UKC

How did we come to this?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Trevers 05 Oct 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/05/amber-rudd-defends-proposa...

What a stupid, nasty, xenophobic plan. I can't think of a better way to cripple our country's greatest institutions and spread hate and division throughout society. It's rhetoric that the BNP would be proud of.

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/151374421009/theresa-may-has-presided-over-...

Andy Burnham is wrong. The nasty party never went away, they've just got worse.
17
 andyfallsoff 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

I agree, it is horrible. As is the theme of everything coming out of the Tory conference this year - it's as if they've asked the Mail to write them a manifesto.

All we can do is to vote elsewhere and make clear that this doesn't speak for us...
10
 GarethSL 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:
Xenophobic is a bit strong isn't it? I would have thought its a good idea to have an overview of what skills the country is lacking and gaining from foreign employment so we can develop these areas and reduce unemployment?

In a similar vein, my co-university was asked to account for the number of foreign students, that were from national and international institutions. Then persuaded (via financing) to give preference to non foreign applicants. But there is a lot more geopolitics at play there.
Post edited at 11:08
4
 dread-i 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:
Perhaps they can pass a law that makes foreigners wear a badge, so we can easily identify them. It would also make them easier to round up, should we ever need to. And a bar code tattoo, so we can process them more efficiently ...
Post edited at 11:13
10
OP Trevers 05 Oct 2016
In reply to GarethSL:

> In a similar vein, my co-university was asked to account for the number of foreign students, that were from national and international institutions. Then persuaded (via financing) to give preference to non foreign applicants. But there is a lot more geopolitics at play there.

There is some sense in this - during my undergrad I got the feeling that universities were exploiting international students whose English wasn't great and therefore struggled with the course content, to get support and to socialise. Meeting international students, erasmus programs, opportunities abroad = good. Exploitation of international students who pay higher fees = bad.
 summo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

What I find more surprising is the government can't work this out from existing migration records, NI numbers, hmrc data etc...
In reply to summo:

Exactly!
 Scarab9 05 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> What I find more surprising is the government can't work this out from existing migration records, NI numbers, hmrc data etc...

Yeah that's Wharram alarm bells for me.

Well that and 'the tories'.

There's benefit in knowing whatsgoing on so we can develop local talent,and there's certainly the odd company guilty of shady practices using foreign recruitment agencies, but don't companies collect this info already? And pass that to hmrc etc? Does publish mean 'to the public'...because if so why other than for name and Shaming to pass the blame to individuals (like the jammy Carr tax shenanigans for example)
1
 Jon Stewart 05 Oct 2016
In reply to GarethSL:
> Xenophobic is a bit strong isn't it? I would have thought its a good idea to have an overview of what skills the country is lacking and gaining from foreign employment so we can develop these areas and reduce unemployment?

Err, yes. The point is publication as a badge of shame, not reporting per se .

Anyone can see that the best way to reduce the need to fill gaps in the labour market through immigration is to train people when they leave school. But while the apprenticeships programme remains tokenistic, while we retain a culture in which success in school means going to university to study any old crap and then sitting around afterwards wondering what the hell to do your life, and while the FE sector remains criminally unfunded and undervalued, we will have big, big, problems in the labour market.
Post edited at 11:31
1
 jkarran 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

I'm not quite sure how we got to this but listening to the radio the last couple of days has been pretty depressing. This government's vision for our country in so much as they can agree upon one is nasty, dystopian and backward looking. At least they recognise the economic damage their dog's dinner of an EU exit plan will cause and it's forcing them to consider some Keynesian investment which may eventually pay dividends. My guess is that will fall by the wayside as the economy contracts post Article 50 and the policy becomes too hard to explain to an angry and economically illiterate electorate. What then, more of the same: asset stripping kleptocratic privatisation probably and another lock on pensions if they need a pre-election pick-me-up.
jk
6
 GregCHF 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:
I absolutely do not agree with Amber Rudd's policy.

I would ask though, with places like Sunderland who voted out at the referendum, who have been a safe labour seat for years and are slowly drifting to UKIP, is it fair to blame the Tories for following the public mood?

I think the "nice" party has a lot to answer for as well.
Post edited at 11:42
1
 GarethSL 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Err, yes. The point is publication as a badge of shame, not reporting per se .

But will companies be required to make the composition of their workforce public? Or is it just to be reported to the Govt. who will publish it in a report that a handful of people will skim read?

I don't see why it should be considered or even perceived a 'badge of shame' I always thought a diverse workforce was something to be lauded?

Perhaps I am just being naive and assuming a newspaper would never try and influence my opinion by subtly suggesting it should become a badge of shame and thus we should all be outraged..?
 Jon Stewart 05 Oct 2016
In reply to GarethSL:
> But will companies be required to make the composition of their workforce public? Or is it just to be reported to the Govt. who will publish it in a report that a handful of people will skim read?

The clue is in the word "publish". Yes, of course it won't be read by many, but the point of making firms publish information is that it means the press can report it.

> I don't see why it should be considered or even perceived a 'badge of shame' I always thought a diverse workforce was something to be lauded?

> Perhaps I am just being naive

You certainly are.

> and assuming a newspaper would never try and influence my opinion by subtly suggesting it should become a badge of shame and thus we should all be outraged..?

Have you noticed the national mood around immigration lately?
Post edited at 11:50
1
OP Trevers 05 Oct 2016
In reply to GregCHF:

> I would ask though, with places like Sunderland who voted out at the referendum, who have been a safe labour seat for years and are slowly drifting to UKIP, is it fair to blame the Tories for following the public mood?

Yes. They've simply stooped to UKIP's level. There's not been any real discourse on the benefits of immigration. The best we've had is Hunt's "Aren't foreign NHS employees lovely? But there's too many of them..."

More to the point, the public mood is not down to immigration alone, no matter how much the papers have convinced people that's what they're angry about. But the Tories can't exactly point to underinvestment in areas with high levels of immigration and low levels of employment...

> I think the "nice" party has a lot to answer for as well.

Agreed.
1
 summo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to GarethSL:

I would consider it sound practice for a government to know in what field and level every single migrant is working in, as it identifies every failing of the uks own academic and vocational training.

The opposite should apply too, what skills do the unemployed have that are simply not in demand.
3
 GarethSL 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Have you noticed the national mood around immigration lately?

As an ex-pat no, but i get the idea. Then again I do look at the UK through my kaleidoscope of Scandinavian utopia.

No. It is an issue I need to pay more attention to and get my head around, considering I am still part of the electorate and still voting.
1
 FactorXXX 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

What's wrong with knowing how the UK workforce is made up?
2
 yorkshireman 05 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> I would consider it sound practice for a government to know in what field and level every single migrant is working in, as it identifies every failing of the uks own academic and vocational training.

In reality though it is difficult.

I'm an immigrant from the UK, living in France. Because of the EU reciprocal agreements I (quite rightly IMHO) had no need to inform the French authorities about my CV when I moved here. In fact I didn't have my current job (I was contracting) and quite frankly my skills are between me and my employer (I work in digital marketing anyway so it's arguable there's no quantifiable skill being brought to the country!!!).

Personally I think the market is a lot better at allocating the workforce to their needs than the government is. That's why immigration shouldn't be the huge concern that it is to a lot of people. If there aren't enough jobs in a market, immigrants will look elsewhere (generally). If our local talent isn't able to compete because of a skills gap, that's a separate issue and needs to be dealt with through social change and education - but if we pulled up the immigration drawbridge we need to fix the same problems anyway.





 skog 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:
> I can't think of a better way to cripple our country's greatest institutions and spread hate and division throughout society.

Well, how about this?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/04/liam-fox-refuses-to-guaran...

I honestly used to think the UK was not too bad, overall. I'm now terrified of what it seems to be sliding in to.
Post edited at 12:49
4
 Scarab9 05 Oct 2016
In reply to GregCHF:

> I absolutely do not agree with Amber Rudd's policy.

> I would ask though, with places like Sunderland who voted out at the referendum, who have been a safe labour seat for years and are slowly drifting to UKIP, is it fair to blame the Tories for following the public mood?

> I think the "nice" party has a lot to answer for as well.

it's also in an area of the country that considers itself worst hit by immigration from what I gather. Largely due to media coverage and Tory rhetoric, but also a long history of being ignored due to distance from London.

You need to remember the EU Referendum was not a choice between tory and Labour, it was a choice of whether to stay in the EU or leave. Desiring a focus on class equality and on workers rights, on investment rather than selling off infrastructure, etc is not mutually exclusive from wanting to prevent free movement from outside the country.
1
 RomTheBear 05 Oct 2016
In reply to GarethSL:
> Xenophobic is a bit strong isn't it? I would have thought its a good idea to have an overview of what skills the country is lacking and gaining from foreign employment so we can develop these areas and reduce unemployment?

Encouraging businesses to discriminate against foreign workers legally in the country is worse than xenophobic.

Maybe the government should F*CK OFF and let businesses decide for themselves who they should hire, frankly, they know best who they need and what they need.
Post edited at 12:34
6
 pebbles 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

as if that want depressing enough news.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37561065

like a zombie that wont lie down, Farage has shambled from the political grave again. And just like a zombie, he's in urgent need of some brains....
 summo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to yorkshireman:

I would agree, if all countries training, education etc are equal. Only the UK has been preparing people badly since the YTS era, so it needs overseas talent, whilst dishing out benefits to its own population. This shouldn't really continue forever, although I suspect it will.
 Xharlie 05 Oct 2016
In reply to skog:

That guy's nuts. How is the "status" uncertain in any way? Are the Tories going to threaten Brussels with a mass rounding-up and subsequent exile of Europeans? That sounds awfully like "threatening a pogrom" is their negotiating strategy!
 RomTheBear 05 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> I would agree, if all countries training, education etc are equal. Only the UK has been preparing people badly since the YTS era, so it needs overseas talent, whilst dishing out benefits to its own population. This shouldn't really continue forever, although I suspect it will.

That's nonsensical, when a foreigner comes in to plug in a skill gap in a company, the whole company benefits and learns from those new skills, including the native workers.
How on earth are British workers supposed to acquire those much needed skills if we keep out the very people who are bringing them ? It's idiotic.
4
 summo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:


> How on earth are British workers supposed to acquire those much needed skills if we keep out the very people who are bringing them ? It's idiotic.

By training its own population in the first place, then bring in new skills from elsewhere at an even higher level? Thereby raising its game a little.
1
 RomTheBear 05 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> By training its own population in the first place,

How do you expect our own population to be trained in the first place, if you keep the people who bring these skills out ?


5
 MG 05 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
Believe it or not, there is quite a lot of home grown talent! Sure, immigration is in many ways good, particularly in some areas, but pretending we completely clueless without immigrants is nonsense.
 RomTheBear 05 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> Believe it or not, there is quite a lot of home grown talent! Sure, immigration is in many ways good, particularly in some areas,

Of course there are, we have many, but not enough, and there are lots of gaps. In fact even EU immigration is not enough to fill those gaps at the moment.

> but pretending we completely clueless without immigrants is nonsense.

Nobody pretended that, you're just making things up.
Post edited at 13:26
6
 girlymonkey 05 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

Oh, you mean investing in people?! Nah, don't be daft!
 MG 05 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Nobody pretended that, you're just making things up.

You just said it!! "How do you expect our own population to be trained in the first place, if you keep the people who bring these skills out ?"

If we can't train people, which is what you just claimed, then I think that counts as clueless.
1
 balmybaldwin 05 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

I'm not sure that in many areas a genuine skills gap actually exists.

A sizeable proportion of immigrants that our local population moan about so much are doing non-skilled low paid work - so how can there be a skills gap?

It seems to me the biggest problem is an entitlement and work ethic gap.

That's not to say it isn't a problem in some sectors (NHS an obvious example)
1
 GrahamD 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

Its terrible, but it would be misguided to think this is a policy primarily aimed at the died in the wool Conservative voter - they already have their votes. As the Brexit poles showed, worries about immigration (from mild to Xenophobic) are across the political spectrum, so this is a pretty clear response to attract disenfranchised 'working class' voters and people in the middle.

Unfortunately in this the Conservative party are reflecting the will of a significant proportion of the population.
 balmybaldwin 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

I am truly ashamed of the rhetoric that is coming out of our government following the Brexit vote - it seems the government is trying to pander to the worst of society's bigots
5
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Yet she has the cheek to say she's reclaiming 'the middle ground'.
1
 RomTheBear 05 Oct 2016
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> I'm not sure that in many areas a genuine skills gap actually exists.

> A sizeable proportion of immigrants that our local population moan about so much are doing non-skilled low paid work - so how can there be a skills gap?

But that's just perception - the vast majority of immigrants are not in elementary occupations that require no skills.

> It seems to me the biggest problem is an entitlement and work ethic gap.

I think that's a bit cliche. Not that there are statistics on that, but in my own experience, I've come across as many feckless foreign workers as I've come across feckless British workers.



1
 summo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to balmybaldwin:

Entitlement? Lack of motivation?

Why benefits too high, wages too low, mass of unskilled eu workers seeking employment?
 RomTheBear 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> Yet she has the cheek to say she's reclaiming 'the middle ground'.

Well it's just that the "middle ground" in the U.K. is now basically what was the far right not long ago.
Post edited at 13:55
2
 GrahamD 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Yet she has the cheek to say she's reclaiming 'the middle ground'.

Immigration IS the middle ground - and across all sides. That, above all else, is what the Brexit debacle showed.
Lusk 05 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> the vast majority of immigrants are not in elementary occupations that require no skills.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/364
 DerwentDiluted 05 Oct 2016
In reply to dread-i:

> Perhaps they can pass a law that makes foreigners wear a badge, so we can easily identify them. It would also make them easier to round up, should we ever need to. And a bar code tattoo, so we can process them more efficiently ...

Can I suggest that as the EU flag is composed of yellow stars on a blue background, that EU nationals residing in the UK are made to wear yellow stars for ease of identification?
3
 RomTheBear 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Lusk:


Doesn't that confirm exactly what I was saying ?
2
 GregCHF 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> Yes. They've simply stooped to UKIP's level. There's not been any real discourse on the benefits of immigration. The best we've had is Hunt's "Aren't foreign NHS employees lovely? But there's too many of them..."

Agreed. In fact I am an advocate for benefits of immigration. I think immigrants benefit our society in numerous ways, including but not limited to financially.

> More to the point, the public mood is not down to immigration alone, no matter how much the papers have convinced people that's what they're angry about. But the Tories can't exactly point to underinvestment in areas with high levels of immigration and low levels of employment...

I agree here too, there are a number of places that have low investment from the UK government and this does sow discontent. The irony of the situation is that the EU was pushing money into places like the north east, but they still voted to leave in a big part due to the "immigration issue".
 Ams1101 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

I've been living and working in the UK for 6 years. The rhetoric this last year has just left me feeling really saddened. When I came over here first, I was a typical ex-pat. I still read the newspapers from home and spent a lot of time with other ex-pats. But then every day you go to work, hopefully feeling some pride in what you're doing, work which is ultimately contributing to the UK economy. You make friends. You talk UK politics and the price of a pint. You complain about the trains and the weather. You pay your taxes. You follow GB sport.

And then you read headlines like this one, and you feel sad. So sad. And I get it, some of it, the fear of change and all that, but it still hurts. I cried on the morning of the Brexit result, for what it symbolised for the country I'd made my home, and for my place in it.
 deepsoup 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:
This little video sums it up pretty well for me:
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-amber-rudds-speech...
1
 Xharlie 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Ams1101:

Is it a fear of change? I'd describe it as a fear of the unknown or misunderstood. In reality, the anti-immigration feeling is more likely a bit of all three but all three are still fears and fear does not equate to anger.

Fear makes a good target for anger, though, and that's what the hacks of the popular press and politicians alike love about the situation because they get to aim the people's anger.
 GregCHF 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Scarab9:
> You need to remember the EU Referendum was not a choice between tory and Labour, it was a choice of whether to stay in the EU or leave. Desiring a focus on class equality and on workers rights, on investment rather than selling off infrastructure, etc is not mutually exclusive from wanting to prevent free movement from outside the country.

I agree, it was not a choice between Labour or Tory. Labour didn't bother to do any campaigning (either way) at all.

I would also make the point that trying to obtain class equality, workers right, or investment is not the sole preserve of the Labour party. I know they like to shout about it and pretend they are the only ones interested in it. But that is all they do and believe that by just saying these thing it will suddenly change. They don't bother to come up with a cohesive plan to make the economy a success, which would improve everyone's life.

Also, it is possible to sell infrastructure and still ensure workers rights, the two are not opposing issues regardless of what Labour would have you believe. I do think we should have nationalisation of various services, especially utilities and rail. However, I do not think labour should/could be that party to provide it.
Post edited at 15:15
1
 deepsoup 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Ams1101:
I just 'liked' your post, but I don't like it at all.
OP Trevers 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Ams1101:

If it helps, I was absolutely heartbroken on the morning of the referendum result. My office was in the bleakest mood I've ever known it to be in, only a morbid sense of humour got us through the day.

This country is all the better for having you here.
3
 SenzuBean 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

> Is it a fear of change? I'd describe it as a fear of the unknown or misunderstood. In reality, the anti-immigration feeling is more likely a bit of all three but all three are still fears and fear does not equate to anger.

I don't think it's fear. It's anger, and it's blame. I didn't want to really consider statements such as 'globalization has failed' before - but after the Brexit vote I was forced to reconsider. And I've changed my mind. I now agree that the way we have sent jobs overseas, has destroyed once vibrant communities - and people are angry about that. I never really cared about statements such as 'GDP is up' before, but when I was able to see those statements from a different viewpoint - you see something different. That as GDP goes up, as bankers get richer, your town gets ever more irrelevant as jobs disappear, and prospects dwindle.
These people didn't bring it upon themselves; they did what they've always done. So it must be someone elses fault. Whose fault is it then? Well the media are only too happy to supply that...

