UKC

the PLP seems now to have very different views across many fundamental points of principle from the membership of the party, and to be on the verge of open hostilities with the leader the membership chose only a few months ago.

what's going to happen? if the shadow cabinet topple corbyn, how is the party going to view that? it seems unlikely they'll go, ok, we'll pick a blairite next.

is it really sustainable to have a party membership and parliamentary group so disjointed from one another? is another SDP-esque split in the offing?

cheers
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

The best outcome would be a complete overhaul of the electoral system that allowed a coalition of sensible people from the different current parties - say, Paddie Ashdown, Ken Clarke (Minister for Jazz), David Milliband (ok, maybe that's pushing the definition a bit, but he could be in there for political competence rather than policy), Caroline Lucas (she'd have to rise to the job) - to just kick out all the idiots and run the place in a kind of non-democratic, long-term pragmatist co-operative dictatorship. They could remain in power until either:

- they totally cocked it up and we got invaded, or ran out of food, or other such
- they died/got dementia
- better people came along who could convince them that they (the better ones) would make a better fist of things

It would be brilliant.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

How can the shadow cabinet topple Jeremy? Is there some provision in the Labour party rules that allow the cabinet to overrule the party?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

A brilliant idea- it would get my vote. ..

Not sure about the minister for jazz bit though.

I really don't like jazz.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

No you're right. Corbyn will be leader through to the next election, there is no prospect of a change.

(Will there be many other labour mps left for him to lead in that case? )

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



You're right, the shadow cabinet will lock the cabinet door and refuse to let Jezza in. Boom, toppled.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


You should try listening to Ken Clarke's Jazz Greats. He really knows his stuff and I'm sure his infectious passion can persuade you of the genius of Lee Morgan and other hard-bop legends.

Sorry, I'll stop hijacking this thread with jazz and go to bed now.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Yeah. What with it not involving any voting, ever. My man the first Baron Acton then comes into play, as Ken Clarke unzips his Human Skinsuit.

Today, Jezza showed that he actually is useless, which depressed me greatly, as I'd been hoping for great things till now. Not in the shadow cabinet, or the chamber, or any pre-arranged interviews, but in the way he behaved when confronted with some rowdy journalists. Snippy, humourless, powerless to control. Impotent. Out of his depth. I just don't think he's going to be able to see it through. The party will watch him disappear, then leave the Left for good, getting first more centrist and then gradually creeping Right.

Trust me, that point right there is where it'll be recognised as having gone t*ts up.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Is that what they did to Blair then?

Perhaps it's what they should have done to miliband.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Hmmmm.

Well it can't hurt to give it a try

Can it...?

In reply to Martin not maisie:

I saw that.

It didn't look good.

But it's okay, sir chasm says he can't be forced out.

Or is that a bad thing?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:





Naughty, naughty. I don't know how he can be forced out. That's why I asked.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Labour leader elected by membership (who also all vote Labour)
Labour MPs elected by non-members who vote labour in addition to members.

So Labour MPs who come from constituencies where >50% (or perhaps practically >35%) are labour party members wil get elected. But the rest of them need popular support, and therefore moderate, or centre-ist views.

That means that Corbyn's idea to represent labour members is at odds with his colleagues ideas to represent labour voters and win an election.

Any split, would leave either party unable to be elected. It would also give a left wing party, a left-leaning party and the existing progressive left-centre (LD) party. Providing they didn't split each other's vote you could end up with a coalition of socialists.

In reply to Philip:

The number of labour party members in the strongest labour voting constituency will be well below 33%.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I don't know either.

Perhaps we should ask Tony?

He must know...

In reply to Philip:

I think there's a huge case now for a completely new centre-left party (an alliance of Liberals and modern social democrats untarred by the Blairite brush, e.g. Chuka Umunna, Hilary Benn, Toby Perkins etc. etc) to represent the huge swathe of the electorate (probably the majority) who are not at present adequately represented.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

You'd like Tony back as Labour leader? That's a bold choice.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Chuka Umunna may well do that, once the opinion polls have told Chuka Umunna that that is what Chuka Umunna should do (in the interests of Chuka Umunna).

