...say a food bank or something similar. If not then they get what they deserve from the public

I think Chris Bryant's speech raised some important issues which we really do need to debate. He was right to point out that EU Free Movement rules can have negative consequences and need to be reformed. He was careful to frame the debate in a way which did not in any way place blame on migrants themselves and he recognized the significant contribution migrants have made and continue to make to our country.

It is understandable that those on the progressive wing of the political spectrum will want to tread carefully on this issue but it seems to me that we must acknowledge that the central effect of the Free Movement of Labour regulations is to make it easy for businesses to treat workers like any other commodity. If there are poorly paid or unemployed workers in another EU country with skills they need, why incur costs in training youngsters at home? If workers come from a low wage economy they are far more likely to accept our minimum wage and poor conditions, especially if they come to work for relatively short periods.

And what about the social cost? Others have raised concerns about pressure on housing, education and health which may give rise to social tension where large numbers of people move into an area in a short period of time. Do we want a situation throughout the EU where unemployed young people are expected to leave their homes and find work in another country? That's not a recipe for stable, settled and happy communities. How many broken-hearted families are there in Spain and Ireland or Poland?

Ed Miliband has taken a step back and pointed to the areas in our economy where businesses exploit and workers suffer. It seems to me this is another example of predator capitalism.

Very well put indeed - at the level of the working class, neither immigrants nor the indigenous workforce is getting at all a fair deal in employment - a fact that much of the rhetoric about immigration seems to want to hide.
I too thought Chris Bryant's speech was thought provoking and raised the right issues at this time.

QUOTE: ".... much of the rhetoric about immigration seems to want to hide."

Indeed it does, boatlady, and not just concerning immigration. Although Parliament is on holiday, the Number Ten department of obfuscation continues to produce a stream of smoke and mirrors pronouncements designed to divert the Public attention away from anything really significant such as the increasing poverty in a wealthy country.

As foreign groveller representative for Rhondda he is clearly a Greater Englandter.

Surprise, surprise, Dianne Abbot (bastion of all things that suits herself) reckon Mili is kidding the electorate on by agreeing that labour got it wrong on immigration. Given the chance she would like to see the floodgates re-opened (not that they've closed much anyway), and bring back the heady labour days when employers laughed at the minimum wage (ship in new employees) as long as mp's were cosseted to the grave and guaranteed a retirement present as a euro mp. Oh chuck in a lord/ladyship for good measure and laugh at the plebs that believed you were for any change.


Diane Abbott lets slip Labour's real immigration policy
YOU might find this hard to believe but most MPs are decent people. They actually want to change Britain for the better.

By: Stephen Pollard
Published: Sat, August 24, 2013

They listen to their constituents and learn from them.

They know that the voters are their boss and even in high office they try to remain grounded in real life.

I use the word "most" carefully. Because there are some MPs who give the entire group a bad name.

They seem to treat their presence in the Commons as some form of divine right, appear to behave with an allconsuming arrogance and are utterly dismissive of anyone who disagrees with them.

At the top of my list of such MPs is Diane Abbott, Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. You may have seen her on TV.

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/424355/Diane-Abbott-lets-slip-Labour-s-real-immigration-policy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daily-express-express-comment+%28Daily+Express+%3A%3A+Express+Comment+Feed%29


It's a shame people can't see beyond the rosette.

Surprise, surprise, more utter shyte from tlttf (and he can’t even spell either ‘Diane’ or ‘Abbott’). It makes me feel sick when this forum gets polluted with such filth. He’s inflicted on us a borderline racist post and uses an emotive word like "floodgates" in relation to immigration, which implies that we’re all being ‘drowned’ by people who make a net contribution to our GDP and support our ageing population. Recent reports by the OBR suggest immigration is vital to paying down the deficit, but saddos with ‘Little Englander’ tunnel vision prefer to ignore such uncomfortable facts.
 
Quoting from a grotty tabloid article which is nothing more than a personal attack on a black MP, Diane Abbott for “all-consuming arrogance” – not Cameron and his Eton toffs – isn’t tribal, I suppose? Nothing to do with the "colour of the rosette"?
 
Maybe tlttf will provide us with his fictitious list of Labour MPs who were “guaranteed a retirement present as a Euro MP” – or maybe he can’t.  As for mentioniong the House of Lords, how strange that he didn’t remind us that Cameron has created new peers at a faster rate than any other PM in history, and that was after he promised to cut the cost of Parliament. Perhaps tlttf’s “rosette” is clouding his vision yet again.
 