My thoughts now are that off-shoring has failed. GDP is not a good indicator of what most people consider to be important. Anyone who thinks a one-dimensional number can represent the best interests of everyone - has clearly no grasp of even basic maths.
 neilh 05 Oct 2016
In reply to GregCHF:

That is part of the answer, but not all of it. Part of it was that the EU in their eyes was not delivering growth and job security despite those areas being recipients of EU Social Funding.

All that I know is that when travelling around these areas where you see( or should I say saw )signs on EU projects, I honestly questioned how they would benefit the local community for solid jobs. People can see through new road schemes- that then fail to deliver new factories etc or some new EU funded cafe/arts centre type set up.There was if I recall a big fuss in Cornwall at referundum time about what actual jobs this money had created, and the answer appeared to be...... not much and a number of schemes which had failed dismally.

So whilst it appears ironic that these places voted Out even though EU money was being spent there, when you take a hard look at where the money went, it was clearly wasted in locals eyes.
2
 GrahamD 05 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

New cafes maybe not, but new road infrastructure is exactly the kind of investment that is needed if you want to persuade companies to set up somewhere.
 wercat 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

There were two other initiatives mentioned the same party-tag that make this even more sinister.

Banks and other service providers to be accountable for providing services to foreigners who have no right to be here.

Landlords not to be letting properties to foreigners who have no right to be here.

Given that individuals and organisations will often take the line of least resistance this is likely to make life very difficult if they just become unwilling to provide services and lettings to anyone who "sounds suspect".

As the husband of a German wife I am frankly quite scared as without security of tenure in rented property I don't know how we'd stand in a difficult market, given that I lost my job and career in the outcome of "AUSTERITY" (I'm 60 now and have little future economic prospect with dwindling savings)


1
In reply to GrahamD:
Agreed. I find the argument that the EU didn't help much a bit weak. If they were simply not very effective, how is it that they become the fall guy for something else? I think the EU was made a scapegoat for a whole raft of other problems, largely British. Apart from 'globalisation' of course ... but I don't see how the clock can be turned back. It's a bit like trying to uninvent the internet if you don't like it. Anyhow, whatever the complex reasons for Brexit, we're in a right old mess now. (Casual thought in middle of working ... not wishing to get into debate.)

http://www.theglobalist.com/eu-brexit-germany-economy-united-kingdom/
Post edited at 16:03
 Postmanpat 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:


> What a stupid, nasty, xenophobic plan. I can't think of a better way to cripple our country's greatest institutions and spread hate and division throughout society. It's rhetoric that the BNP would be proud of.

>
How is this different from organisations in all sorts of sectors being asked to racially profile their staff and cusotmers and public funding often being dependent on producing the correct ratios? And how does it differ from us all being asked to give our racial background on a regular basis?
4
 MG 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

One of those examples is about trying to ensure everyone is society has an equal chance to succeed

The other is about trying to keep those nasty, horrible foreigners at bay.
 RomTheBear 05 Oct 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

You're exactly right. I'm not sure how many times I've argued on these forums that too high disparities of income and wealth would have serious consequences for democracies - even if overall living standards go up.
When people don't share the benefits of growth, of course they'll blame someone. Europe immigrants, or whatever fits the populist political narrative and national myths of the time.
 The New NickB 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> How is this different from organisations in all sorts of sectors being asked to racially profile their staff and cusotmers and public funding often being dependent on producing the correct ratios?

Can you provide some specific examples of this?
In reply to RomTheBear:

I wonder if the immigration issue for vast swathes of the country was also fear of what is coming, rather than what is already here. Seeing thousands of people crossing continents from mainly muslim countries, compounded with some terrible terrorist attacks and sex attacks, the perceived lack of control of numbers and unhelpful rhetoric from certain leaders in the EU made the drawbridge option far more compelling and attractive.
 neilh 05 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

Well there are lots of new roads in let us see South Wales in the former mining communities...what have those delivered? And if you go round Spain you see loads... which are barely used.

Its not a simple solution. There has to be more than building roads.Just saying oh we will build a road and eveythign will be Ok is clearly not working

And FFS the NorthEast is crying out for a Motorway from Leeds and yet no EU project to do this..
1
 MonkeyPuzzle 05 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> That is part of the answer, but not all of it. Part of it was that the EU in their eyes was not delivering growth and job security despite those areas being recipients of EU Social Funding.

> All that I know is that when travelling around these areas where you see( or should I say saw )signs on EU projects, I honestly questioned how they would benefit the local community for solid jobs. People can see through new road schemes- that then fail to deliver new factories etc or some new EU funded cafe/arts centre type set up.There was if I recall a big fuss in Cornwall at referundum time about what actual jobs this money had created, and the answer appeared to be...... not much and a number of schemes which had failed dismally.

> So whilst it appears ironic that these places voted Out even though EU money was being spent there, when you take a hard look at where the money went, it was clearly wasted in locals eyes.

Is it the responsibility solely of the EU to invest in infrastructure and jobs in deprived areas, or should our own government not have been doing more? Rather than encouraging more and more people into the cities, and funding huge white elephants like HS2, successive governments should have been delivering better roads, better schools, better services and better internet to effectively abandoned communities.
 neilh 05 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

Well as an employers I am often asked for "profiling" of my workforce into groups.Its the usual stuff ranging from educational backgrounds to ages to others including race in its widest sense.

Hardly exciting stuff.

particularly when you are getting EU funding........
 Postmanpat 05 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> One of those examples is about trying to ensure everyone is society has an equal chance to succeed

> The other is about trying to keep those nasty, horrible foreigners at bay.

Or simply trying to understand what is actually happen.

Or trying to ensure investment in training and employment for British.....
Post edited at 16:21
 neilh 05 Oct 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

There is also an argument that funding is better spent in areas which are growing not shrinking. After all those growing areas are the ones where the jobs will be and businesses want to be.

There is a view that abandoning those communities is a more realistic proposition for their future ( the economic " horse" has long bolted).After all that is what all the migrants have done in coming here. They are upping sticks and moving as there communities have failed.
1
 summo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Is it the responsibility solely of the EU to invest in infrastructure and jobs in deprived areas, or should our own government not have been doing more? Rather than encouraging more and more people into the cities, and funding huge white elephants like HS2, successive governments should have been delivering better roads, better schools, better services and better internet to effectively abandoned communities.

I would agree, pop as few percent on all tax rates and everyone can help make their own country better.
 GrahamD 05 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Well there are lots of new roads in let us see South Wales in the former mining communities...what have those delivered? And if you go round Spain you see loads... which are barely used.

> Its not a simple solution. There has to be more than building roads.Just saying oh we will build a road and eveythign will be Ok is clearly not working

Clearly, but without the infrastructure nothing can happen. With it there is a chance at least.
 summo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Well there are lots of new roads in let us see South Wales in the former mining communities...what have those delivered? And if you go round Spain you see loads... which are barely used.

A470 up to Merthyr, funded to the hilt decades ago, whilst the A1 north is still a shambles, wonder why the NE voted so heavily for brexit?

Spain has some pretty airports, shame they haven't been used, ever.



1
 ian caton 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

What makes it worse is that the Labour party is completely on board with the same agenda.

Interesting that in Scotland, xenophobia hasn't taken control of politics. Perhaps because their politicians haven't scapegoated Europe for years and years.
 wbo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to SenzuBean: i can sympathise with your argument, and i think GDP, and an unhealthy focus on the city, FTSE 100 has led to an extremely unhealthy disparity in wealth, fortune and future between different parts of the country, but is tolerated as overall the numbers are ok.

Cclearly this is not ok. But I don't the answer can be as simple as repatriation of jobs, or reopening the pits, or shipyards or whatever . The economics are too horrible, and skills productivity too low. To be honest I don't know what large parts of the country are meant to be doing, and that's not good. The answers are not simple and no party or person seems to have much vision

 GrahamD 05 Oct 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Is it the responsibility solely of the EU to invest in infrastructure and jobs in deprived areas, or should our own government not have been doing more? Rather than encouraging more and more people into the cities, and funding huge white elephants like HS2, successive governments should have been delivering better roads, better schools, better services and better internet to effectively abandoned communities.

HS2 IS providing better services. You never know we might eventually catch up with the rest of Europe. Its not an either or. We need to invest in big projects and small ones and for that, we need to pay for it - which unfortunately is our collective sticking point.
1
 summo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> I don't think it's fear. It's anger, and it's blame.

would agree, 30 years of ever improving GCSE/ A levels, more A*s than you can shake a stick at, tech colleges and polys becoming Unis, dishing out pretty certificates for pretty much anyone, in any subject you can think of.... then after all that someone who only speaks English as their 2nd or 3rd language can come along more able, motivated and qualified, picking up the jobs. 40years of successive governments are to blame for telling a large proportion of the UK they could have it all, without pulling their finger out or paying for it.

1
Gone for good 05 Oct 2016
In reply to ian caton:

>
> Interesting that in Scotland, xenophobia hasn't taken control of politics. Perhaps because their politicians haven't scapegoated Europe for years and years.

That's because they blame Westminster for everything that goes wrong.


 MonkeyPuzzle 05 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

It's providing a singular specific outcome for a huge amount of money. Twenty minutes off the journey from Brum to London doesn't really benefit the valleys or Cornwall.
 summo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> HS2 IS providing better services. You never know we might eventually catch up with the rest of Europe. Its not an either or. We need to invest in big projects and small ones and for that, we need to pay for it - which unfortunately is our collective sticking point.

if the UK had decent 4g or fibre, you wouldn't need to be face to face everything, and shaving less than an hour off a journey half way up the country is pretty pointless really in the big scheme of things, when you can work enroute, just because you are sat on a train, you don't have to stop working. Most people could save that hour by just working a little more efficiently, or not posting on UKC

 summo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> We need to invest in big projects and small ones and for that, we need to pay for it - which unfortunately is our collective sticking point.

you invest in people; education, skills, knowledge, ideas, innovation.... otherwise you just have lots of roads to no where.
 neilh 05 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

Well its more complicated that. let us say you are a recently graduated engineer ( skills shortage- good job prospects). You are offered a job in a deprived area or say somewhere say in the south east .

For your future where do you go? South -east. No question.Ot somewhere where there is a good future.

That is what I have been told happens at the moment. Enginnering companies in certain areas cannot attract people, even though pay is above natioanl rate.

 neilh 05 Oct 2016
In reply to wbo:

I agree.

Its not an easy one to solve.If it was everybody would be doing it.

 Xharlie 05 Oct 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> Whose fault is it then? Well the media are only too happy to supply that...

Isn't that exactly what I was saying? The fear makes the foreign and unknown a great target for anger and the media and politicians get to direct that anger. It's a win-win for them, because they get power off the back of it and, as their benefactors get richer, they divert any anger from the real crims.

Fear, alone, is normal and not something to be ashamed of. (Disclaimer: I have to feel this way. I know it is wrong to be afraid of someone simply because they're black and male but, when I was a kid, I was mugged by a black male and had my bike nicked in a forest somewhere in my home town in SA. I can choose not to act on that fear but the fear is not something I can choose not to feel. Similarly, a lot of people fear the immigrants but my faith in humanity makes me want to believe that *most* people wouldn't act on that fear unless their ire was channelled in that direction.)
 Postmanpat 05 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

> Can you provide some specific examples of this?

Yes, including grant applications I've been involved in which we were asked relevant questions on diversity. Why do this if they do this of not as part of the grant funding criteria?They are unlikely to stipulate an exact number of minority or LGBT beneficiaries, but clearly some representation is regarded as a positive. That may be entirely reasonable of course.
Where are you coming from on this? You don't believe it happens?

On a related topic there was a report on the police recently lamenting the fact that a number of forces had virtually no senior officers from ethnic minorities. It kind of neglected to mention that the counties in question had virtual no ethnic minorities. Should they monitor this. Are they using the information appropriately?
1
 MG 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Well whatever the reasons, we both now agree they are completely different. Glad to help
 Postmanpat 05 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> Well whatever the reasons, we both now agree they are completely different. Glad to help

Yes, one monitors race and gender, the other monitors nationality. Glad to clarify

Incidentally, I actually don't think I'm in favour of it.
Post edited at 17:11
1
 RomTheBear 05 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:


> Spain has some pretty airports, shame they haven't been used, ever.

None of them funded by the EU
 SenzuBean 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

> Isn't that exactly what I was saying? The fear makes the foreign and unknown a great target for anger and the media and politicians get to direct that anger. It's a win-win for them, because they get power off the back of it and, as their benefactors get richer, they divert any anger from the real crims.

It's different I think. I'm saying any fear comes from anger and loss of livelihood that happened decades ago and continued slowly ever since. Wounds that are still there, passed down from generation to the next. People aren't inherently afraid of Polish bricklayers (although I will admit some people are afraid of people under the burqa, but most aren't IMO). We're not seeing fear being directed into anger I believe, but rather anger and sadness being directed into hate by the media. What we're seeing is better explained by what people do when they fight over crumbs, and being told by the media why they are fighting over crumbs.
 neilh 05 Oct 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

But is does promote more growth in areas which are not on their last legs. So its probably better spent elsewhere than going to the valleys or Cornwall as a white elephant project when employees and employers do not want to go there.......... I know its very brutal to those communities to say this.

If it was me the money should go on improving links between the northen cities.( Jim O'Neil is IMHO right on the nail on this)
 RomTheBear 05 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> if the UK had decent 4g or fibre, you wouldn't need to be face to face everything, and shaving less than an hour off a journey half way up the country is pretty pointless really in the big scheme of things, when you can work enroute, just because you are sat on a train, you don't have to stop working. Most people could save that hour by just working a little more efficiently, or not posting on UKC

Work from home has exploded in recent years. But for a vast majority of jobs it's simply not possible. You can't build a house or run a kitchen in a restaurant remotely.

 RomTheBear 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Gone for good:
> That's because they blame Westminster for everything that goes wrong.

As I said in another post, people blame whatever fits their cultural and political narrative. In Scotland some blamed Westminster, in England they blame immigrants and the EU.
At the end of the day, most of it is utterly irrational, but English politics has really taken it to a whole new level of dumbness and nastiness.
Post edited at 17:29
1
 MonkeyPuzzle 05 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

There should be specific drives to make companies want to locate/have bases in these areas. I don't just mean plonking a new road in and going 'there you go lads'. Incentives on business rates/corporation tax/funding for training/whatever. With the advent of the internet economy, it should be easier to make rural areas more viable than has been the case for some time. Instead the nice villages are full of second homes and the retired and the working class small towns left to rot.
 The New NickB 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Yes, including grant applications I've been involved in which we were asked relevant questions on diversity. Why do this if they do this of not as part of the grant funding criteria?They are unlikely to stipulate an exact number of minority or LGBT beneficiaries, but clearly some representation is regarded as a positive. That may be entirely reasonable of course.

> Where are you coming from on this? You don't believe it happens?

I believe they collect the information. You seem to be suggesting something more than that, which is why I asked.
 Carless 05 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

Here's some explanation about regional funding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_policy_of_the_European_Union
West Yorkshire is a more developed region

as to getting the policies changed...
 GrahamD 05 Oct 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

If you think HS2 is to do with 20 minutes off a journey to Brum (or from), its not surprising you see it as a white elephant. But its not. Its about gradually increasing north south rail capacity of a network that is demonstarbly creaking at the seams.

To say it doesn't benefit Cornawall is ridiculous. Any transport infrastructure project by its very nature is region specific and starting with connections between the biggest population centres is a good start.
 neilh 05 Oct 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Growing businesses or scale up opportunites are normally located where there is already an existing dynamic economy. Those businesses rarely relocate to somewhere on its last legs.

And as I said in other posts, alot of employees do not want to relocate or stake their future careers on moving to those areas.

it is not an easy one to solve.
In reply to Gone for good:

> That's because they blame Westminster for everything that goes wrong.

And 99.5% of the time they are right.

Sure, the Scottish Parliament and EU can mess things up a bit. But to really f*ck things up in the billions and tens of billions and impose ideologically motivated nonsense which takes decades to recover from that's Westminster.

It is really hard for the Scottish Parliament to do anything outrageously crazy because it doesn't have that much power and it has Proportional Representation built-in to force moderation. Similarly, the EU needs to build consensus among 27 countries and has limited power. It might be inefficient and slow but it can't go crazy. Westminster on the other hand has huge power, a system that allows big changes to be forced through and a massive bias towards the London and the South East.
5
 GrahamD 05 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> you invest in people; education, skills, knowledge, ideas, innovation.... otherwise you just have lots of roads to no where.

You invest in both, because otherwise everyone migrates to London
 GrahamD 05 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> if the UK had decent 4g or fibre, you wouldn't need to be face to face everything,

I'm not sure whether that really accounts for a large percentage of the population, though. Maybe those of us wasting the day posting on UKC.
 GrahamD 05 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> For your future where do you go? South -east. No question.Ot somewhere where there is a good future.

> That is what I have been told happens at the moment. Enginnering companies in certain areas cannot attract people, even though pay is above natioanl rate.

By and large that is exactly what happens. But not exclusively so. Obviously engineering needs a big enough local infrastructure to work so mainly around cities. Engineering is always going to be difficult in a rural environment. Cambridge does OK but even there arguably its because its close to London.

 MG 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

Just listened to some of Rudd's speech. Hadn't heard her before. All I can think if us Pitt the Younger in Black Adder!
 The New NickB 05 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> A470 up to Merthyr, funded to the hilt decades ago, whilst the A1 north is still a shambles, wonder why the NE voted so heavily for brexit?