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Agreed. I'm unsure why the Labour party sees itself as some sort of leftist tribe that needs to stick together. Do Chuka Umunna and Liz Kendall really have much in common with Ken Livingstone, Seamus Milne ,or for that matter Jeremy Corbyn?
The phrase "Tory Lite" is used pejoritavely,but in that the former believe in liberal democracy and market economics they have far more in common with the Ken Clarke wing of the Conservative, and certainly with the Lib Dems, than with the left wing of the Labour party. So why do they feel this need to stay within a Labour party that doesn't want them? What identifies them as "Labour" rather then eg.Lib dem?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I do wonder if that's the way its going, Gordon. The dissociation between (the majority) of labour MPs and the party looks to be worsening.

If the lib dems weren't in such a wretched state, I think a repeat of a 'moderate labour' and liberal merger would be a real possibility. But their collapse means that a fair number of defecting labour MPs would 'swamp' the liberal part of the merged party, and I'm not sure the lib dems would be up for that.

In the end, I expect they'll just try to muddle through to the next elections without degenerating into civil war in the PLP and see what the electorate thinks,


Best wishes

Gregor

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Depends which Tony.

The Blair one, no. But he would be able to shed some light on how the PLP can get rid of leaders it doesn't want any more without the formal involvement of the party as a whole...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Tony won 3 elections and stood down (resigned his position) before 2010 - not sure what light you want him to shed. But he wasn't toppled.

In reply to Martin not maisie:



Yes, he has spent 30 years on the back benches and got through 3 wives for a reason. Other MPs probably know him and his character far, far better than we, the public, do. Hence their reservations about him as leader of the party?
He has never been in the spotlight, but now we shall see his true character over the coming months and his potential on the world stage (if it ever came to that, which looks unlikely).

Here is one of his great achievements:

162] Corbyn has won the Parliamentary "Beard of the Year Award" a record five times, as well as being named as the Beard Liberation Front's Beard of the Year, having previously described his beard as "a form of dissent" against New Labour.[163]

He should go far

In reply to Moley:


How many times have you won it?

In reply to krikoman:


None, yet, but I'm not a parliamentarian so cannot compete with him; but if I get elected as an MP he's history.
I did have some rather magnificent beards when I was younger, he wouldn't have stood a chance against mine!

In reply to Moley:

Corbyn has won the Parliamentary "Beard of the Year Award" a record five times, as well as being named as the Beard Liberation Front's Beard of the Year

Beard Liberation Front? Are you sure it wasn't the Liberation Front of Beards?

In reply to Sir Chasm:




i hope i never have to choose to stand down like that...

In reply to FactorXXX:

Splitters, it's the Peoples Liberation Front of Beards.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


You probably don't need to worry too much.

Just in case you were actually interested http://labourlist.org/2015/08/how-do-you-remove-a-labour-leader/

In reply to Sir Chasm:

oh i don't know, we seem to be through the looking glass now, who knows what the future will bring?

so, front bench resignations- just what corbyn had to allow a free vote on syria to avoid.

his coat's on a very shoogley peg- but what happens if the peg comes loose? those that would have forced the resignation would be at odds with the members of the party they supposedly represent in parliament. its hard to see any further elections producing a more centrist candidate, given the new members appear to have taken the party further to the left since corbyn became leader.

but the current dysfunctional relations dont seem sustainable either.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Untarnished you say? They are all card carrying Blairites, laissez faire capitalists, neo-colonials re foreign policy and belong to the millionaire metropolitan elite Maybe untarnished to the politically naive or should that be ignorant? If that's your great hope for the New Social Democratic Labour party we are indeed f*cked. Did you really write tar brush?

D

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Well, I'm going to guess it won't bring you as Labour leader. So "i hope i never have to choose to stand down like that..." isn't something you need to worry about.


That might put him in a position where he felt he had to stand down, but it's hardly a formal procedure. And, one could argue, with the mandate he has from party members why should he stand down?


His coat is on as shoogly a peg as he chooses. It still comes down to Jeremy's choice as to whether or not he resigns. Unless someone opposes him, and gains party support, it seems he can remain leader.


It's certainly interesting.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I feel crushed by the lack of faith you show in me.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Aw, don't be sad. I'm sure you'd be great. Much, much better than the last couple of incumbents.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Hmph. Talk about damning with faint praise...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Yeah, your user name suggests you'd have no problems polishing off a bacon butty

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

for labour it's not going to end well. For JC, he will go in a few years, back to the back, then continue as he always has completely oblivious to the rest of us, keeping in his little dreamy world. Maybe in a decades time etc... he will look back and grasp that he was leader of the opposition, where could have actually done something meaningful.

The only current question is by how much will labour lose the next election by.