These are the days when employers are laughing at the minimum wage! The Tories are doing their best to undermine it with projects like ‘workfare’, and many of them are openly talking about reducing it or even abolishing it. Anyone who thinks that any Tories “want to change Britain for the better” – rather than just asset-strip the state for the benefit of themselves and their cronies – is seriously deluded.

No filth, no racism, simply observation, no reason to deny reality and yes Ivan I don't believe Camerons version of conservatism is aligned with mine. In my opinion he acts as the son of Blair (as his posturing over Syria shows). The difference in your view and mine is you believe Mili will make a difference whilst I'm pretty sure it will be a carry on of the Blair movement. On the bright side, both will be offered a Lordship or a cushy seat in the EU when people eventually (wishful thinking) wake up to the reality of "nothing posturing" which is all either offer to the voters.

 I think it would be lovely if people on the forum took the time to state their own opinions on a topic, perhaps backed up by some evidence.

By evidence, I might mean something you yourself can relate from your own experience, or some piece of research that has impressed you, or even some piece of political theory that you think has merit.

The opinions of a right wing journalist don't really count in my view - I did read the piece - what he seems to be saying is that he doesn't like Diane Abbott. Clearly, tlttf, you don't either - it might have been interesting to hear your reasons - something the rest of us could discuss with you.

Without immigrants, our country wouldn’t function. So let’s give it a go...
 
Extracts from an article by Mehdi Hasan:-
 
“I have a modest proposal for the likes of UKIP, Migration Watch, the Home Secretary, David Goodhart, Paul Dacre and the BNP. Why not call for ‘A Day Without Immigrants?’ Wouldn’t that demonstrate, once and for all, that neither our economy nor our society needs migrants?

Anyone in the UK born abroad or with a parent born abroad would stay at home for 24 hours. Any business or organisation founded by an immigrant or the child of an immigrant would close for the day.

We’d have to board up iconic British stores such as Marks & Spencer, Selfridges and Tesco. UK holidaymakers would have to cancel their cheap flights on easyJet. What would be the point of going out to eat if there were no longer any Chinese, Thai, Malaysian, Indian, Japanese, Turkish, Lebanese, Persian, Italian, Spanish and French restaurants open?

Who’d patch you up and prescribe your medicines? 30% of doctors and 40% of nurses in the NHS were born abroad. 95% of London Underground cleaning staff are foreign-born. 89% of office cleaners in the capital are migrants. What about sport? Imagine going to watch a Premier League game without any foreign players!

The Migration Advisory Committee warned in May that many UK fruit-picking businesses could close without new workers from outside the EU. One in ten students in British universities comes from outside the EU and the fees that students from other countries pay are a bigger source of income than research grants.

For a mere 24 hours. Let’s do it. And if it doesn’t transform public opinion, well, at least I’ll have had the day off work.”
 
For the whole article:-
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/07/without-immigrants-our-country-wouldnt-function-so-lets-give-it-go

I read that - he makes a simplistic but powerful point, I feel.
Doesn't address the accusation that foreign labour especially in terms of unskilled workers, is said to artificially keep wages down.
But it would be interesting to try his experiment - as he says, it may transform public opinion.

Sometimes we lose sight of the simple fact that every time we import manufactured goods, we are exporting British jobs.

boatlady, I'm pretty sure I've stated my own opinion (not the beloved Polly's), I'm all for a debate(or even an argument), unfortunately it simply means I get barred in most cases. I don't need some hack to tell me what's right or wrong and my opinion is just as valid as anybody else's. We all see immigration according to the area we live in, unfortunately most on this subject see anti-immigration (which kills off job's for the low skilled) as racism. My constant argument (nobody listens anyway) is that it takes work from those that are born here and have no hope of any other future (where's education when you need it). To allow foreign born workers to nick work at below the so called minimum wage is a total travesty and ALL politicians are to blame, as they all are groomed to live a lovely life with no idea of what the working person living in a non-trendy area has to compete with. Vote any of the 3 main party's is a vote for nothing changes, Blair screwed the system. Lovely job for those that can cope.

tlttf
As (I think) you say, this is a complex issue. However ---

Using opinion pieces from a right (or left) wing paper as 'evidence' that your opinion is right isn't really debating.
I did read the Express piece - to me, it seemed a piece written by someone who has a personal animus against Diane Abbott - which he (and you) are entitled to have; however, you not liking someone doesn't make them wrong, and someone agreeing with you about not liking them doesn't make you right.