Is this the same North East that is a net beneficiary of EU funding?
Pan Ron 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

I don't know why anyone is surprised that things are going this way. Theresa May has an awful track record for denying available evidence and sticking to narrow-minded bigoted outlooks. I expect it will only get worse.

The silver lining is the UK may well become a scary test-case and encourage the rest of Europe, and possibly the world, not to follow our lead. It would be ironic given the goal of many Brexiteers was to "make Britain great".
1
 winhill 05 Oct 2016
In reply to ian caton:

> Interesting that in Scotland, xenophobia hasn't taken control of politics. Perhaps because their politicians haven't scapegoated Europe for years and years.

No, they've scapegoated the English.



1
KevinD 05 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:
> Is this the same North East that is a net beneficiary of EU funding?

Nope. It is the same North that was a net beneficiary and is now wondering where the cash will come from.
Post edited at 18:43
1
 The New NickB 05 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> Just listened to some of Rudd's speech. Hadn't heard her before. All I can think if us Pitt the Younger in Black Adder!

Give her due credit, she must have the patience of a saint, she managed to be married to AA Gill for five years without putting weed killer in his breakfast.
1
 neilh 05 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

Cambridge is the south east and is hardly a real example of a deprived rural area. Exactly the opposite .

Hastings maybe better in the south east.
 neilh 05 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

No you invest and focus on growing areas which are attractive to employers. You have to be really focused and concentrate on companies that are growing and will take on new employees.

You have to move away from creating areas just with those who are are self employed and live hand to mouth.

Doing it for " everybody" for the sake of being fair just produces nothing in the end.

It's not easy
 summo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> None of them funded by the EU

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=spain+airports+eu+funds

are you forgetting some of these EU funded airport projects in spain?
 Heike 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

Next step, make international people wear a badge so that they can be identified......Ohhh....hang on, I am sure somebody tried that already 75 years ago....
 summo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

> Is this the same North East that is a net beneficiary of EU funding?

just because the geographical area had money spent in it, doesn't mean the population actually benefitted though.
 summo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Work from home has exploded in recent years. But for a vast majority of jobs it's simply not possible.

vast majority, given the UK's swing towards the service sector, I'd say every year it has greater potentially to be at least home based part time, but it's years behind mainland Europe primarily because of the slowly improving broadband network. Rural areas; the very regions where people have the biggest or longest commute from also have by far the worst connections. If the UK had even a modest percentage more working from home, instantly less cars on the road and rail use, car parking etc.. that supposedly desperately need infrastructure spending can go elsewhere. The UK also doesn't trust home workers to be actually do their job.
 SenzuBean 05 Oct 2016
In reply to wbo:
> i can sympathise with your argument, and i think GDP, and an unhealthy focus on the city, FTSE 100 has led to an extremely unhealthy disparity in wealth, fortune and future between different parts of the country, but is tolerated as overall the numbers are ok.

> Cclearly this is not ok. But I don't the answer can be as simple as repatriation of jobs, or reopening the pits, or shipyards or whatever . The economics are too horrible, and skills productivity too low. To be honest I don't know what large parts of the country are meant to be doing, and that's not good. The answers are not simple and no party or person seems to have much vision

I totally agree. My thoughts on the subject are that there are two ways to solve this (bearing in mind automation will remove service jobs in the coming decades)
- Universal basic income (i.e. humans have a fundamental right to food, shelter and water and must be provided with that or the means to access that regardless of their capacity for useful work)
- Token jobs. As jobs evaporate, just make up pointless jobs for the uber rich to be even more uber pampered.

I don’t see any other way. If you do - please let me know.
Post edited at 19:56
 neilh 05 Oct 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:
Well the latest thinking is that service jobs like carers will not be replaced.

Lawyers and drs can be as computers maytake over technical jobs.
Post edited at 20:02
Lusk 05 Oct 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> I totally agree. My thoughts on the subject are that there are two ways to solve this (bearing in mind automation will remove service jobs in the coming decades)

I vaguely remember seeing/hearing a programme about when automation first came in.
The thinking was that it would liberate workers giving them more free time and easier working lives, presumably without any loss of income. The truth being, workers got sacked and replaced with machines, and the employers make larger profits.
 RomTheBear 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Lusk:
> I vaguely remember seeing/hearing a programme about when automation first came in.

> The thinking was that it would liberate workers giving them more free time and easier working lives, presumably without any loss of income. The truth being, workers got sacked and replaced with machines, and the employers make larger profits.

But also all the goods that were produced by those machines became very cheap, and the standard of living had increased significantly as a result. And they did get easier working lives.
But it's true the transition can be difficult for some workers.
Post edited at 20:18
 summo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:


> I don’t see any other way. If you do - please let me know.

people work 2-3 normal days a week in middle to senior management roles for say £30-40k/year, rather than killing themselves doing 60plus hours for two or three times that amount of money. Plenty of salaried people are doing excessive hours, especially in the UK. or the USA with their very meagre holidays.
Gone for good 05 Oct 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> And 99.5% of the time they are right.

A slight exaggeration I would say?

> Sure, the Scottish Parliament and EU can mess things up a bit. But to really f*ck things up in the billions and tens of billions and impose ideologically motivated nonsense which takes decades to recover from that's Westminster.

Like what?

> It is really hard for the Scottish Parliament to do anything outrageously crazy because it doesn't have that much power and it has Proportional Representation built-in to force moderation. Similarly, the EU needs to build consensus among 27 countries and has limited power. It might be inefficient and slow but it can't go crazy. Westminster on the other hand has huge power, a system that allows big changes to be forced through and a massive bias towards the London and the South East.

Spoken like a true nat!

1
 RomTheBear 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Gone for good:

> Like what?

Brexit ?

1
 wbo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear, Senzu - Umm yes, but if you were to take a sector, and remove 60, 70% of the staff and replace them with machines those that remain will have an easy life but what of those replaced? Will they get jobs of equivalent status or will they drift down the 'food chain'? (unfortunate term but I can think of no better). Given that we already have increasing inequality in wages my opinion is that this has the possibility to further separate a high earning middle class from a lower earning class.
My opinion also is that as machines gain intelligence, employ, distribute machine learning I think the jobs most affected will be office, number based ones. And, importantly for the UK, one area that seems absolutely ripe for automaion is the city - imagine if a huge % of those workers could be removed, replaced! I'm sure people will squeal that they're unreplaceable, but they're not - but if those high earning workers are removed from the London economy and shoved down to McJobs, then where does that leave London, and with the removal of all that tax.....?
Other jobs to go - bus drivers, taxi drivers? They start testing a driverless bus near me tomorrow? So many jobs will go, and if people don't have money then working in a shop is hardly safe.
I think this will be a huge change in the next 20, 30 years. The universal wage is a very interesting concept, and if you have that, then what's the difference between that and a pension? Many things to think on.

And that doesn't get you round the problem of how parts of Britain, outside the SE are going to do to generate wealth?
 La benya 05 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Brexit ?

Erm.... try again. That choice was very much the people. The voting figures for London were very much against brexit. Westminster in this case isn't exerting ultimate power at all, it's a slave to the slobbering masses.
2
 wbo 05 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

' people work 2-3 normal days a week in middle to senior management roles for say £30-40k/year, rather than killing themselves doing 60plus hours for two or three times that amount of money. Plenty of salaried people are doing excessive hours, especially in the UK. or the USA with their very meagre holidays.'

That requires people to change mindset about what success in life means. If your idea of success is a fat pension pot and a lot of consumer items then you require a pile of cash and will buy into living to work.

One thing that drives me crazy id that if you are to do as you suggest you'll be considered insane by most HR departments although for me it seems a far better situation
 Ridge 05 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> That's nonsensical, when a foreigner comes in to plug in a skill gap in a company, the whole company benefits and learns from those new skills, including the native workers.

That's a very naive view. The company rubs it's hands in glee at the supply of ready trained workers and doesn't need to pay for apprenticeships or day release, the government doesn't have to bother adressing the underfunding of education.

> How on earth are British workers supposed to acquire those much needed skills if we keep out the very people who are bringing them ? It's idiotic.

Perhaps if we identified the skills gaps and invested in training British workers and the unemployed to fill those gaps?
 Ridge 05 Oct 2016
In reply to skog:

> Well, how about this?


> I honestly used to think the UK was not too bad, overall. I'm now terrified of what it seems to be sliding in to.

Have the rest of the EU issued guarantees on the rights of UK citizens living and working in Europe? If so then yes, it's appalling. If not they're equally guilty of using people as bargaining chips.

1
Gone for good 05 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Unlike the doomsayers I will reserve judgement on the future of the UK. It can work but remains to be seen if it will work.
1
 skog 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Ridge:

Seriously, what is this, some sort of pissing contest to see who's the biggest fascist?

All I see is a government minister threatening my wife, our family, several of my friends, and thousands of others in similar situations.

And anyway, it isn't the EU that might be scrapping rights for UK citizens - it's the UK withdrawing from the treaties that grant them!

I certainly hope other countries will guarantee the rights of people who've moved there in good faith, but those rights were already guaranteed until the UK chose to end that.
2
 Bootrock 05 Oct 2016
In reply to ian caton:

> Interesting that in Scotland, xenophobia hasn't taken control of politics. Perhaps because their politicians haven't scapegoated Europe for years and years.

Are you on drugs?

Or does anti-English not count as xenophobic? They don't blame Europe, they blame Westminster.
Did you witness some of the horrendous anti-English violence, intimidation, criminal damage and disgusting behaviour for anyone that dared to go against the SNP cult?

The SNP scraped in. And there's still Scots that want out of the EU; and a lot of Scots who voted Remain to get a constitutional change for a second referendum, with no desire to remain in the EU.

6
 SenzuBean 05 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> people work 2-3 normal days a week in middle to senior management roles for say £30-40k/year, rather than killing themselves doing 60plus hours for two or three times that amount of money. Plenty of salaried people are doing excessive hours, especially in the UK. or the USA with their very meagre holidays.

Ah yes - that is another great option for the medium term. Share what work there is evenly. But even then, automation will (I believe) also slowly trim the low-skill tail end, and low-skilled people will not have anything to do. There are limits to what an individual can learn.
 SenzuBean 05 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Well the latest thinking is that service jobs like carers will not be replaced.

Interestingly that’s the first jobs that the Japanese are trying to replace due to their ageing population. Since we can’t make our own robots, I suspect we’ll get service robots fairly early.
KevinD 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Ridge:

> Perhaps if we identified the skills gaps and invested in training British workers and the unemployed to fill those gaps?

Something that is a problem in IT, particularly in support, is a lot of the entry level jobs got offshored because it was cheaper. Problem is the only real way to get good second/third and fourth tier people is for them to start at the bottom.
1
KevinD 05 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> The UK also doesn't trust home workers to be actually do their job.

Some people dont like the sound of home working and it doesnt work in every scenario. I know quite a few people who although they have the choice of home working go into the office 3-4 days a week because it works better professionally and they prefer the social side as well.
 girlymonkey 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

How we came to this, I don't know, but this is an interesting take on British values

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2016/oct/05/akala-the-propa...
 Postmanpat 05 Oct 2016
In reply to The New NickB:

> I believe they collect the information. You seem to be suggesting something more than that, which is why I asked.

I think they often are, sometimes explicitly sometimes by implication. I'd just taken it for granted (hoho) but maybe I'm wrong.

In the case of lottery funding it's pretty explicit:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/announcements/bfi-obligates-sup...

https://www.hlf.org.uk/about-us/news-features/sporting-heritage/diversity-a...

And here in the science sector:

http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/about/equality-diversity/





 IM 05 Oct 2016
In reply to Heike:

> Next step, make international people wear a badge so that they can be identified......Ohhh....hang on, I am sure somebody tried that already 75 years ago....

youtube.com/watch?v=TA6XxYepCDs&

1
OP Trevers 05 Oct 2016
In reply to mac fae stirling:


She didn't actually say anything about "sharp lines of distinction" did she?

I don't know why James O'Brien said that? I'm deeply concerned by what she has said, but he's gone and muddied the waters. Seems pretty irresponsible to me.
 FactorXXX 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Heike:

Next step, make international people wear a badge so that they can be identified......Ohhh....hang on, I am sure somebody tried that already 75 years ago....

Or just use a Passport...
 Lurking Dave 06 Oct 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> automation will (I believe) also slowly trim the low-skill tail end, and low-skilled people will not have anything to do. There are limits to what an individual can learn.

I don't disagree but think that the "low-skill" reference is too narrow - the area that I see most change in the coming 5-10 years are the development roles that can be automated, the many grad roles in accountancy, legal advice etc. (which historically the UK has done very well). The senior roles (partners) will still exist, but the base of the supporting pyramid will be narrowed, less associates, mangers, senior managers etc. as more of the"standard" work can be crunched by algorithms.

An unpleasant implication for finance undergrads...

LD


 Ridge 06 Oct 2016
In reply to skog:

> And anyway, it isn't the EU that might be scrapping rights for UK citizens - it's the UK withdrawing from the treaties that grant them!

> I certainly hope other countries will guarantee the rights of people who've moved there in good faith, but those rights were already guaranteed until the UK chose to end that.

I see. The UK plan for Brexit should be to guarantee the EU everything, then meekly accept whatever 'punishment' the EU decide to impose in terms of trade tariffs, sanctions or the removal of the right to remain for UK citizens? It's a shit situation that I wish we weren't in and I sympathise, but I expect the UK government to negotiate the best possible outcome for the UK.
3
 RomTheBear 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Ridge:

> That's a very naive view. The company rubs it's hands in glee at the supply of ready trained workers

Companies do need a supply of ready trained workers, don't they ? And it's not naive. It happens every day of the week at work. People learn from each other's and transfer skills between them. The more varied the background and skills, the less overlap and the more value you create.

> and doesn't need to pay for apprenticeships or day release, the government doesn't have to bother adressing the underfunding of education.

They do pay for apprenticeships, but companies can't give people skills the company doesn't have in the first place.

Underfunding of education is unlikely to be addressed with a weaker economy, which is likely if companies lose part of their talent base.
But the problem in the U.K. is more the lack of vocational training in some sectors.

> Perhaps if we identified the skills gaps and invested in training British workers and the unemployed to fill those gaps?

But we do, already, unemployment was record low. Explain to us how we are supposee to train British workers to fill those gaps once we kicked out or kept out those who had those skills in the first place ?
1
 RomTheBear 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> You just said it!! "How do you expect our own population to be trained in the first place, if you keep the people who bring these skills out ?"

> If we can't train people, which is what you just claimed, then I think that counts as clueless.

No, it's just your over simplistic interpretation. Our native population has many skills that others don't have but inevitably there are gaps. And yes, undeniably, a company can't give a skill to its workforce if the skill doesn't exist in the company in the first place, that doesn't mean they are "clueless".
Post edited at 07:09
1
 girlymonkey 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Ridge:

> I see. The UK plan for Brexit should be to guarantee the EU everything, then meekly accept whatever 'punishment' the EU decide to impose in terms of trade tariffs, sanctions or the removal of the right to remain for UK citizens? It's a shit situation that I wish we weren't in and I sympathise, but I expect the UK government to negotiate the best possible outcome for the UK.

You could hope that the UK government would negotiate the best possible outcome, but I have no such expectations! I expect them to royally screw us over more than the EU would by virtue of their overtly racist and bigoted policies
2
 ian caton 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

Only ibuprofen.

Yes I get it, the Scot's blame the English. It is part of the politicians skill set to have a handy scapegoat.

Seems to be "business" is being lined up as the shoe in scapegoat once the EU is out of the frame.
 ian caton 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

Seems to me that May is focused still on UKIP. Her primary objective is to maintain the Tory party. If the Tories are seen to be fudging Brexit, UKIP will be back with a vengeance. On the other hand if she is solid on Brexit she has a chance of making UKIP irrelevant and perhaps put them out of business. Much as UKIP did to the BNP.

Similarly she is perhaps thinking that the Labour vote will collapse and UKIP will be the next opposition.

A major concern of mine is that May has taken the referendum result as a mandate for a major shift to the right. Airtime on the BBC is doled out by general election result, so no politician is speaking for the middle class liberal 48%, or at least getting any airtime. Thus there may be an even bigger lurch to the right. But then the BBC perhaps has its own existential worries.
1
 RomTheBear 06 Oct 2016
In reply to ian caton:

> Seems to me that May is focused still on UKIP. Her primary objective is to maintain the Tory party. If the Tories are seen to be fudging Brexit, UKIP will be back with a vengeance. On the other hand if she is solid on Brexit she has a chance of making UKIP irrelevant and perhaps put them out of business. Much as UKIP did to the BNP.

> Similarly she is perhaps thinking that the Labour vote will collapse and UKIP will be the next opposition.

This strategy has proven to be be very poor, it keeps ukip at bat only to the extent that they adopt their policies, and vindicate all the myths and xenophobia.

> A major concern of mine is that May has taken the referendum result as a mandate for a major shift to the right.

And even more worrying, it seems she sees it as a mandate for more control by the government.
Quite ironic given that many voted for Brexit on ground of parliamentary sovereignty.


1
 RomTheBear 06 Oct 2016
In reply to ian caton:

> Seems to be "business" is being lined up as the shoe in scapegoat once the EU is out of the frame.