In reply to summo:

I think you are right on this point (!)

Corbyn is isolated in his party although I don't think he is as isolated amongst the electorate on, for example the bombing of Syria. On R2, Jerermy Vine said that "We've discussed this a lot on R2 ...and I can tell you that there are SO many listeners who agree with what you [JC] say...."

http://twitter.com/i/cards/tfw/v1/671689229936689152?cardname=amplify&earne...

In reply to Shani:

If he was in touch with the UK public then labour would win in 2020? Agreeing with him on Syria, isn't the same as trusting him with UK economy, there the public clearly differs.

In reply to summo:

>... trusting him with UK economy, there the public clearly differs ...

It sounds like all you're saying is that *you* don't 'trust him with the UK economy.' Fair enough - but based on what exact policies and statements?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:




Could be Minister for All-That-Jazz?

In reply to Rob Parsons:



Exactly

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Oh yes, in that measure I am surely prime minister material.

Or perhaps even EU president. Or something.

But only if its got HP sauce...

In reply to Trevers:


Hmmm. Still sounds too much like jazz for my liking. Not convinced.

In reply to summo:




Surely the current question is will Corbyn be the leader at the next election?

Or next week, to be honest.

And what will the damage be to the Labour Party if he is ousted?

(That's more than one question, I know...)

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Oldham will be interesting. If Labour loses, I reckon Corbyn is done for. Wining badly will be another nail in the coffin.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

"And what will the damage be to the Labour Party if he is ousted?"

I wonder what is the Labour party at the moment? Is it JC and his 300k followers who want a left wing socialist party, or is it the PLP (minus JC and the 300k) which are more centrist and popular with a larger proportion of voters?

Seems to me there are two "parties" in bed together, back to back and both yanking the duvet. will it be a destructive relationship until they divorce?

In reply to summo:

Yeah, sorry, I intended to explicitly link his 'in-touch-ness' on the issue of Syria. On the economy, his majority 'in-touch-ness' is with macroeconomists!

That actually reminds me, on one of our earlier threads I was criticised for pointing out that UK economic improvement was heavily reliant on immigration (something pointed out by economist Simon Wren-Lewis). This very issue was written about today in the Grauniad:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/01/osborne-reliant-on-rising-im...

I don't know how Cameron is going to square the circle of being tough on immigration whilst Osborne is reliant on rising immigration levels to achieve a budget surplus.

In reply to Shani:



so it must be;

a. True
b. False
c. Telling their readership what they want to hear to sell copy.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Because it's back to labour mantra of tax & spend, but usually more of the latter than the former. There will be another recession, the world isn't settled yet or re-adjusted, without some fiscal control the UK would be truly stuffed if the next recession hits whilst it has a massive annual deficit and a huge national debt. It will have no flex left in it's system.

He has no desire to tackle the massive benefits problem in the UK, seems he thinks he can fund all the social measures by continuously hitting the banks or the wealthy extra with extra taxes, that won't work for long. I don't think the tories have it right either though. UK tax is too low, you can't have the kind of public services in health and education people dream of, unless people are wiling to fund it properly. Everyone should pay some income tax, however low, that way everyone feels they are contributing to society, rather than the tory goal of putting more people in the position where they feel they are only spending or receiving tax payers money etc.. it creates a natural split in society.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:




In our FPTP system, all parties a coalitions; for labour, the left wing of the party was kept quiet for years when the right wing proved it was able to deliver electoral success. However, the left wing of the party found itself 'signed up' to deliver an agenda that looked so different from what it believed in that many of its supporters gave up and went to other parties, or none.

Now that the right wing has stopped being able to deliver, the left wing sees this as an opportunity to see if their agenda can find more support than it did in the past. But the right wing is now so far from where the left wing wants the party to be, its pulling the bird in the middle to pieces.

I think you're right. If Corbyn is replaced by another leftist when he's forced out, as would seem likely given the current party electorate, then it could be 1981 all over again for labour...