I don't know -- there may have been too much immigration --- what it pays to remember, though is that 'immigrants' are first and foremost PEOPLE who travelled away from their homes and their families in order to earn a better living than perhaps they could at home - in much the same way as most of my family moved away from the North East because there were no jobs. It's in fact, I believe, a process that's been going on throughout human history.

When I moved away, I don't remember seeing vans on the street telling me to GO  HOME, I don't remember polemics in every newspaper accusing me of depressing the local economy. Perhaps, back in the Dark Ages, there may have been poster campaigns saying 'Romans go home' and certainly I can remember the horrible racism of the '50's (no blacks, no Irish, no dogs).
I hope we've got past that now and developed a more civilised approach to people from different races, cultures and backgrounds.

If foreign labour is being used by employers to depress wages, I think it would be wrong to blame foreign workers or even the process of immigration.
Maybe the employers need to look at the money they are paying (a living wage);
Maybe the government needs to look at properly enforcing employment rights (instead of steadily eroding them) so that the workforce is better able to protect itself against exploitation;
Maybe the cost of living needs to be looked at - if people can afford to pay their rent, feed their families and have the occasional holiday, I'd say wages are about right - instead most working people are paying inflated rents for poor quality privately rented housing, and need to claim benefits in order to achieve bare subsistence.

Workers do not set the rate for wages - employers do - and employers can and should choose to pay a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and if they don't, isn't that one of the things we have government for - to protect the rights of the people living in the country?

tlttf. If immigrants are being paid less than the minimum wage, employers are breaking the law, but there’s no chance of the Tories doing anything about it. We’re all aware that Iain Duncan Smith forces people to work for nothing. As boatlady says, it’s not foreign workers who are keeping wages low, it’s employers; they should be legally obliged to pay the living wage.
 
Earlier in this thread it was explained to you in great detail – supported by evidence – as to why the UK needs immigrants, but no doubt that information didn’t massage your prejudices so you chose to ignore it. The Office for Budget Responsibility has argued that we need 6 million more immigrants. Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, said: “Migrants make a net contribution to the UK economy of £3 billion. Because they are often young, healthy, and skilled, their use of public services is limited – much lower than that of the general population.”
 
Your opinions are not “just as valid as anyone else’s”. On that basis, Hitler’s opinion that six million Jews should be gassed was ‘valid’. Valid opinions are based on good reason and are effectively 'true'. The opinions of say, Steve Walker, who presents reasoned and logical arguments supported by factual evidence from reliable sources, are far more valid than your knee-jerk, Alf Garnett-style retorts, accompanied by grotty little snippets from right-wing tabloids. You may be entitled to your opinions, but that doesn’t mean they have validity.
 
You might benefit from a little tutorial on the use of the apostrophe. It won’t make your opinions any more ‘valid’ but it might help to hide some of your ignorance of the English language:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t391-posting-tips

"who presents reasoned and logical arguments supported by factual evidence from reliable sources"

 
Much of the evidence we use is simply someone else’s opinion as in the cases of many of the journalists we quote. What I have a problem with is why is their opinions worth more than mine, TLTTF or blueturando’s, when we who post on this forum have had and still are having many day to day experiences which moulds our views one way or another. I believe all views are valid be they fair or foul.
 
I certainly do not go along with “if you oppose immigration you are automatically a racist” It could be to do with numbers and the quality of many of the immigrants.
 
When I was considerably younger, my Dad was a London Transport Bus Driver, back then it was not only a reasonably well paid job, but was considered a good job carrying a certain amount of respect. When London Transport opened labour exchanges in the West Indies, wages, standards and conditions started to go down at around the same time, even to the point where a Bus Driver had very little standing in the community, similar things happened with the railways and the NHS. What happened then is what is happening now only now there are many more people prepared to work for less money. Like blueturando I don’t blame the immigrants but the politicians who have allowed and assisted this happening.
 
Some say and I agree, we need some immigrants to help pay for the pensions of our ever ageing population, I also think we should vet those we allow in, emphasis on allow keep those who commit crime or come purely to leech of us and our benefits system.
 
Australia and Canada have good systems whereby immigrants need a job before you go and have a sponsor if things go tits up so you do not become a burden on the State.