Businesses and foreigners...
1
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to ian caton:
> A major concern of mine is that May has taken the referendum result as a mandate for a major shift to the right. Airtime on the BBC is doled out by general election result, so no politician is speaking for the middle class liberal 48%, or at least getting any airtime. Thus there may be an even bigger lurch to the right. But then the BBC perhaps has its own existential worries.
>
I disagree. In promoting greater government intervention and being "the party of the workers" she is clearly also moving to the left. It also provokes the question of whether UKIP is a party of the "left" or the "right" (which maybe partly what the internal battles in UKIP are about). It's symptomatic of how anachronistic the terms "right" and "left" are.

May is trying to give the Conservatives a broader political footprint by stealing clothes from both Labour and UKIP. By remaining the party of "the market" and "aspiration" she assumes she can keep her share of the middle class liberal vote.
Post edited at 08:44
3
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> I don't know why James O'Brien said that? I'm deeply concerned by what she has said, but he's gone and muddied the waters. Seems pretty irresponsible to me.
>
I wonder if he is familiar with Godwin's law?

"Something of the night" about O'Brien.

 skog 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Ridge:

> The UK plan for Brexit should be to guarantee the EU everything, then meekly accept whatever 'punishment' the EU decide to impose in terms of trade tariffs, sanctions or the removal of the right to remain for UK citizens?

Who said that? Of course the UK should try to negotiate the best deal it can.

But threatening to strip rights from people who came here legally, legitimately, in good faith, who have built lives here, is not one of the negotiating tools which would be used by a decent government of a decent country.

And that it seems to be acceptable to so much of the population (including you?) says a lot about the precarious political situation the UK is in.

Again - we're talking about stripping existing rights from ordinary people because they are the wrong nationality. We've actually crossed into that territory now, it isn't 'scaremongering' or hyperbole - we have UK government ministers proposing this, not just ordinary 'disaffected' racists on the street.
1
 Cú Chullain 06 Oct 2016
In reply to dread-i:

> Perhaps they can pass a law that makes foreigners wear a badge, so we can easily identify them. It would also make them easier to round up, should we ever need to. And a bar code tattoo, so we can process them more efficiently ...

Wow, Godwin invoked by the fourth post!!!

Yes, Rudd is Reinhard Heydrich in disguise and the next Conservative Party Conference is booked at Wannsee.
3
 RyanOsborne 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> It also provokes the question of whether UKIP is a party of the "left" or the "right" (which maybe partly what the internal battles in UKIP are about). It's symptomatic of how anachronistic the terms "right" and "left" are.

Nice try, but you can keep them thanks.

Next you'll be suggesting that Simon4 has a column in the new statesman.
Post edited at 09:01
In reply to Lurking Dave: "..An unpleasant implication for finance undergrads..."

Very true. My firm (investment bank) has a robotics team which is developing "robots" (not Metal Mickey) that sit in your computer and watch everything you do to learn how to mimic it so it can be automated and most likely you can be let go (gulp, it's probably reading this very post...). Trading is already very automated with algos, but this will help automate other areas as well like settlements.

 MG 06 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, it's just your over simplistic interpretation. Our native population has many skills that others don't have but inevitably there are gaps. And yes, undeniably, a company can't give a skill to its workforce if the skill doesn't exist in the company in the first place, that doesn't mean they are "clueless".


You do have a Trumpesque inability to admit you are ever wrong. You have now moved the goalposts by talking about companies rather than the whole country. But regardless companies can of course give employees skills not currently in their workforce - there are training courses for pretty much everything. There very, very few skills that aren't present in the UK to some degree. To say there are shortages in certain areas is correct but to claim things simply can't be done at all without immigration is nonsense.
 FactorXXX 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

My firm (investment bank) has a robotics team which is developing "robots" (not Metal Mickey) that sit in your computer and watch everything you do to learn how to mimic it so it can be automated and most likely you can be let go (gulp, it's probably reading this very post...).

Judging by some of your posts on UKC, then I would say that robot have been active for years...
 neilh 06 Oct 2016
In reply to skog:

Can you gove me a concrete example of where the govt has proposed in law( a green paper or simialr) the stripping away of existing rights.

For the life of me I cannot think of anything.
 MG 06 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

Come on! Probably not yet but the rhetoric from the conference was pretty unpleasant and point in exactly that directions. It's a really dangerous area to play with, politically, economically and socially.
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to skog:
> Again - we're talking about stripping existing rights from ordinary people because they are the wrong nationality. We've actually crossed into that territory now, it isn't 'scaremongering' or hyperbole - we have UK government ministers proposing this, not just ordinary 'disaffected' racists on the street.
>
What they are doing is looking at narrowing the group of people with special rights from those with EU citizenship to those with UK citizenship. Countries all over the world treat their own citizens differently to non-citizens and in most cases require visas of some sort to enable non-citizens to be employed. This enables them to monitor how many non-citizens are employed and doing what.

This is not some sort naziism. It's a normal responsibility of a nation state and one that the EU also undertakes in its supranational role. Nor it it unique to either UKIP or the Tories. Brown wanted to close the door to non-European care workers and Miliband to clamp down on employment of "illegal" migrant workers.

Clearly there is going to be a messy transitition from being part of a supranational entity to being a national entity. Maybe it is just that transitional mess that you are complaining about. (Personally I'd just want some sort of "amnesty" declared for all EU citizens in the UK). But the principles don't appear to be that different.
Post edited at 09:21
2
In reply to MG:

"You do have a Trumpesque inability to admit you are ever wrong."

Rom the Bear can't bear to be wrong
 neilh 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Well robots would probably trade better than humans!

Mind you most of the banking crises seem to be created by everybody following the latest algos ( nice slang) and then the mathematical assumption being proved wrong.

Both awesome and frightening.

Glad I suggesteted to my girls to ignore the City as a good prospect for jobs in the future.
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> Nice try, but you can keep them thanks.

>
I think you need to look at them a little more closely.
1
KevinD 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Very true. My firm (investment bank) has a robotics team which is developing "robots" (not Metal Mickey) that sit in your computer and watch everything you do to learn how to mimic it so it can be automated and most likely you can be let go (gulp, it's probably reading this very post...).

Are you saying UKC is going to be flooded with bots all acting like you?
Expert systems have been around for some time and are slowly improving. That said I remember chatting with someone who worked on a medical variant and being unimpressed by the diagnostic success rate. Until he mentioned what the human rate was.
 neilh 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

Have you read what Rudd actually said......?

You can easily read it one of two ways. She did say it was something they were consulting on to get feedback( she was open about this, and in all the uproar, this comment was overlooked).

So for me its a wait and see.

 MG 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Whatever honeyed words you put on it, the message and rhetoric coming out of the Tories at the moment is horrible. Every overseas colleague and friend I speak to, even those who now have UK nationality, is feeling belittled and exploited and deeply anxious about their future here. I don't believe this is accidental, it is an appeal to the xenophobic UKIP streak in society and hugely damaging. This isn't abstract, highly qualified people are leaving, and choosing not to work in the UK right now as a result.
1
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> There very, very few skills that aren't present in the UK to some degree. To say there are shortages in certain areas is correct but to claim things simply can't be done at all without immigration is nonsense.
>
Agreed. In addtiion, the whole idea behind these policies is to be able identify in which roles the UK needs non-UK labour and in which it doesn't (as do Canada, Australia, etc etc). This would obviously include the areas in which the UK requires some foreign expertise to educate the local population.

 skog 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> What they are doing is looking at narrowing the group of people with special rights from those with EU citizenship to those with UK citizenship.

That's right - as I said, removing the existing rights of a great many ordinary people, who already live here, based on their nationality.

> This is not some sort naziism. It's a normal responsibility of a nation state and one that the EU also undertakes in its supranational role. Nor it it unique to either UKIP or the Tories. Brown wanted to close the door to non-European care workers and Miliband to clamp down on employment of "illegal" migrant workers.

Restricting future migration is not the same thing as removing rights from people who already live here.

> Clearly there is going to be a messy transitition from being part of a supranational entity to being a national entity. Maybe it is just that transitional mess that you are complaining about. (Personally I'd just want some sort of "amnesty" declared for all EU citizens in the UK). But the principles don't appear to be that different.

I'm not complaining about a mess, I'm complaining about the deeply unpleasant treatment of a group of human beings which happens to include my wife.
 skog 06 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

I can only presume you aren't talking about the same thing as me. Here's the link again:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/04/liam-fox-refuses-to-guaran...
 neilh 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

“So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff, an international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra, a household name that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism, a director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust: I’m putting you on warning. This can’t go on any more,”

.......................?????
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> Whatever honeyed words you put on it, the message and rhetoric coming out of the Tories at the moment is horrible. >

I don't like it much either, but I also think that a part of the problem is the hysterical hype the media and opponents (as on this thread) create around the subject. That creates the fear in itself.

It's perfectly possible (and I hope) what we end up with some sort of system that enables current non citizens to stay and a very flexible flow of people in and out going forward. It's hardly xeonophobia for a government to actually want to know how is coming and going and where they work.
3
 MG 06 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Have you read what Rudd actually said......?

Yes, together with Hunt and Fox and the others it all adds up to a very worrying message. Maybe they won't follow through but the background noise is enough to cause worry and problems for many immigrant who came here entirely legitimately and within the rules.
 neilh 06 Oct 2016
In reply to skog:

Everything Liam Fox says is slapped down as his personal view......
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to skog:

> I'm not complaining about a mess, I'm complaining about the deeply unpleasant treatment of a group of human beings which happens to include my wife.
>
What "treatment"?

1
 skog 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

The threatened removal of the rights to live here, work here and use public services here.
 skog 06 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

That might be reassuring if it was just him saying it.
 neilh 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

Turn it round. I assume you have Uk friends who are working in the EU. Have they been guaranteed anything yet by the EU or the EU country they are living in?

I voted reman I do not like it.

Its going to be a roller coaster ride.
 MG 06 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Turn it round. I assume you have Uk friends who are working in the EU. Have they been guaranteed anything yet by the EU or the EU country they are living in?

If not, that just makes things worse still!
 neilh 06 Oct 2016
In reply to skog:

That was from Mays speech yesterday.......

 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to skog:

> The threatened removal of the rights to live here, work here and use public services here.

If she's you legal "wife" there has been no "threatened removal". And even if she isn't, there haven't been "threats. There has been a failure to guarantee the status quo. That is part of the "transitional mess".

My wife is a non EU national and she can live, work and use public services here.
1
In reply to KevinD:

I wouldn't worry too much . Having seen the limited success and take up of robot lawn mowers I think we are safe for now
 MG 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> If she's you legal "wife" there has been no "threatened removal". And even if she isn't, there haven't been "threats.

Liam Fox " “like to be able to give a reassurance to EU nationals in the UK, but that depends on reciprocation by other countries”.

That is a threat.
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> Liam Fox " £like to be able to give a reassurance to EU nationals in the UK, but that depends on reciprocation by other countries£.

>
It's a negotiating tactic, not one I support.
Post edited at 09:54
3
 GrahamD 06 Oct 2016
In reply to girlymonkey:

> You could hope that the UK government would negotiate the best possible outcome, but I have no such expectations! I expect them to royally screw us over more than the EU would by virtue of their overtly racist and bigoted policies

Well we (the population) have to take some blame for that. Overt racism and bigotry are what the polls surrounding Brexit said thats what people want - including vast swathes of traditional non-Conservative voters for whom these policies are designed to appeal.
OP Trevers 06 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Everything Liam Fox says is utter shite

Fixed
 GrahamD 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> Whatever honeyed words you put on it, the message and rhetoric coming out of the Tories at the moment is horrible.

It is. Thats because Brexit is inevitably horrible, whoever gets to oversee it.
 skog 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> If she's you legal "wife" there has been no "threatened removal".

That actually isn't how it works at all, as I know from spending quite a bit of time looking at it with her recently, and I suspect you know yourself given what you say below.

The situation is a little different depending on level of income, which we're currently OK with - but that still leaves us just a redundancy away from disaster.


> And even if she isn't, there haven't been "threats. There has been a failure to guarantee the status quo. That is part of the "transitional mess".

You're on to weasel words now. The UK is ending the status quo, and won't guarantee continuation of rights, with a government minister directly saying that they're to be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations. If you don't think that's a threat, I don't know what to say; I've no desire to spend the day arguing with you about semantics.

> My wife is a non EU national and she can live, work and use public services here.

There was a process to get there, wasn't there - was it guaranteed to be successful? And what happens if you lose your jobs (or savings)?
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> Well we (the population) have to take some blame for that. Overt racism and bigotry are what the polls surrounding Brexit said thats what people want - including vast swathes of traditional non-Conservative voters for whom these policies are designed to appeal.

Yes. Whether peoples' motivation is "racism and bigotry" or "fear" or "fear of change" or something else does a government have no responsibility to protect what its citizens perceive as their interests? And if, as has been done for several decades, successive governments ignore these "perceived interests" is the issue going to go away or is it going to fester and grow?
1
 MG 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> It's a negotiating tactic, not one I support.

It may be both but it is a clear threat, and exactly for sort of comment causing concern.

Non-EU spouses currently need visas or ILR. If I were skog's wife I would be seriously worried. If Fox's threat is acted upon she would be faced with several thousand in fees and intrusive questionnaires and, knowing the Home Office efficiency, statements like "we may not be able to return your passport for 13 months. If you require it urgently you will have to start your application again". I speak from close experience.
Post edited at 10:03
 skog 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

Aye - she's applying for ILR when we're back from our next trip abroad.

She can't do it just now because, as you say, she has to surrender her passport during the process - which is supposed to take about half a year, but can be a lot longer.

I don't know what we'll do if there is a family emergency in Sweden in the meantime.
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> It may be both but it is a clear threat, and exactly for sort of comment causing concern.

>
I don't think it will happen because it will cause too much disruption. It's a vote loser. but if it does and it results in deportations of people married and settled in the UK it it clearly a cause for a public campaign of opposition. It's one of my concerns about May that the administration of the immigration targets was deeply unfair.


I've been through the ILR process twice, and it was deeply frustrating. I had to get my MP involved. The real problem in those days was not the rules or requirements but the utter inefficiency of the Home office which didn't know it's own rules and was inefficient and slow.
Post edited at 10:19
 summo 06 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Some people dont like the sound of home working and it doesnt work in every scenario. I know quite a few people who although they have the choice of home working go into the office 3-4 days a week because it works better professionally and they prefer the social side as well.

true, so perhaps office can work more like hot desking, where staff maybe share a desk between 2 or 3 people, part home, part office. A third less travel, parking, heating, lighting etc.. With an ever growing UK working population, but with an island that isn't getting any bigger, perhaps working practices that avoid the need for a working population of 30m plus to travel daily need to change.
baron 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

So the government has decided, according to some on this thread, to remove all non British nationals from their jobs and deport them and their dependents to who knows where.
Even if this is true it gives those affected at the least two years to find a new job and country to live in. Do people usualyy get two years notice of being sacked?
I presume that those affected came here to work because it suited their needs (or maybe they work for nothing and just want to help the UK).
Well now it might be that the UK isn't going to be the country that best serves their needs and like they did before they will move and find another job.
Isn't that how things work or is the UK simply here to keep foreigners (yes I used that word) in a better paid job than they can find 'at home'?
17
 Offwidth 06 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

Plenty of people who believe in major infrastructure development and understand the rail system don't think HS2 is good value for money. Some who think it might be OK (if the costs don't continue to increase) think London Birmingham was not the right place to start the major investment (the northern bit should be first).
 summo 06 Oct 2016
In reply to wbo:

> That requires people to change mindset about what success in life means. If your idea of success is a fat pension pot and a lot of consumer items then you require a pile of cash and will buy into living to work.
> One thing that drives me crazy id that if you are to do as you suggest you'll be considered insane by most HR departments although for me it seems a far better situation

a fate that often befalls many, once they have everything they realise it isn't what makes them happy anyway and they've spend 40 years of their working life flogging away for nothing.
 summo 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I don't think it will happen because it will cause too much disruption. It's a vote loser. but if it does and it results in deportations of people married and settled in the UK it it clearly a cause for a public campaign of opposition.

given that 1 in 4 babies in the UK now has at least one parent that wasn't or isn't British, any move in that direction would indeed be a vote killer.
 MG 06 Oct 2016
In reply to baron:

> Well now it might be that the UK isn't going to be the country that best serves their needs and like they did before they will move and find another job.

They might well. And if you don't see a problem there, you are a moron.
baron 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
No I don't see a problem.
Would you care to explain what the problem is or am I too moronic to understand?
4
 MG 06 Oct 2016
In reply to baron:

> No I don't see a problem.

> Would you care to explain what the problem is or am I too moronic to understand?

I don't know if you are or not. Basically most senior people (engineers, doctors, academics finance people etc) are competitive globally and many will move if conditions in the UK are unpleasant. They are also the people who keep the economy going so losing them is a problem.
OP Trevers 06 Oct 2016
In reply to baron:

> No I don't see a problem.

> Would you care to explain what the problem is or am I too moronic to understand?

Likely consequences include the NHS coming under even further pressure, the fall of our science institutions and universities from their status as world leaders, and the exit of many multinational businesses from the UK.
 Lord_ash2000 06 Oct 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

I'm really not to worried about an increasing level of automation, people have been saying it'll leave everyone out of a job since the traction engine was invented, what's actually happened is people have gotten vastly richer/better standards of living.

The way I look at it, it'll work like this:

Lets say currently a factory needs 1000 people to make a million units of its product each year.
In 20 years time they buy in some super awesome robots which now mean the same factory only needs 500 people to make a million units per year. What that means is we now have 500 spare workers, so we can have two factories, producing a total of 2 million units a year. This means the same workforce is now producing twice the amount of stuff which means that stuff will become a lot cheaper meaning people of the same relative wealth can afford more things. win win.