In reply to Shani:

What Osborne says and what he achieves will be two totally different things. The rhetoric on immigration from the Tories (and Western governments in general) is starting to result in actions that they probably didn't predict (or more likely not care about) . Interesting piece in the FT today...jist :We have ultra nationalist parties in power in Europe ( Hungary and Poland). Merkel is becoming more and more unpopular in Germany, UKIP got nearly 4 million votes in the last election and we have Nationalist parties on the rise in Scotland and Catalonia threatening the survival of the UK and Spain as nation states. Le Penn in France and Trump in the USA are making in roads previously thought impossible only a few years ago. Why? They have allowed hundreds of thousands of low educated, low skilled refugees/illegal immigrants to enter into the social systems that are already over burdened, under funded and unable to handle the influx and without any consultation with the public (and now millions more predicted with Syria). A rising tide does not lift all ships in this case. The cost of this type of social engineering is not paid by the elites, but by the ordinary people whose wages are stagnant, and standard of living is slowly falling. Many may disagree with this, I'm not saying it is right, but the evidence is there to suggest winds of change are upon us and Corbyns labour seems to be on the wrong side of the zeitgeist.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
>...UKIP got nearly 4 million votes in the last election and we have Nationalist parties on the rise in Scotland ...Why? They have allowed hundreds of thousands of low educated, low skilled refugees/illegal immigrants to enter into the social systems that are already over burdened, under funded and unable to handle the influx and without any consultation with the public (and now millions more predicted with Syria). A rising tide does not lift all ships in this case. The cost of this type of social engineering is not paid by the elites, but by the ordinary people whose wages are stagnant, and standard of living is slowly falling. Many may disagree with this, I'm not saying it is right, but the evidence is there to suggest winds of change are upon us and Corbyns labour seems to be on the wrong side of the zeitgeist.

I'm intrigued as this echoes a simplistic right-wing narrative. But you might be right, so to this end, can you provide any evidence that:

1) hundreds of thousands of low educated, low skilled refugee/illegal immigrants have come to this country, and,
2) the immigration of these hundreds of thousands of low educated, low skilled/illegal immigrants are the cause of wage stagnation and falling living standards (as opposed to, for example, globalisation, neo-liberal economics, poor control of global finance, aggressive tax arrangements etc...).

I do think there is a problem with immigrants, but it is how we deal with them - dumping them en masse in to poor areas rather than formulating some kind of joined up integration program - that is the problem rather than immigrants per se.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Nonsense.

Don't confuse the success of the SNP in Scotland with either nationalism or xenophobia. The fact that Labour got annihilated in the last election was because they left the electorate, not vice versa.


Your depiction is confused: it's the *reverse* in Scotland.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Don't you have any interaction with Mr. Joe Bloggs?

Of the people who were looking to vote UKIP most that I came across were old British and young whites.

You can just keep making shit up but it doesn't make it true just 'cos you post it on UKC.

If it did I'd have a 12" wang.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

The SNP wanting to break up the UK and the immigration point in my post above are not directly linked...it's just my cumbersome synopsis.

In reply to krikoman:

It's nothing to do with my interaction with Joe Bloggs, it's an opinion of a macro view of world politics. Old british and young whites vote UKIP in your experience? No flies on you Krikoman.Keep it up lol

In reply to Shani:

1) hundreds of thousands of low educated, low skilled refugee/illegal immigrants have come to this country, and,
2) the immigration of these hundreds of thousands of low educated, low skilled/illegal immigrants are the cause of wage stagnation and falling living standards (as opposed to, for example, globalisation, neo-liberal economics, poor control of global finance, aggressive tax arrangements etc...).

You have perfectly framed the problem. There is a distinct lack of reliable information that can put the story to bed and politicians have shown they have no control over it. Tories rhetoric is completely opposite to the reality of immigration and Labour before them admitted they had zero control and it was a free for all. So 13 years of New Labour and 5 years of tory/lib dem all having no control, or idea and the debate being shut down until Farage started to get popular.

Regardless of this. Why is there ultra nationalist parties in power in two countries in Europe? Why is Le Penn and Trump making in roads? why is Sarkosy now taking massive swipes at multiculturalism in his election bid? Pegida in Dresden, UKIP in UK. etc. What's the cause? You mention a few possibilities above and I would agree that they are all factors, but the answer to your examples (globalisation, neo-liberal economics, poor control of global finance, aggressive tax arrangements etc...). would be a swing to the left you would think...and there is not much evidence of it. Why is that?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



You should have a walk around any NHS hospital and then spout your shit about low educated / low skilled immigrants, one day you might be glad of them.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


You agree that what you stated above was based upon a 'distinct lack of reliable information'?

The problem here is that without reliable information it is easy for you and me to be manipulated by politicians and the media to fight one another. Whilst you and fight one another over who is working harder and who is ripping of the country, the government can make draconian cuts to public expenditure (whilst ALWAYS finding enough money for war), and facilitate aggressive tax practices that favour the already rich and powerful.