Now, you can take that to the extreme and say in 200 years time, maybe you'll just need 5 people to oversee a fully automated production facility and everyone can have everything they want for next to nothing. People will effectively be so 'rich' they'll have to do barely anything we today would consider 'work' to be able to afford all the things they like. Its a nice Utopian view of the future, humans having their every whim satisfied by our mighty AI controlled caretaker, and who knows one day it might happen. People in the 2300's might look back on this time period and wonder how we coped, living under such conditions of toil just as we might look back on the lives of people from centuries past and wonder how they ever managed.

Its a fair way off just yet though so I wouldn't worry to much.


 neilh 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Offwidth:
I would love the northern bit to be sorted first.

But no doubt there is some rail expert somewhere who will point out you have to do 1 before the other because of "capacity" in the system. After all its pointless if they upgrade the northern lines and then it fails to deliver becuase the north south lines were not sorted first.So on balance I reckon the rail boffins and planners need to decide which is best.

let us not waste the opportunity.
 GrahamD 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> Plenty of people who believe in major infrastructure development and understand the rail system don't think HS2 is good value for money. Some who think it might be OK (if the costs don't continue to increase) think London Birmingham was not the right place to start the major investment (the northern bit should be first).

But the important point is....its a start. You can argue until the cows come home whether its better to drag the rail network towards the 21st century London Birmingham elsewhere but ultimately we would like to see the whole N / S network brought kicking and screaming up to a level much of the rest of Europe has enjojed for decades.
 GrahamD 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Yes. Whether peoples' motivation is "racism and bigotry" or "fear" or "fear of change" or something else does a government have no responsibility to protect what its citizens perceive as their interests? And if, as has been done for several decades, successive governments ignore these "perceived interests" is the issue going to go away or is it going to fester and grow?

Indeed it does, and that is exactly what the results are. That and the inexorable rise of UKIP
 GrahamD 06 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> Nice try, but you can keep them thanks.

It might not sit comfortably with your world view, but the appeal of UKIP IS across traditional party lines. The immigration card plays well both in Labour and Conservative heartlands.
 RyanOsborne 06 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

That doesn't make them a 'party of the left' as PP suggested, that just means that some people in Labour heartlands value racism above socialism. They are 100% a party of the far right, and it's got nothing to do with my world view.
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> Indeed it does, and that is exactly what the results are. That and the inexorable rise of UKIP

So presumably at some stage (ie.now) a government has to listen to their views and do something about it? The difficulty is to do this without being (or being seen as) xenophobic or racist and without killing the goose that lays the golden egg .

The mindless uproar by some about any attempt, clumsy or not, to steer this course will simply aggravate the problem.
3
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> given that 1 in 4 babies in the UK now has at least one parent that wasn't or isn't British, any move in that direction would indeed be a vote killer.

Exactly
baron 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
'Unpleasant', what does this mean.
According to this thread there won't be any unpleasantness.
If you're affected you'll be told to go and off you pop.
How is that unpleasant?
Unfair, maybe?
7
 MG 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The mindless uproar by some about any attempt, clumsy or not, to steer this course will simply aggravate the problem.
> Exactly

With these posts you must know you are in a complete muddle now defending the indefensible.

This thread has general and specific examples of the effect of reckless anti-immigrant talk and you call it "mindless uproar". At the same time you simultaneously claim the government is trying to appease the UKIP vote by such talk and that it is a vote loser. You really don't have to support the Tories come what may - it is entirely possible believe and defend their overall philosophy while being deeply critical of this you know?

1
baron 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:
Which is why, despite some people's protestations on this thread, it isn't going to be a government policy.

 SenzuBean 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Your analogy is good, but it's not taking into account exponential growth. Advances in AI promise exponential growth. Exponential growth feels linear all the way until it's not. We cannot extrapolate from the past to the future using a simple model for this reason. In other words, it will be extremely sudden when it does happen, and it will take everyone by surprise.
 MG 06 Oct 2016
In reply to baron:
> 'Unpleasant', what does this mean.

If you don't have basic English vocabulary, then no, you won't understand.

1
In reply to MG:
> Liam Fox " £like to be able to give a reassurance to EU nationals in the UK, but that depends on reciprocation by other countries£.

> That is a threat.

In Poland the government had to back down on abortion legislation under pressure from women who threatened to stop work. I wonder how long it would take the Tories to back down if the EU workers in the UK and their UK citizen family members withdrew their labour for a few weeks.

The surprising thing about Brexit so far, given the amount of disruption it is going to cause to families and companies with ties to the EU is the lack of organised opposition to it. I suspect this is a false peace while people were waiting to see if it would be a soft Brexit, Theresa May is kidding herself if she thinks a hard Brexit is going to be easy to implement, she is pissing off millions of relatively young and economically active people and simultaneously hurting the interests of banks, the large US tech companies, the devolved governments, Universities and landlords. None of these groups are without power.
Post edited at 11:46
1
KevinD 06 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> With an ever growing UK working population, but with an island that isn't getting any bigger, perhaps working practices that avoid the need for a working population of 30m plus to travel daily need to change.

The problem is avoiding the overlap. Again from my experience the offices tend to be busy tues-thurs and then empty monday and friday. So you still need the same level of infrastructure it just is underutilised a couple of days a week (ignoring for the moment fuel etc). For those working in London you have the problem of decent train ticket prices as well.
Hotdesks tend to either end up claimed or areas of open warfare.

It works for some (including me) but doesnt seem to do so for many. So I think as solutions go it may be overrated.
1
KevinD 06 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> given that 1 in 4 babies in the UK now has at least one parent that wasn't or isn't British, any move in that direction would indeed be a vote killer.

The "wasnt or isnt" contains two very different groups. In addition it depends on what proportion of the voting population those parents make up.
1
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> With these posts you must know you are in a complete muddle now defending the indefensible.
>

> This thread has general and specific examples of the effect of reckless anti-immigrant talk and you call it "mindless uproar". At the same time you simultaneously claim the government is trying to appease the UKIP vote by such talk and that it is a vote loser. You really don't have to support the Tories come what may - it is entirely possible believe and defend their overall philosophy while being deeply critical of this you know?
>
I'm not in a "muddle". I'm ambivalent. As I've said, personally I'd favour an amnesty and a very flexible system going forward. But that's because I'm a metropolitan liberal who generally benefits from immigration.

When people start invoking nazi comparisons and accusations of racsim and xenophobia they are losing the plot. Instead of this sort of crap perhaps they should make reasonable suggestions about alternative policies?

What are Rudd's suggestions?

1) greater attempts to identify and remove illegal immigrants.

2) making it easier to deport criminals

3))Consultations:
a) Should companies have to look harder for UK candidates before employing from overseas?
b)Should immigration laws be better coordinated with the higher education system to prioritise areas of skills requirements?


Which of these policies are the nazi ones? Should the government not consult on these issues?

If you accept that there is public concern on these issues how should government reposnd?


2
baron 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
That's twice you've insulted me.
I find your comments unpleasant.
And unnecessary (please excuse me for starting a sentence with 'and').
7
 RomTheBear 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> You do have a Trumpesque inability to admit you are ever wrong. You have now moved the goalposts by talking about companies rather than the whole country.

Not really sure what the difference is, for the most part, people work in companies.


> But regardless companies can of course give employees skills not currently in their workforce - there are training courses for pretty much everything.

Sorry but it's delusional. You can't give training courses on everything. Especially on skills that can take individuals decades to develop.

> There very, very few skills that aren't present in the UK to some degree.

Actually I could find many. The company I work for currently employs a team of a dozen contractors at ~1000£ a day each, 90% them are foreigners. Many of them have been around for years.
I can guarantee you that the only reason they pay that much to bring foreign contractors, is because they can't find anybody else. Their jobs have been advertised on the website for as long as I can remember.

> To say there are shortages in certain areas is correct but to claim things simply can't be done at all without immigration is nonsense.

I don't know if it can be done without, possibly. But speaking from experience, the most innovative and successful teams I worked with were very diverse. It's very difficult to innovate and create value if you put together people who come from the same educational system and the same cultural background. Undeniably, the most economically successful parts of the UK also happen to be very diverse.



Regardless, it shouldn't be the role of government to tell companies who they should hire. The companies know best who they need.


2
 skog 06 Oct 2016
In reply to baron:

> According to this thread there won't be any unpleasantness.
> If you're affected you'll be told to go and off you pop.
> How is that unpleasant?

Do you actually, genuinely, honestly, need it explained to you why this is 'unpleasant'? (Rather a mild word for it, really.)

If so, you have my sympathies.
 GrahamD 06 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> That doesn't make them a 'party of the left' as PP suggested, that just means that some people in Labour heartlands value racism above socialism. They are 100% a party of the far right, and it's got nothing to do with my world view.

You have your head in the sand there, sunshine. UKIP's appeal is not exclusively to the traditional far right. Its appeal is also to a sizeable number of people who in other respects are on the left. Thats one of the very dissapointing conclusion from the Brexit referendum.
3
 MG 06 Oct 2016
In reply to baron:
> That's twice you've insulted me.

I have, yes. I was responding in kind. I find you suggesting that many of my friends, colleagues and family should leave the country because of a combination of low politics, xenophobia and economic recklessness highly insulting. Particularly, as in your case, when it comes from a position of breathtaking ignorance.
Post edited at 12:07
1
 RyanOsborne 06 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> You have your head in the sand there, sunshine. UKIP's appeal is not exclusively to the traditional far right. Its appeal is also to a sizeable number of people who in other respects are on the left. Thats one of the very dissapointing conclusion from the Brexit referendum.

Don't be a patronising wanker. If you read my post properly, you'll realise that I acknowledge that.
1
 RomTheBear 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
But that's not what she said, really. She said she wanted to "nane and shame" companies that employ "too many" foreigners.
When you start implying that employing foreigners who are legally entitled to work in the U.K. is shameful, I'm sorry but you're on very dangerous grounds.

That they want to reduce the available pool of people entitled to work in the U.K. is one thing government can do, but inciting companies to actively discriminate against some people in that pool of available workers based on their origin, instead of their skills, sorry to say, but it's fascist and authoritarian (and of dubious legality).
Post edited at 12:11
 MG 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
First, as you well know, you have cherry picked bits from one minister that sound superficially reasonable. You have ignored, for example, the quote from Fox above, and Hunt talking about overseas NHS workers being here on an interim basis. Second, as again you well know, this isn't about some lawyer's literal interpretation of speeches. It is about rhetoric, mood and uncertainty. The mood and rhetorical message is foreigners bad; foreigners out. It is having the effect of making people scared for their livelihoods. You wouldn't dream of defending this behaviour coming from Labour and you shouldn't from the Tories.
Post edited at 12:22
 RomTheBear 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
I find it amazing that otherwise reasonable people end up supporting proto-fascist policies and end up defending the indefensible out of allegiance to a party.
Post edited at 12:31
In reply to RomTheBear:

"When you start implying that employing foreigners who are legally entitled to work in the U.K. is shameful, I'm sorry but you're on very dangerous grounds."

Maybe, but on the other side of the coin , a company (Byron Burger) was forced to get rid of their illegally un-entitled work staff, they were attacked with 20,000 cockroaches and street protests closing restaurants. It seems like there is nothing anyone can do without incurring the wrath of some group or another,
1
 RomTheBear 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
> "When you start implying that employing foreigners who are legally entitled to work in the U.K. is shameful, I'm sorry but you're on very dangerous grounds."

> Maybe, but on the other side of the coin , a company (Byron Burger) was forced to get rid of their illegally un-entitled work staff, they were attacked with 20,000 cockroaches and street protests closing restaurants. It seems like there is nothing anyone can do without incurring the wrath of some group or another,

It's not the other side of the coin, it's a different coin altogether.
Businesses employing (wrongly) illegal workers have nothing to do with this. Time we stop conflating illegal immigrants with foreigners.
Post edited at 12:40
In reply to RomTheBear:

I have read PP mention a few times he doesn't personally think it's a good policy in this thread. I think he is more playing devils advocate to a lot of the over reaction he has perceived as others have extrapolated the comments to bar code tattoos and deporting all foreigners on mass.
2
In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm talking about the reaction. Even companies that expose illegal immigrants will be attacked by the do gooders on twitter, in person, with insects!, What hope therefore does the government have trying to explain that they wish to know how many foreign workers work at a company? #badgeofshame etc. etc.
3
baron 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
That's three times you've insulted me.
This is a discussion about a hypothetical government policy.
Should it become a law it will not be based on xenophobia or economic recklessness but because of a democratic decision of parliament.
You and your friends might not like it but that's how it will work.
Should this highly unlikely scenario actually play out then you will have been given ample time to prepare for the worst.
I, in my moronic ignorance, think that you are worrying about nothing and are simply continuing to stir up anti EU leaver sentiment.
6
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> But that's not what she said, really. She said she wanted to "nane and shame" companies that employ "too many" foreigners.

>
So people claim, but did she? It wasn't in her speech and I can't find it anywhere else. I have a suspicion the phrase actually came from an interlocuter.

Can anybody actually find this?
 neilh 06 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Let us take a look at Sports Direct , Mike Ashley and his Shire warehouse which employs lots of low skilled migrants on shall we say dubious contracts.

Then take a look at the reaction from the local community.

Or you take what happened near me with car wash servicess provided at tesco under a franchise where migrants were getting £40 for 11-12 hour shift.Raided by the police and now stopped.

To counter that point, one of my customers - medical textiles - in the south west- growing at about 40 people a year - cannot get local peole to work there.Always now employs migrants.Its a textile mill, very well paid. Always busy.

Where is the balance? Its not an easy one to sort.
 RomTheBear 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So people claim, but did she? It wasn't in her speech and I can't find it anywhere else. I have a suspicion the phrase actually came from an interlocuter.

She was asked whether she would be prepared to "name and shame" companies that employ "too many" foreigners.
And she replied it was one of the tools under review...
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> She was asked whether she would be prepared to "name and shame" companies that employ "too many" foreigners.

> And she replied it was one of the tools under review...

The reply I read was about "nudging". So, either way, words were put into her mouth.
I'd genuinely like to see the text of the interview in question.
Post edited at 13:02
1
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> First, as you well know, you have cherry picked bits from one minister that sound superficially reasonable. You have ignored, for example, the quote from Fox above, and Hunt talking about overseas NHS workers being here on an interim basis. You wouldn't dream of defending this behaviour coming from Labour and you shouldn't from the Tories.
>

No, I've taken the relevant parts of the headline speech from the Home Secretary, the minister responsible for this stuff. What others are doing is taking odd comments, often "off line". sometimes retracted, by other ministers and reacting as if that were government policy.

I acknowledge that some of these comments are crass and unhelpful.

1
 andyfallsoff 06 Oct 2016
In reply to baron:

> Should it become a law it will not be based on xenophobia or economic recklessness but because of a democratic decision of parliament.

Being a democratic decision of parliament does not preclude it also being xenophobic or economically reckless.
1
baron 06 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
So the plan, if it's being reported correctly, is to remove all, most, some or a few workers?
EU nationals only or any foreign born worker?
The workers themselves or their dependents as well?
Do the British born children of foreign workers get to stay?
This proposal is never going to see the light of day especially given the government's track record on tracking and dealing with migration.
What it might do is spark a reasoned debate on future migration plans.
Obviously this forum won't be the place for this debate to take place.


3
baron 06 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
Indeed. But it means it is what the majority of the people want.
(If we take MPs as being representatives of the people wishes and recognising the inadequacies of our voting system.)

3
 GrahamD 06 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:


> Don't be a patronising wanker. If you read my post properly, you'll realise that I acknowledge that.

No you didn't. You said that UKIP was 100% a product of the far right.
5
 RyanOsborne 06 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

The bit before that, sunshine.
In reply to RyanOsborne:

Judging by the use of the epithet 'sunshine' today, it seems that even the beneficence of the sun's rays has become blighted by the Brexit vote.
In reply to MG:

> Wow!


It would be so fitting if the UKIP MEP who through the punch was deported from France as a violent foreign criminal.
 RomTheBear 06 Oct 2016
In reply to baron:
> So the plan, if it's being reported correctly, is to remove all, most, some or a few workers?

> EU nationals only or any foreign born worker?

> The workers themselves or their dependents as well?

> Do the British born children of foreign workers get to stay?

> This proposal is never going to see the light of day especially given the government's track record on tracking and dealing with migration.

Well actually, there quite a big track record when Teresa may was at the home office of deporting or breaking thousands or families as a result of retroactive laws. So it wouldn't suprise me one bit.

> What it might do is spark a reasoned debate on future migration plans.

Off all the adjectives you could use to describe T May approach to migration policy, "reasoned" is the last I would use. She spent her time dismissing the evidence from her department.
Post edited at 15:55
 neilh 06 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Have you got some stats on this, never read anything in the Guardian indicating this, and that would be a reasonable start.
 Offwidth 06 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

Informed critics of HS2 know that as well. HS2 starts in London as everything seemingly does not for any especially pressing reason I've ever seen. Plus if it gets much more expensive the whole thing will have been pointless from a business case perspective. Linking ports and major ciites all of which are in the north solves worse current freight bottleneck issues in an area of the country that needs more urgent help. Once done, the London links have more justification and the planning spend might even have less chance of being a waste.
In reply to Offwidth:

Doesn't HS2 start in London because that's where HS1 stops? Which is probably why they are not considering the north of Birmingham section first. No point in having two high speed sections that don't meet. Just keep adding to the existing one.
 MG 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

HS2 Euston
HS1 St Pancreas

There is a gap! George Osborne was right. Connecting the North would be a much better option.
 Offwidth 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

By that logic it might get a few miles outside London and stop. The real benefit of the HS2 high speed bit is to free up freight capacity: a factor which is arguably more needed elsewhere. Some freight might also move to the northern ports and off north-south rail if links were better.
 neilh 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Well the UK's biggest deepwater seaport is now in Liverpool,so I was told a couple of weeks ago.Not sure it is fully utilised though.....
 Mike Stretford 06 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> HS2 Euston

> HS1 St Pancreas

> There is a gap!

A small gap joined by the London Underground. A bit of walking with bags, but no worse than some connecting flight at airports.

We need to upgrade the whole network. It's not a bad idea to start, or do concurrently with other network mods, with the one that links the 3 biggest urban areas in the UK.

 RomTheBear 06 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Have you got some stats on this, never read anything in the Guardian indicating this, and that would be a reasonable start.

One example:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34191606
 summo 06 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> The problem is avoiding the overlap. Again from my experience the offices tend to be busy tues-thurs and then empty monday and friday. So you still need the same level of infrastructure it just is underutilised a couple of days a week (ignoring for the moment fuel etc). For those working in London you have the problem of decent train ticket prices as well.

You just tell people, when they are working in office, it's not a free for all, they take the job. Everyone can't have a long weekend every week.

> Hotdesks tend to either end up claimed or areas of open warfare.

Clean desk policy at cease work. Desks don't have to look like people's extension of their living room. It's a place of work, not a family shrine etc...

> So I think as solutions go it may be overrated.

I think you are full of excuses, the benefits and savings are widespread. There is even a knock on effect to child care, where folk will need to pay less (ie less hours) and have more family time in general. Work to live, not live to work.
 neilh 06 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

I looked at the migration watch figures and deportations etc. That illustrated a downward trend since 2005..... it looked just static to me.

 summo 06 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> The "wasnt or isnt" contains two very different groups. In addition it depends on what proportion of the voting population those parents make up.

Only those who are British can vote for UK MPs.
All other residents can vote in local elections or referendums etc...

Say 50% of the 1:4 are British, that's a 1:8 or 12.5% that's a fairly big potential electorate to throw away through some rash policy.
 RomTheBear 06 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:
> I looked at the migration watch figures and deportations etc. That illustrated a downward trend since 2005..... it looked just static to me.

But deportation are basically the people who refused to leave, most immigrants are law abiding citizens who leave by themselves when they've been told they can't stay.

That's why we're unlikely to see mass deportation of EU immigrants, the vast majority would just leave if they are not allowed to stay any longer, even if they been working in the country for years.
They could try to fight it in the courts, if they are given a right of appeal, which you normally have in functional democracies, but then again T May has previously removed right of appeal for some visas, which is at odds with basic principles of justice and democracy, but again, no surprise...
Post edited at 17:57
 Andy Hardy 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I'm not in a "muddle". I'm ambivalent. As I've said, personally I'd favour an amnesty and a very flexible system going forward.

"Amnesty" interesting choice of word.

 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> "Amnesty" interesting choice of word.

Yes but don't read anything into it.
 neilh 06 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

The figures recorded voluntary as well. Seemed pretty static to me.

It's all a bit meaningless as I would have thought you needed to compare it with other countries .
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> Andy Burnham is wrong. The nasty party never went away, they've just got worse.
>
And who said??

"Where there is a problem in sectors identified, we need to make it possible for action to be taken at a local level,” he said.

“We should survey employers and where there are for example more than 25% migrant workers - double the average share in the economy - Jobcentre Plus should at least be notified.

“Not to impose a quota, because it can’t do that, and it’s not the right thing to do, but to help identify there a problem might be a problem here, maybe we need to do something about the training of workers here.

“To get them the skills they need to compete to have a fair crack of the whip. Then we can set about providing the training to fix it."

2
 RomTheBear 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> And who said??

> "Where there is a problem in sectors identified, we need to make it possible for action to be taken at a local level,£ he said.

> £We should survey employers and where there are for example more than 25% migrant workers - double the average share in the economy - Jobcentre Plus should at least be notified.

> £Not to impose a quota, because it can£t do that, and it£s not the right thing to do, but to help identify there a problem might be a problem here, maybe we need to do something about the training of workers here.

> £To get them the skills they need to compete to have a fair crack of the whip. Then we can set about providing the training to fix it."

Good try, but these quotes are fairly benign, in fact, rather sensible.
That's a far cry from Amber Rudd's speech (and subsequent interview) suggesting that we'll put a badge of shame on companies that employ a global workforce. Even if it never happens (unfortunately I think it inevitably will), it really scares me that the they can even contemplate this.
Post edited at 21:38
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Good try, but these quotes are fairly benign. That's a far cry from Amber Rudd's speech.

Yere, right ;-

Nice edit. Old dog, same tricks
Post edited at 21:47
 RomTheBear 06 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> I looked at the migration watch figures and deportations etc. That illustrated a downward trend since 2005..... it looked just static to me.

Can you pass me the link ? It doesn't sound right at all, I think you're probably looking at something else, because I don't think there simply is any statistics at all on people who left as a result of change in the rules. They can't possibly be recorded anywhere.
 RomTheBear 06 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Yere, right ;-

> Nice edit. Old dog, same tricks

Nice edit. Old dog, same tricks
KevinD 06 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> I think you are full of excuses, the benefits and savings are widespread.

I am simply stating my experience working at a large company which is geared up for home and mixed environment working and has all the infrastructure in place.
It really isnt as simple or as rosy as you paint it to be. Getting it right is hard and depends heavily on the team and work type.
KevinD 06 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> Say 50% of the 1:4 are British, that's a 1:8 or 12.5% that's a fairly big potential electorate to throw away through some rash policy.

and the percentage of the overall population is? Plus how many votes would cracking down get. It is only rash if you piss off more people than you please.
 Postmanpat 06 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Nice edit. Old dog, same tricks

In response to yours!! Same old, same old.
 Postmanpat 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Come on then, who said it?

“We should survey employers and where there are for example more than 25% migrant workers - double the average share in the economy - Jobcentre Plus should at least be notified.

“Not to impose a quota, because it can’t do that, and it’s not the right thing to do, but to help identify there a problem might be a problem here, maybe we need to do something about the training of workers here."

1
OP Trevers 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Come on then, who said it?

> “We should survey employers and where there are for example more than 25% migrant workers - double the average share in the economy - Jobcentre Plus should at least be notified.

> “Not to impose a quota, because it can’t do that, and it’s not the right thing to do, but to help identify there a problem might be a problem here, maybe we need to do something about the training of workers here."

Please correct me if I've misunderstood, but this quote seems to me to be about identifying which industries and skills areas British workers are under-represented in, to inform future investment in training. I'm rather struggling to see how it's supposed to be sinister.
 Postmanpat 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:
And this isn't about skills?

"British businesses have driven the economic recovery in this country, with employment at record levels.
However we still need to do more so all British people get the opportunities they need to get on in life.

The test should ensure people coming here are filling gaps in the labour market, not taking jobs British people could do.
But it's become a tick box exercise, allowing some firms to get away with not training local people. We won£t win in the world if we don't do more to upskill our own workforce."

It's not fair on companies doing the right thing. So I want us to look again at whether our immigration system provides the right incentives for businesses to invest in British workers."
Post edited at 10:25
2
 Postmanpat 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> Please correct me if I've misunderstood, but this quote seems to me to be about identifying which industries and skills areas British workers are under-represented in, to inform future investment in training. I'm rather struggling to see how it's supposed to be sinister.

Who is it by?
In reply to Postmanpat:

Google says Ed Milliband said it
 Postmanpat 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Google says Ed Milliband said it

Ah, evil Ed, the voice of sinister Xenophobia
 summo 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Google says Ed Milliband said it

perhaps he was tackling a BLT at the time and was misheard.
OP Trevers 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Who is it by?

Ed Miliband. I don't see what point you're supposed to have made?
In reply to Postmanpat: Does seem to be a bit hypocritical. I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to explain the differences.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/amber-rudd-ed-miliband-name-and-shame...
 Postmanpat 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> Ed Miliband. I don't see what point you're supposed to have made?

That Ed Miliband's policy sounds remarkably like Amber Rudd's policy.
2
 MG 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
Not particularly keen on Milliband's quotes either but you are again (deliberately) ignoring the power and influence of rhetoric and overall message from multiple ministers which is the issue here. It's rather childish.
Post edited at 11:20
 RyanOsborne 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

That's what happens when you try to steal votes from tories by becoming a tory.
1
Lusk 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

How did we come to this?

Ask the 11,334,576 self centred idiots who voted this f*cking Tory Government in last year.
5
OP Trevers 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> That Ed Miliband's policy sounds remarkably like Amber Rudd's policy.

Did Ed suggest foreign NHS workers were only here for an 'interim period', or refer to EU nationals as a 'main card' in negotiations? Did he claim that to be a citizen of the world was to be a 'citizen of nowhere'?
 Postmanpat 07 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> Not particularly keen on Milliband's quotes either but you are again (deliberately) ignoring the power and influence of rhetoric and overall message from multiple ministers which is the issue here. It's rather childish.

I am referring back to the OP's original message which referred to Rudd. She is, after all, the Home Secretary.What is the rhetoric you object to in her speech?
1
 Postmanpat 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> Did Ed suggest foreign NHS workers were only here for an 'interim period', or refer to EU nationals as a 'main card' in negotiations? Did he claim that to be a citizen of the world was to be a 'citizen of nowhere'?

Did Amber Rudd?
1
 MG 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Rudd specifically on the idea that companies not meeting whatever percentage of UK workers are somehow unpatriotic. Minsters and the Tories more generally as I have outlined above.
OP Trevers 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

So what you're saying is that everyone is overreacting by placing her policy suggestions within the context of the general rhetoric coming out of the Conservative conference?
1
 Postmanpat 07 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> Rudd specifically on the idea that companies not meeting whatever percentage of UK workers are somehow unpatriotic.

Can you give me the source and text for that?

1
 Postmanpat 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:
> So what you're saying is that everyone is overreacting by placing her policy suggestions within the context of the general rhetoric coming out of the Conservative conference?

Yes, I'm trying to pin down how her policies are different in substance from Miliband's and which of her rhetoric is close to naziism, as the Guardian and some posters on here maintain it is.
Post edited at 12:04
1
 MG 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

It's all over the internet. And yes I know, read completely straight, in favourable chunks, without the context of the rest of the conference it may sound fairly benign. That (yet again) isn't the message though, as you well understand.
 Postmanpat 07 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> It's all over the internet. And yes I know, read completely straight, in favourable chunks, without the context of the rest of the conference it may sound fairly benign. That (yet again) isn't the message though, as you well understand.

9-11 conspiracy theories are "all over the internet".

What I can see is Fox in a fringe meeting saying the UK shouldn't agree to confirm the right of EU nationals to say until the EU reciprocates and some confusion over what May meant by using the word "interim" over foreign doctors in the UK, which she subsequently clarified not to mean they they would be expected to leave.

On the former I think the UK should just confirm their right to stay, if that is possible. The latter just seems to have been careless by May.
So what else are you referring to? And why should Rudd be targeted for the words of others?
1
In reply to Lusk:

> Ask the 11,334,576 self centred idiots who voted this f*cking Tory Government in last year.

Except they voted in a moderately pro-Europe, economically conservative Cameron/Osborne government which has little or no resemblance to what we now have.

1
 andyfallsoff 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

You could also read Amber Rudd's comments in the context of children being given letters to send to schools to confirm where they were born, and the government stating to certain non-UK academics that they won't be employed because they aren't UK citizens: https://twitter.com/sarahagemann/status/784000018290270208 . The government has clearly decided that the ref result legitimates discrimination against foreigners. Quite shocking given that nationality is a protected characteristic by law, so to do so is likely to constitute racial discrimination by law.

Whatever disingenuous arguments are being made to the contrary, context is everything here. It is a very different proposition to say that the govt could quietly gather data and use that data to inform how and where there is a need to improve education, whilst remaining welcoming to people from different countries, as opposed to using similar data in public to "nudge" employers towards "better behaviour" (the clear implication being that hiring people from overseas is not good behaviour).
 MG 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> 9-11 conspiracy theories are "all over the internet".

Well that's one view of the Guardian, I suppose, which is where Fox published his thoughts on EU nationals.

 Postmanpat 07 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> You could also read Amber Rudd's comments in the context of children being given letters to send to schools to confirm where they were born, and the government stating to certain non-UK academics that they won't be employed because they aren't UK citizens: https://twitter.com/sarahagemann/status/784000018290270208 . The government has clearly decided that the ref result legitimates discrimination against foreigners. Quite shocking given that nationality is a protected characteristic by law, so to do so is likely to constitute racial discrimination by law.

>
Can you elaborate?
1
 Postmanpat 07 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> Well that's one view of the Guardian, I suppose, which is where Fox published his thoughts on EU nationals.

I've given my view on Fox's comments but instead of dealing in generalities can you specify
which Gauradina article you are referring to?

I specifically asked where Rudd used the term "unpatriotic" because I cannot find it. Can you provide a link?
1
 summo 07 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> The government has clearly decided that the ref result legitimates discrimination against foreigners. Quite shocking given that nationality is a protected characteristic by law, so to do so is likely to constitute racial discrimination by law.

I can guarantee that Sweden will gather and have all that data already, it's a fairly left leaning socialist nation. It's only through the incompetence of various UK departments that data like this isn't already known. The state issued personal number, like an advanced NI number pretty much controls life; work, tax ,access to healthcare, banking.... everything. Here if an employer wants to bring in a Non EU worker, they apply for a visa etc and prove that those skills are needed, but also not already available in country or can't be trained up in a sensible time scale. Tied to that are conditions of minimum wages, pension contributions etc.. so cheap labour can't be brought in from overseas, thereby protect existing Swedish jobs, keeping welfare payments down etc.. Even after all that when their 4 year permit expires it might not be renewed, there are no promises.

> It is a very different proposition to say that the govt could quietly gather data and use that data to inform how and where there is a need to improve education, whilst remaining welcoming to people from different countries, as opposed to using similar data in public to "nudge" employers towards "better behaviour" (the clear implication being that hiring people from overseas is not good behaviour).

is it not sensible to only employ people from other countries in unskilled jobs after your own work force is next to fully utilised?
1
 MG 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I specifically asked where Rudd used the term "unpatriotic" because I cannot find it. Can you provide a link?

No, as I have said numerous time, that is the message and implication of all these speeches and articles

Message 1: Brexit, immigration, foreign, monitor, interim, British workers, bargaining chip

Message 2: Valued, welcome, guarantee status, expand training, invest in skills, education

Both might have the same formal policy underneath. However, the first, which is what we are getting, is f*cking despicable.
1
 Postmanpat 07 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> No, as I have said numerous time, that is the message and implication of all these speeches and articles

>
When I produce the actual policy and consultation announcements you seem to acknowledge that the rhetoric is sober and the actions not so dissimilar to Miliband's suggestions.

The idea that a government should monitor who enters and leaves a country and the match the country's requirements with the visa status of those entering the country is a commonplace of liberal democracies all over the globe. It's frankly barking hysteria to equate this with some sort fascist regime.

You then make unsubstantiated allegations about use of "rhetoric" which you refuse to substantiate. The only substantive evidence you have produced is Fox's about using EU citizens as a bargaining chip, which I have acknowledged.

Is that it?
Post edited at 12:54
2
 MG 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> You then make unsubstantiated allegations about use of "rhetoric" which you refuse to substantiate. The only substantive evidence you have produced is Fox's about using EU citizens as a bargaining chip, which I have acknowledged.

We are going round in circles

I, and othes, have given numerous examples: Fox's was one, the "interim" comments another, Rudd's refusal to deny the "name and shame" intentions, and "flushing out" out employers with too many foreign staff. You are either being wilfully blind or just argumentative or, which I struggle to believe, are really unable to understand the message is politics is far more than a literal interpretation of words.
2
 Postmanpat 07 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> We are going round in circles

> I, and othes, have given numerous examples: Fox's was one, the "interim" comments another, Rudd's refusal to deny the "name and shame" intentions, and "flushing out" out employers with too many foreign staff. You are either being wilfully blind or just argumentative or, which I struggle to believe, are really unable to understand the message is politics is far more than a literal interpretation of words.

May's interim comments were misinterpreted and subsequently clarified.

Rudd doesn't appear to have used the term "name and shame". The interviewer put the words in her mouth. and she used a different term ("nudging" I believe) in reply.

Rudd used the term "flushing out" in response to a point about training and hiring British staff.

There has been a concerted campaign by parts of the the media to portray the Conservatives as xenophobic. It plays to media stereotypes just as catching Brown out with the "bigotted woman played to a stereotype.

They've had a few wins, or at least score draws. But what you appear to have done is mistake the language of the media ("name and shame", "unpatriotic" etc") and conflate it with what was actually said, and even then you can only find one solid example (Fox's)

What is actually remarkable is ,given the media's understandable wish to play "catch the politician out" on the topic, that they have come up with so little.
1
 RomTheBear 07 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> We are going round in circles

> I, and othes, have given numerous examples: Fox's was one, the "interim" comments another, Rudd's refusal to deny the "name and shame" intentions, and "flushing out" out employers with too many foreign staff. You are either being wilfully blind or just argumentative or, which I struggle to believe, are really unable to understand the message is politics is far more than a literal interpretation of words.

In that case, even the literal interpretation of words is pretty clear.

I'm pretty alarmed by what's happening to be honest.

People voted for leaving the EU, with a very small margin, and amongst those who voted to leave, presumably a significant portion wants to remain in the single market and don't hold the kind of extreme views on immigration peddled by the "new tories" (aka UKIP 2.0).