Demonising marginalised groups is a classic example from the right-wing playbook. There a billions being lost to poor tax control every year - this is the real problem facing the country. Generally, immigrants are shown to be an economic benefit to the country and the link above shows that that continues to be the case.

Of course there are problems when they are thrown into a poor quality environment - but if they feel marginalised and threatened by society, of course they are going to group together. Human instinct.

In reply to krikoman:

Why so aggressive? Trying to shut down the debate? No worries, try to enjoy the rest of your day

In reply to krikoman:


or perhaps speak to the cleaning staff, the kitchen help etc.. all the low skilled jobs, not the degree qualified nurses.

or the farms of lincs, Norfolk etc....

In reply to Shani:

Yes I agree and that was the point. There is a distinct lack of information. You have on one side people like Krikoman getting upset saying we would all die of it wasn't for immigrants employed in the NHS, then on the other you have people saying immigration is why the NHS is so overloaded and not as good as it should be.

But the NHS is just one facet of the wider issue. A public perception of a lack of control by the governments to control immigration throughout Europe which is manifesting itself with the rise of rhetoric throughout large parts of Europe that is less positive about immigration and multiculturalism (whether or not there is a genuine cause for concern and ignoring other factors such as financial crises etc) Can things can continue as they are and if so, what will be the political climate of Europe in 5 to 10 years? I have no idea, but there seems to be a trend developing

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Not the case. There is plenty good data out there but people can't be arsed to look at it or since it does not fit with the usual immigration myths/narrative it gets ignored. Check out an excellent slim, and very readable, book by Katy Long, 2014, The Huddled Masses. It is stuffed with the latest research on immigration and systematically demolishes, or seriously undermines, all the usual myths about the negative consequences of immigration into the UK [and elsewhere].

In reply to summo:



Let's unpack this a little.
- Who is in charge of HIRING the labour and who benefits from surpressing their wages?
- Have you accounted for the economic activity generated by immigrants? There are specialist food shops for immigrants, they use phones, transfer services and mail, they have to buy clothes, they use utilities etc... Osbourne is banking on recovery in part to depend on this (see above).

In reply to Shani:

the people trying to run the NHS on a shoe string budget, or the farmers who are under pressure from supermarkets to deliver a product for less.

The public benefits of course, or at least those who are working and can afford the cheaper products. Plus the companies as their profit margins are potentially bigger.


I think you could put EU workers into two boxes, those who work and save, sending every penny home. Those that plan to be in the UK long term. The lifestyle of these differ hugely.

Never said it was a bad thing, you presumption. But, there will always be a price or consequence involved for the original population, if you flood a market with new workers.

Given the wages they are paid, I don't see how there can be much economic benefit as their disposable income in minimal. What they do provide the UK with are cheaper services and products for those able to afford them. Stay in a London hotel and play hunt the british worker, but without the overseas staff the hotel would probably be even more ridiculously priced.

Personally I don't think immigration is a bad thing, job immigrant, not benefit chasing. If people compete for a job, let the best person take it. There will of course be problems for the 'native' population with this approach, but that's an indirect consequence of them being unwilling to pay more for a given product or service.

Many of the UK problems are also linked to labour coming from Europe due to the EUs general failings economically.

In reply to summo:

You are flip flopping between examples. One minute agricultrual workers, the next the NHS. Again, where is the evidence for the rather jingoistic and charged phrase 'flood'?

Back to robust analysis. Peter Bofinger (one of the five members of Germany’s Council of Economic Experts) has written on German wage stagnation - and it has little to do with low skilled immigrants (illegal or otherwise) 'flooding' in to Germany:

“In 1999, when the Eurozone started, Germany was confronted with an unemployment rate that was too high by German standards, although it was still below the EZ average. The solution to the unemployment problem was typical of Germany’s corporatist system. Already in 1995 Klaus Zwickel, boss of the powerful labour union IG Metall, made the proposal of a Bündnis für Arbeit(pact for work). He explicitly declared his willingness to accept a stagnation of real wages, i.e. nominal wage increases that compensate for inflation only, if the employers were willing to create new jobs (Wolf 2000). This led to the Bündnis für Arbeit, Ausbildung und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit (pact for work, education and competitiveness), which was established by Gerhard Schröder in 1998. On 20 January 2000, trade unions and employers associations explicitly declared that productivity increases should not be used for increases in real wages but for agreements that increase employment. In essence, ‘wage moderation’ is an explicit attempt to devalue the real exchange rate internally.”

www.voxeu.org/article/german-wage-moderation-and-ez-crisis

In reply to mac fae stirling:

In fairness, I don't think we can expect millions of Europeans to read a book to get their answers, but that's not to say it's a good read or factually correct.