And yet it seems this government clearly intends to take us out of the single market, without any sort of parliamentary approval.
Those who argued for "parliamentary sovereignty" have been utterly cheated it seems (as predicted...).
Post edited at 13:31
1
 RomTheBear 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> May's interim comments were misinterpreted and subsequently clarified.

> Rudd doesn't appear to have used the term "name and shame". The interviewer put the words in her mouth. and she used a different term ("nudging" I believe) in reply.

no, she was asked whether she would consider naming and shaming companies that employ too many foreigner, and she replied it was one of the tool under review she would use to "nudge" companies' behaviour.
So it's very clear the option is being considered.
1
 MG 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

"Nasty media saying nasty things about our wonderful leader". I've heard that line somewhere else in recent times.
 thomasadixon 07 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
You never understood the argument for parliament sovereignty Rom, the government are formed from Parliament and their decisions are an expression of parliamentary sovereignty. We've got exactly what we were asking for it seems to me (at least assuming the Great Repeal Bill goes through).

The idea that we who voted to leave all voted to stay in the single market, when people from the EU and the remain campaign said repeatedly that we wouldn't be able to - because we'd have to stay subject to the ECJ and we'd have to accept freedom of movement (and so effectively stay in the EU) - is a remainer claim that can be ignored.
Post edited at 13:48
1
 RomTheBear 07 Oct 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:
> You never understood the argument for parliament sovereignty Rom, the government are formed from Parliament and their decisions are an expression of parliamentary sovereignty. We've got exactly what we were asking for it seems to me (at least assuming the Great Repeal Bill goes through).

Where did you see that there was a parliamentary majority for leaving the single market ? We won't know until they are asked, but the government can take us out of the single market if they want - without asking parliament.
In fact, even the Tory manifesto clearly states "we say yes to the single market".

> The idea that we who voted to leave all voted to stay in the single market,

Not all, clearly, but that's not the point. The point is that even though there is clearly a very small majority in favour of leaving the EU, there clearly isn't one to leave the single market.
Post edited at 13:54
1
 Postmanpat 07 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> "Nasty media saying nasty things about our wonderful leader". I've heard that line somewhere else in recent times.

Except for the obvious suspects it's not about being anti-Tory. There is obviously an element of liberal metropolitan outrage but it's mainly about getting a story, and not being very imaginative that is the one they'll go for.
1
 MG 07 Oct 2016
In reply to thomasadixon:

> You never understood the argument for parliament sovereignty Rom, the government are formed from Parliament and their decisions are an expression of parliamentary sovereignty.

The government is not necessarily formed from parliament. It is formed by the Queen, and can include those outside parliament. The whole point of the commons is that it holds the government to account. Bizarre that your objection to EU governance centred on the EU parliament not being able to force the commision to act, despite having a veto over its proposals, yet you are happy for the UK government to ignore parliament and act unilaterally on hugely significant matters.

> The idea that we who voted to leave all voted to stay in the single market

Of course no one has claimed that.

> , when people from the EU and the remain campaign said repeatedly that we wouldn't be able to -

They repeatedly said the opposite in fact - that the EU would be begging us to stay in given our allegedly huge power as a result of trade.

In reply to RomTheBear:

My personal view is that prior to the referendum, the fears of uncontrolled immigration from the EU and it's effects (whatever they may be) was pretty much avoided by the Better Together camp and their supporters, mainly by either ignoring it as an issue, saying that immigrants were a net benefit, NHS will collapse without them etc. or using the xenophobic/racist card to try and shut down the debate.

Now we are after the event and Better Together lost and the Brexit won, it's hardly surprising that there is a focus on immigration from the EU. The rise of UKIP and the Brexit win have shown that immigration is a huge concern (rightly or wrongly) to large swathes of the country across the whole political spectrum of supporters. I am not sure what the Govt. is supposed to do about it, but you cannot accuse them of ignoring the message received. (yes I am aware it wasn't a landslide victory).

Maybe if the immigration issue had been debated in a different manner before the vote the result might have been different? Who knows?
 thomasadixon 07 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> The government is not necessarily formed from parliament. It is formed by the Queen, and can include those outside parliament. The whole point of the commons is that it holds the government to account. Bizarre that your objection to EU governance centred on the EU parliament not being able to force the commision to act, despite having a veto over its proposals, yet you are happy for the UK government to ignore parliament and act unilaterally on hugely significant matters.

Parliament can kick May out of government right now if they choose to. They're not, that's continuous backing for the current government.

> They repeatedly said the opposite in fact - that the EU would be begging us to stay in given our allegedly huge power as a result of trade.

No, the claim was that we'd get a really good trade deal, including almost certainly being able to stay part of a non tariff area, not that we'd stay in the EU in all but name.
Post edited at 14:05
 RomTheBear 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> My personal view is that prior to the referendum, the fears of uncontrolled immigration from the EU and it's effects (whatever they may be) was pretty much avoided by the Better Together camp and their supporters, mainly by either ignoring it as an issue, saying that immigrants were a net benefit, NHS will collapse without them etc. or using the xenophobic/racist card to try and shut down the debate.

> Now we are after the event and Better Together lost and the Brexit won, it's hardly surprising that there is a focus on immigration from the EU. The rise of UKIP and the Brexit win have shown that immigration is a huge concern (rightly or wrongly) to large swathes of the country across the whole political spectrum of supporters. I am not sure what the Govt. is supposed to do about it, but you cannot accuse them of ignoring the message received. (yes I am aware it wasn't a landslide victory).

> Maybe if the immigration issue had been debated in a different manner before the vote the result might have been different? Who knows?

You may be right, but in any case that's absolutely no excuse for taking us out of the single market, against a majority of voters, against a parliamentary majority, and against the manifesto this parliamentary majority was elected on.
In reply to RomTheBear:

"there clearly isn't one to leave the single market."

how do you know that? Everyone was fully aware it was four freedoms or bust. You are assuming the majority who voted leave would waive the free movement of people to keep access to the single market. Maybe people valued the immigration issue over and above the single market?
 RomTheBear 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
> "there clearly isn't one to leave the single market."

> how do you know that? Everyone was fully aware it was four freedoms or bust. You are assuming the majority who voted leave would waive the free movement of people to keep access to the single market. Maybe people valued the immigration issue over and above the single market?

It seems pretty logical, given that a very small majority voted to leave the EU, and polls reporting that many of the brexiteers want to stay in the single market. Even it's it's 3/4% of them, it would be enough for a majority, so I'm pretty confident it's the case. Several Polls have shown support for staying in the single market at about 2/3 as well.
The Tory majority was also elected on a manifesto that was in support of staying in the single market.

But you are right, we do not know for sure. Hence why the people, or parliament, should be asked. Don't you think it would be right that we consult either people or parliament for such a momentous, irreversible decision ?

I have no problem with may triggering article 50 to leave the EU, that was the mandate she got from the referendum result, and supported by parliament in the referendum bill.
She has NOT, however, any mandate to take us out of the single market. If she was to use the royal prerogative to do this, it would be a very dangerous precedent.
Post edited at 14:16
 Xharlie 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Was there a debate before the vote? As far as I recall, there was an exchange of stances and the other side simply trashed the stance of their opponents - both ways.

If one side says "immigrants [are] a net benefit" and "NHS will collapse without them" and the other simply says "no they aren't" and "no it won't", you don't have a debate - you have a school-yard shouting match!

The same thing happened with the economists predictions, the academics opinions and just about every well researched statement before the vote. They were denied and ignored. Both sides were guilty of this.
baron 07 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
But the EU isn't really giving us a choice about staying in the single market.
I voted to leave the EU but would have no objection to a single market.
I do object to free movement of people.
The EU has made it very clear that won't be allowed.
So no choice but to leave.
2
In reply to RomTheBear:

I don't know what it would achieve, because according to the EU, we need to sign up for the downsides to get the benefits (i'm kind of paraphrasing Hollande in this article)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/uk-must-pay-price-for-brex...

"Hollande said firmness was absolutely necessary otherwise “the principles of the European Union will be questioned” and “other countries or other parties will be minded to leave the European Union in order to have the supposed benefits and no downsides or rules”

So if we vote to remain in the single market we are back to being exactly where were (or are before A50 is invoked)...at least this is my take on it. Happy to be corrected if i'm wrong
 Mike Stretford 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> "there clearly isn't one to leave the single market."

> how do you know that?

I think Rom is right on this one. Of course I can't prove it but from people I've spoke to, and a survey of leave journalists, I'd say at least 10% of leave voters wanted to stay in the single market (which is all it would take).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/01/this-is-the-only-way-brexit-wont...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/20/nigel-farage-needs-to-stop-telli...

Not that it matters, May appears to have chosen her course. From the value of sterling, the consensus seems to be that sugar coated trade deal might not happen.

 Xharlie 07 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

The leave campaign promised that leaving the EU didn't mean leaving the single market. This was just another of their promises and those are clearly worthless. If they hadn't promised that, if it had been clear from the start that BREXIT meant hard-BREXIT, people might have considered the statements of the swathes of economists predicting the worst. Would leave have won, without the ability to poo-poo economists opinions, saying that BREXIT wouldn't affect trade because the UK could remain in the EEA?

We will never know.

If you asked parliament's opinion, as elected representatives charged with leading the country, BREXIT would never have happened. There was never a majority for leave, within parliament alone. If you watched PMQs immediately after the referendum, the revulsion within the house of commons was plain as day.

Should we have another referendum? This time, stating what BREXIT actually means - be it hard-BREXIT or some sort of soft and tepid version? Or should the elected representatives decide?
 nutme 07 Oct 2016
Nothing to worry about. Myself and every expat friend I have are looking for jobs in Switzerland, Netherlands, France and so on now. Few already moved on.

Soon we will leave you alone, no need to count us.
1
 andyfallsoff 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> how do you know that? Everyone was fully aware it was four freedoms or bust.

How can you say that when the leave campaign specifically argued that wasn't true and said that we could have both?

> You are assuming the majority who voted leave would waive the free movement of people to keep access to the single market.

No - it isn't about the majority of those who voted leave; it's about a majority of everyone. If just some of those who voted leave wanted to stay in the single market, and we assume that all those who voted remain do (as that is a reasonable inference, given that is a key feature of remaining in the EU) then we have a majority overall who want to stay in the single market.

> Maybe people valued the immigration issue over and above the single market?

I'm sure some did. But that wasn't the question, and we shouldn't now be pretending it was without at least allowing further detailed parliamentary scrutiny so that there is chance for some democratic input to decide the points which remain uncertain.
baron 07 Oct 2016
In reply to nutme:
That'll be a few less people for Rom the Bear to worry about.
KevinD 07 Oct 2016
In reply to nutme:

> Nothing to worry about. Myself and every expat friend I have are looking for jobs in Switzerland

Odd since Switzerland was proposing some not dissimilar rules until it lost the fight with the EU.

 Xharlie 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> "This doctrine holds that in the referendum on June 23 the country voted to curb immigration and, by extension, for the UK to leave the European single market."

By voting leave without any clue as to what "leave" meant, the author and every other out-voter basically handed the leave campaigners a wild-card - an open mandate to first define "leave" and then enact it.

Perhaps, to some, "leave" meant money for the NHS or some other pie-in-the-sky. The fallacy in that opinion became clear within days of the referendum - even if it wasn't abundantly clear before the vote - and a lot of leave supporters still stuck to their guns. This, in my opinion, is equivalent to supporting a wild-card mandate.

You can't hand a politician a free move and later complain about how it is being played.
In reply to andyfallsoff:

"How can you say that when the leave campaign specifically argued that wasn't true and said that we could have both? "

Did they? Maybe they did (lets face it, there was a lot of BS from all sides) but i didn't see this "specific" campaign. I did read constantly that there would be zero tolerance of breaking the four freedoms from various leaders of the EU, I remember stuff about trade deals with commonwealth countries, not enough negotiators for all these new trade deals we will have to re negotiate with the EU and rest of the world?

I don't remember a specific campaign that said we would maintain access to the single market and remove free movement of people. (that's not to say someone like Boris didn't say it)
baron 07 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
As I replied to Romthebear, I voted leave knowing that doing so would likely mean leaving the single market.
Other reasons outweighed my desire to maintain trading within the single market.
Given the choice I'd stay in the single market but not at the cost of remaining in the EU.
I can't think why anybody would not want free trade within Europe but it's the conditions attached to that trade that make some people vote leave.
1
 andyfallsoff 07 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> is it not sensible to only employ people from other countries in unskilled jobs after your own work force is next to fully utilised?

Are you only talking about unskilled jobs? That sort of defeats the point as I can't see the need of targeted training plans by the govt for unskilled jobs (which by definition, don't require people to learn skills to do).

That said, do you think UK citizens are currently queuing up to be vegetable pickers in Lincolnshire but just can't get the jobs?
 Mike Stretford 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

> You can't hand a politician a free move and later complain about how it is being played.

I agree, just going to sit back with the popcorn and watch.

Meanwhile

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/lse-brexit-non-uk-experts-...
 andyfallsoff 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

As you say, Boris said we could (the famous "pro cake and pro eating it" line). It was also argued by Norman Lamont, in the Telegraph; Dan Hannan, who cited Norway as the example we should follow of a country not in the EU but who retains some benefits; and since the vote, Theresa May has still not formally ruled out being in the single market (although the focus on immigration needing to be stopped has made it clear where her priorities lie).

Just because those of us who looked at it in more detail saw that this wasn't a likely outcome if we also restricted free movement of people doesn't mean it was a given, as the vote wasn't on the free movement of people either.
 andyfallsoff 07 Oct 2016
In reply to baron:

> As I replied to Romthebear, I voted leave knowing that doing so would likely mean leaving the single market.
> Other reasons outweighed my desire to maintain trading within the single market.
> Given the choice I'd stay in the single market but not at the cost of remaining in the EU.
> I can't think why anybody would not want free trade within Europe but it's the conditions attached to that trade that make some people vote leave.

That's fine - your choice, you're entitled to that view. But you can't pretend that the question asked was "do you want to stop free movement of people" - it wasn't, and different people will have voted for different reasons accordingly.
baron 07 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
UK workers couldn't afford to be so choosy if they couldn't make more money claiming benefits.
We could remove the pool of willing workers by preventing migration from countries where the average wage is much lower than here.
Then we need to remove tax credits so that employers pay the cost of wages and are not subsidised by the government.
This needs to be combined with a living wage.
Maximum benefits should not exceed what a person can earn working 20 hours a week on this living wage.
People who are genuinely unable (not unwilling) to work receive benefits equivalent to 40 hours work at living wage.
The increase in production costs can be partly offset by the reduced welfare bill.
3
 RomTheBear 07 Oct 2016

> In reply to andyfallsoff

She did rule it out almost explicitly, given that she excluded having the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and freedom of movement.

In fact they've pretty much excluded being part of the customs union as well, given that they indicated the will to be an independent wto member.

> Just because those of us who looked at it in more detail saw that this wasn't a likely outcome if we also restricted free movement of people doesn't mean it was a given, as the vote wasn't on the free movement of people either.

Exactly.
In fact some of the brexiteers I know have no problem freedom of movement or the single market - some of them are even married to EU nationals - they just didn't want to be part of the political union.
Post edited at 14:57
In reply to Xharlie:

> You can't hand a politician a free move and later complain about how it is being played.

Yes but the card was handed to Cameron and Osborne who were known to be moderately pro-Europe and is now being played by the rabid right of the Tory party.
1
 neilh 07 Oct 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Meanwhile in reality the USD is now at $1.25, a £200 million factory investment for rail by Alstom has been announced in Widnes creating 600 jobs.........

1
 Mike Stretford 07 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Meanwhile in reality the USD is now at $1.25, a £200 million factory investment for rail by Alstom has been announced in Widnes creating 600 jobs.........

£20million

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/07/french-train-firm-unveils-p...

They're hoping to get the HS2 constracts.

And the pound has just rocketed through the 1.11 Euro barrier

 andyfallsoff 07 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

Good news. The factory investment doesn't mean that either (a) there aren't other investments being pulled and jobs being relocated; or (b) it wouldn't have happened anyway, though.

As for the £ to $ - $1.25 is still below where it was yesterday, and part of a continuous cycle of pressure on the currency. Looking forward to all imported goods getting more expensive in time for Christmas...
 Xharlie 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Mike Stretford:

The school-yard tactics continue.
 neilh 07 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
Well maybe you have had your glory days, maybe its time for glory to those of us who have stuck with it and focused away from the European market through thick and thin.

Post edited at 15:32
3
 neilh 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Mike Stretford:

$1.2385 to be exact.

Whoops yes an extra 0.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Just read this in the Standard which I think adds something to the debate , although it doesn't touch the single market issue

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/almost-half-of-the-british-public-has-...

"Researchers said the figure was calculated despite less than 20 per cent of people identifying themselves as right-wing."
 andyfallsoff 07 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Well maybe you have had your glory days, maybe its time for glory to those of us who have stuck with it and focused away from the European market through thick and thin.

Not begrudging those who've been successful with global businesses their success at all - kind of proves we didn't need to leave the EU to do it though! (I know you said you voted remain so this is not really directed at you...).


 andyfallsoff 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

That stat just makes me sad...
 Xharlie 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> A major study by YouGov found...

Wot? YouGov are pollsters. Their numbers do not represent a "study" and they are not "researchers."
 neilh 07 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

Maybe it will help to take the shackles of the rest of the UK who have been suffering from the financial dominance in every aspect of the City of London bubble ( not good for you I know, but there are always opportunities elsewhere))

Let us see what happens. long way to go. One " flash trade" does not make a long time devalued currency.
1
In reply to Xharlie:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/extreme-views-are-becoming-the-mai...