As an aside, I just looked at it on Amazon and in the "People who bought this also bought" section is The Diversity Illusion and Britains Great Immigration Disaster. I haven't read any of them but it shows that there are differing opinions on the subject to the point that people write books on it and sell them.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Describing the SNP's principle raison d'etre as 'wanting to break up the UK' reveals a very slanted way of thinking.

In any case: my point was that the reason for the SNP's overwhelming success in Scotland in May was as much to do which the implosion of Labour - and, therefore, the lack of any alternative - as it was with any attraction to independence per se. The SNP were the *only* major party offering any alternative vision on the so-called 'austerity' agenda; the *only* major party offering a different view on Trident; etc. etc. (They have also proved themselves to be a competent local government, of course.)

In reply to Shani:

If wages are stagnated and productivity increases are only allowed to increase employment, then would it make sense for a German to be worried about his wages when approx 1million new immigrants arrived this year alone? Is it understandable to become disillusioned when you believe your wages are being suppressed due to this (even if it's not the case) . How would you explain it to your employees when pay rises never materialise? It could be a difficult conversation.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Didn't think I was being aggressive, but you blaming of stagnation, low wages, etc. on the immigrant population doesn't make any sense at all, and it comes across as, at best, a bit xenophobic.

World recession and the banking crisis isn't the fault of immigrants is it?

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Why? Their priniciple vision is an independent Scotland, which obviously implies a break up the of the UK.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Why don't you read it though? I think it may make you seriously reconsider your comment that - 'the immigration of these hundreds of thousands of low educated, low skilled/illegal immigrants are the cause of wage stagnation and falling living standards'


Katy Long is a respected academic with a long track record of researching and publishing in the area of immigration. The first book you mention was written by a daily telegraph/catholic herald journalist, the latter by the nutcase who wrote a book about the coming new ice age. I don't think they are equivalent. Up to you though.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


German wage stagnation has occurred over SEVERAL YEARS (but yes, there will be complications from the large number of immigrants from this past 12 months). However anger at wage-stagnation over the PAST DECADE should be directed at policy makers as there is direct and explicit evidence that wage stagnation is a result of policy, not immigration.

You yourself drew a direct line of causality between "hundreds of thousands of low educated, low skilled refugees/illegal immigrants [entering] the social systems" and "ordinary people whose wages are stagnant, and [whose] standard of living is slowly falling". But again the evidence shows that wage stagnation is NOT confined to low skilled labour markets.

In reply to krikoman:

I'm not sure you actually read what I wrote and just saw some "Krikoman red flags" and went off on one telling me I was spouting shit. To say it's xenophobic to ask questions is pretty suffocating. What's actually amusing is the debate has now moved to "Osborne's economic plan requires mass immigration to succeed" and the cognitive dissonance this produces with people trying to compute the two conflicting concepts (pick your poison..pro Osborne or pro immigration...can I be both? arrgghh lol) All this whilst the Tories say they want to cut net migration to the tens of thousands. It's all nonsense.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I didn't see it as a question, it looked more like a statement, maybe you could work on your phrasing a little more.

It might be all down to the limitations of internet posts and text rather than vocal discussions but I've looked again and it's difficult to see it as a question rather than a statement of your thoughts.

In reply to mac fae stirling:

You can read 60% of the book for free on amazon "look inside" and i'm working through it

In reply to krikoman:

So when I wrote "Interesting piece in the FT today...jist .." you took that as me saying "I Bjartur i Sumarhus believe that...."

Anyway, no worries

In reply to Shani:

Those were the 2 examples I gave earlier, do keep up. I never mentioned 'flood', why are you adding things I never said?


Again, I never said flood and I didn't say migration was all bad, only that it changes things. Or do you have an axe that needs sharpening?


Germany and the UK, chalk and cheese, their working model and demographics differ massively to the UK. What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander.

In reply to summo:




Post by summo - on 10:27 Wed

"But, there will always be a price or consequence involved for the original population, if you flood a market with new workers."

In reply to Shani: eh?