"Joe Twyman, YouGov’s head of political and social research for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, said: “These results show that the old days of left-versus-right have been replaced by a much more complicated, nuanced mix of political groupings, with profound implications for politics across Europe. Any political party or movement that can successfully appeal to those of an authoritarian populist leaning could benefit hugely when it comes to elections.”

Taken at face value...
 Mike Stretford 07 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> One " flash trade" does not make a long time devalued currency.

Fortunately, the Tory part conference comes just once a year.
 RyanOsborne 07 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> That stat just makes me sad...

Me too, my country is turning into somewhere I don't want to live anymore.
 john arran 07 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> Me too, my country is turning into somewhere I don't want to live anymore.

Don't worry, you'll wake up soon to find the Brexit vote, currency crash, Theresa May and legitimised xenophobia will all have been a bad dream.





If only.
In reply to neilh:

> Let us see what happens. long way to go. One " flash trade" does not make a long time devalued currency.

That's not what the (much derided) experts are saying. David Bloom, a strategist at HSBC, forecasts that the pound could fall to $1.10 by the end of 2017 and sterling may hit parity against the euro. He sums it up neatly:

"The currency is now the de facto official opposition to the government's policies."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36721278





 summo 07 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:


> That said, do you think UK citizens are currently queuing up to be vegetable pickers in Lincolnshire but just can't get the jobs?

no, but perhaps rather than the taxpayer giving them money to watch Jeremy, perhaps they shouldn't have choice. Unless of course places like Boston have zero unemployment.
2
 neilh 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Over the years I have seen currency go up and down like a yoyo

You will probably find that closer to the us election the $ will devalue anyway and the £ increase.
the £ was nearly at parity with the euro a few years ago.

It's too early to say if it's a long term readjustment or a market blip.

I remember the HSBC forecasting a year ago the £/$ at 1.67 and the 2008 crash was a minor blip.nobody really knows
Post edited at 19:42
3
 RomTheBear 07 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:
> no, but perhaps rather than the taxpayer giving them money to watch Jeremy, perhaps they shouldn't have choice. Unless of course places like Boston have zero unemployment.

Unemployment in Boston is below national average. 4.4% (basically full employment).

From the BBC (may 2016):

"For example, the Boston story underlines the academic finding that there is no evidence that EU immigration is linked to higher unemployment."

"Unemployment in the town is well below the national average - 4.4% of economically active people, as against 5.2% nationally.

The town is booming, despite having absorbed a huge rise in the number of potential workers in a relatively short time. These workers have also enabled an enormous change in the local economy to take place with relative ease and remarkably quickly."
Post edited at 20:49
baron 07 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
And 75% of voters in Boston voted to leave.
 RomTheBear 07 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Over the years I have seen currency go up and down like a yoyo

> You will probably find that closer to the us election the $ will devalue anyway and the £ increase.

> the £ was nearly at parity with the euro a few years ago.

Yes and it wasn't exactly a nice time, it was quite a lot of pain for many years.
Trade weighted, the pound is actually at its lowest level ever recorded, so even worse than 2009 in that regard.
Lusk 07 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

You've never been to Boston (Lincolnshire, England that is) have you?
One of the centres of skilled labour in the UK ...
Lusk 07 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Serious question now.
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=5Y
What happened in 2014/15? I can honestly say I noticed absolutely bugger all in my day to day life with that huge fall.
 RomTheBear 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Lusk:
> You've never been to Boston (Lincolnshire, England that is) have you?
> One of the centres of skilled labour in the UK ...

I was there 5 months ago and I have friends and a work colleague from there.
Asked her about brexit once, and that was the last. Her explanation for voting out being "too much change in ethnicity ". One of those argument that started with "I'm not racist but ...,". When I asked her to give an example of how foreigners had impacted her life negatively in any way, only answer I had was a blank followed by an awkward silence.

I'm not saying it's representative, but I have a feeling people there have been scared by rapid change and people they don't know changing their communities, even if the changes are overall positive, and there isn't any real practical downside, the irrational fear and sense of loss of identity is still there.


Post edited at 22:14
1
 IPPurewater 07 Oct 2016
In reply to skog:

Do the Swedes have national ID cards ? If so, she should be able to travel using that as her ID. Do check though.
Lusk 07 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I'm not saying it's representative, but I have a feeling people there have been scared by rapid change and people they don't know changing their communities, even if the changes are overall positive, and there isn't any real practical downside, the irrational fear and sense of loss of identity is still there.

Hah hah, breakthrough, you finally acknowledge that people have concerns about immigration.
 RomTheBear 07 Oct 2016
In reply to Lusk:
> Hah hah, breakthrough, you finally acknowledge that people have concerns about immigration.

Never, ever, denied it, on the contrary.
The problem is that these concerns do not match up with reality, this is well supported by tons and tons of evidence.

At the end the day, xenophobia is a perfectly natural human irrational fear, that I understand.

It's like being afraid of spiders, our brains are already wired to fear them, but on top of that if you read every day in the press an on TV that evil spiders are after you, you'd be freaking out big time, and probably start taking irrational disproportionate anti spiders measures.
If instead, you were told calmly the truth and the scientific fact that the this spider is completely harmless, it goes a long way to alleviate the fear, IMO.

Telling the truth - even if it goes against popular beliefs - unfortunately, is not something very common in politics these days.

So yes, you have to acknowledge the fears and concerns people have but where they are irrational, politicians need to have the balls to say it and explain. It's difficult and it takes leadership.

Instead what they've been doing is reinforcing those fears to get votes, whilst doing absolutely nothing about them - until it comes back in their face with Brexit, racial attacks all over the country, and millions of foreigners all around the country genuinely scared of what's going to happen to them, and who do not understand what they have done to suddenly deserve so much vitriol - and their fear, in this case, is a very rational one.
Post edited at 23:43
1
 FactorXXX 08 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

The problem is that these concerns do not match up with reality, this is well supported by tons and tons of evidence.

How about the fact that 75% of Eastern Europeans are in low skilled work?
Don't you think that might be a cause for concern for some?

 RomTheBear 08 Oct 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:
> The problem is that these concerns do not match up with reality, this is well supported by tons and tons of evidence.

> How about the fact that 75% of Eastern Europeans are in low skilled work?

> Don't you think that might be a cause for concern for some?

Why would it need to be a concern ? They don't seem to displace existing workers and effect on wages is pretty much neutral to native workers - or even positive.

Even a place like Boston, as pretty unique example of extremely high immigration from Eastern Europe, has a lower than average unemployment level.
Post edited at 06:01
1
 summo 08 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> They don't seem to displace existing workers and effect on wages is pretty much neutral to native workers - or even positive.
> Even a place like Boston, as pretty unique example of extremely high immigration from Eastern Europe, has a lower than average unemployment level.

What percentage of locals remain in Boston who grow up there beyond 18 years old? Locals will be displaced just like all those in pretty much any national park. The employment pays too little as companies can hire overseas staff for less. As you say the locals probably dislike it because their whole lifestyle and town demographics have changed. Perhaps some of those voting out, were parents who thought it might have been nice if their kids found work or housing nearer home, or those with kids and see local services at breaking point which isn't the fault of the migrants but the local funding, but with many workers living in extreme conditions I imagine most aren't paying a grand plus a year in council tax etc..

I did kind of pick Boston deliberately as it's an extreme example, although repeated in a few other place from Hull round to Yarmouth because of the agri work. Will be curious to see how things change, as the subsidy system changes, possible food prices rise.
Post edited at 06:51
 RomTheBear 08 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:
> What percentage of locals remain in Boston who grow up there beyond 18 years old?

A lot more than before, according to that BBC article: Young locals actually have jobs to go to if they want to, thanks to all the economic activity brought by migrants and the place becoming a small hub for the food industry. Before it was a sleepy farming town with not much going on in terms of jobs for the local youth.

I'll agree that immigration, in this specific example has transformed a sleepy farming town into a hustling and bustoing town, with lots of jobs and opportunities.
I understand the nostalgia and those who say they preferred it when it was a less diverse rural town with maybe a more cohesive community, but let's be honest about it instead of lying and pretend this has been bad for local workers. The town native population has increased massively so it's not the case that people have been displaced, on the contrary.

As an experiment, let's replace all the Eastern European fruit pickers by unemployed Glasgow neds. The locals will be asking for their Eastern European migrants back in a matter of days
Post edited at 07:54
 neilh 08 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

OR those businesses( which include large warehousing facilities) invest in the latest technology and boost productivity which also improves the productivity of the country and means generally higher wages and less hours .

It's a tough counter argument.

I never understand all these hand car wash places that have sprung up. Automatic ones usually far better.
 RomTheBear 08 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:
> OR those businesses( which include large warehousing facilities) invest in the latest technology and boost productivity which also improves the productivity of the country and means generally higher wages and less hours .

> It's a tough counter argument.

> I never understand all these hand car wash places that have sprung up. Automatic ones usually far better.

I entirely agree with you on this point. Many elementary occupations in the U.K could be replaced by increased productivity and automation.
Your car wash example is a classic economy textbook case.
Why invest in an automatic car wash If can still find someone who can do it by hand and still be economically viable without taking any risks ?

Careful increases in the national minimum wage are a good way to achieve that, which were on their way - of course this will now be in jeopardy.

Or you can do like France and make it very hard and expensive to actually hire people, and have higher unemployment, and higher productivity. Personally I prefer our system.

But let's not forget either way that we're talking about a third of EU immigration only doing this kind of jobs, and an even smaller share of those doing those jobs that could be automated.

For the most part the rest of the immigrant workforce in fact increases productivity - and wages - by complementing the skills of existing workers and plugging skills gaps. In fact productivity - and therefore real wages - had started to catch up quite nicely in the past years - along with fairly high net migration levels. Not sure it's going to comtinue now...
Post edited at 09:24
 FactorXXX 08 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
Why would it need to be a concern ? They don't seem to displace existing workers and effect on wages is pretty much neutral to native workers - or even positive.

I work in the manufacturing sector in the South West of England and can categorically tell you that UK workers have been replaced by ones from Eastern Europe. Wage increases in the manufacturing sector have been pretty much non existent for at least 5 years due to the recession, so you can't really say what impact they've had on wages, etc. Saying that, Eastern Europeans might well be altering the way people are employed due to the fact that they are more likely to do agency work and adopt flexible working hours at short notice.
Post edited at 11:46
 RomTheBear 08 Oct 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:
> Why would it need to be a concern ? They don't seem to displace existing workers and effect on wages is pretty much neutral to native workers - or even positive.

> I work in the manufacturing sector in the South West of England and can categorically tell you that UK workers have been replaced by ones from Eastern Europe

Possibly, the question is whether they have been displaced, as opposed to replaced.
There is no denying that many unskilled jobs have been filled by Eastern European workers, but they haven't made the British workers unemployed, instead they've moved to better paid or better jobs.

Low-skill EU immigrants usually cluster in low-tech manufacturing, construction, and cleaning jobs, where they are already over represented - limiting the competition with native workers, but are disproportionately less likely than unskilled UK-born workers to hold managerial roles, at the same level of skills, uk born worker also earn significantly more than non-U.K workers.

Basically we have this situation where unskilled British workers can get better jobs than they previously had, and over qualified Eastern European workers working in low skills jobs.

The only situation where that wouldn't be a win for the native worker is if they are not interested in those better paid jobs that have been created and instead would prefer the lower paid jobs.

This may be true to some extent, as for example some manfuctaring jobs can provide a certain pride and stability, and a strong sense of community and identity, that working in a soul-crushing, unsecure service sector job can't. I totally accept that, but it is very much a lie that without immigration they'll be able to get those low skills jobs and be well paid as well.
Post edited at 13:07
1
 FactorXXX 08 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Possibly, the question is whether they have been displaced, as opposed to replaced.
There is no denying that many unskilled jobs have been filled by Eastern European workers, but they haven't made the British workers unemployed, instead they've moved to better paid or better jobs.


Replaced.
The UK workers replaced by Eastern Europeans generally end up in the service sector and certainly don't go to better paid jobs.


Low-skill EU immigrants usually cluster in low-tech manufacturing, construction, And cleaning jobs in general, but are disproportionately less likely than unskilled UK-born workers to hold managerial roles.

This is how it works in my experience of the manufacturing sector: -
The Eastern Europeans are better educated than their UK counterparts and it's quite common to have degree educated people at the very bottom level of the shop floor. They're motivated to work and are willing to work shit hours at short notice, etc. which pretty much makes them the perfect employee. Because of their education and motivation, they are the ones that are invariably promoted to such jobs as 'Team Leaders'. If any jobs come up in the office or labs, again, it is invariably the Eastern Europeans that will get those roles.

Maybe nationally, there isn't a 'problem' with immigration, but to say there isn't a problem in some geographic areas and industry sectors is perhaps a little bit naïve. Maybe if this sort of problem was recognised and discussed without accusations of xenophobia being thrown about then we wouldn't be facing the prospect of Brexit?

 RomTheBear 08 Oct 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Wage increases in the manufacturing sector have been pretty much non existent for at least 5 years due to the recession, so you can't really say what impact they've had on wages, etc. Saying that, Eastern Europeans might well be altering the way people are employed due to the fact that they are more likely to do agency work and adopt flexible working hours at short notice.

Just to set the record straight, wages in manufacturing have increased faster than the rest of the economy after the recession, from what I've seen : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11052103/Manufacturing-wages-defy-UK-wid...

It seems wages have been held down more specifically at the lower end though, mostly down to the rise in agency staff and temporary contracts, and deals struck with unions, so you may have point here. But seems to me more a matter of labour market regulation than immigration, really.

 RomTheBear 08 Oct 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:
> Possibly, the question is whether they have been displaced, as opposed to replaced.

> There is no denying that many unskilled jobs have been filled by Eastern European workers, but they haven't made the British workers unemployed, instead they've moved to better paid or better jobs.

> Replaced.

> The UK workers replaced by Eastern Europeans generally end up in the service sector and certainly don't go to better paid jobs.

> Low-skill EU immigrants usually cluster in low-tech manufacturing, construction, And cleaning jobs in general, but are disproportionately less likely than unskilled UK-born workers to hold managerial roles.

> This is how it works in my experience of the manufacturing sector: -

> The Eastern Europeans are better educated than their UK counterparts and it's quite common to have degree educated people at the very bottom level of the shop floor. They're motivated to work and are willing to work shit hours at short notice, etc. which pretty much makes them the perfect employee. Because of their education and motivation, they are the ones that are invariably promoted to such jobs as 'Team Leaders'.

I don't have a problem with that, companies will employ those who are the most productive and motivated - that's good for businesses and the economy at large , which in turn provides more opportunities fort a greater number of people.

The fact is that British workers will have certain advantages over eastern eruopean workers, and vice versa, hence why they tend to cluster in specific sectors as the private sector will make the best use of each, this is the reality of a flexible labour market, nobody said it's perfect, but so far, it seems that the UK natives - on the aggregate - are benefiting from it.

> Maybe nationally, there isn't a 'problem' with immigration, but to say there isn't a problem in some geographic areas and industry sectors is perhaps a little bit na£ve. Maybe if this sort of problem was recognised and discussed without accusations of xenophobia being thrown about then we wouldn't be facing the prospect of Brexit?

You are perfectly right. And we've discussed it rationally, with eyes opened to actual evidence, and I haven't accused you of xenophobia, and you haven't accused me of "sneering metropolitan elite", if only it could be the same everywhere.

I have no problem with this topic being discussed this way, but the topic has been hijacked by populists who blatantly distort the facts to blame immigration and foreigners for political gain, to the point that the majority of the population has a completely biased perception of the reality of immigration in this country - that's what's pissing me off.
Post edited at 13:57
 FactorXXX 08 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

I don't have a problem with that, companies will employ those who are the most productive and motivated - that's good for businesses and the economy at large , which in turn provides more opportunities fort a greater number of people.

Capitalism then and sod the indigenous working class?
1
baron 08 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
So what happens if, for example, the large pool of migrant workers is no longer available?
The low skilled jobs will still need doing.
UK workers will demand higher wages and better working conditions with who knows what affects on the economy.
But the biggest losers will be the migrants who despite wanting to work will be unable to do so in the UK. Hence the demand for free movement of labour by the eastern european countries whose economies will be deeply affected.
When negotiations to exit begin it would be crazy not to use the migrant economy as a bargaining tool.
Unfortunately many voters won't accept any form of unregulated migration so things don't look too good for EU migrants in low skilled jobs.
 FactorXXX 08 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

You are perfectly right. And we've discussed it rationally and I haven't accused you of xenophobia, and you haven't accused me of "sneering metropolitan elite", if only it could be the same everywhere.
But the problem is the lack of context and perspective in the way it is discussed, it is framed by populist as immigration and foreigners being the problem, instead of geographically localised, sector by sector, finely balanced effects, with limited evidence, that are not so easy to understand.


No, you haven't accused me of xenophobia, but the OP's opening gambit was very much one of using xenophobia as a tool to denigrate what was said by the Conservatives at their conference.
Surely, if people are open and welcoming to potential problems of immigration, then one way is to gather data about how and where they are employed?
 RomTheBear 08 Oct 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:
> I don't have a problem with that, companies will employ those who are the most productive and motivated - that's good for businesses and the economy at large , which in turn provides more opportunities fort a greater number of people.

> Capitalism then and sod the indigenous working class?

I'm all in favour of regulating capitalism - and for example make it impossible for employers to offer only shitty hours and flexible contracts that only the most desperate will accept.
But that's not going to happen at the national level. If we do, then they'll just move their investment somewhere else where they can compete at the same level, or just cut their margins and profits and become crushed by their competitors, and then you enter a race to the bottom,

That's was one of the advantage of being part of the EU, to have common levels of protection for workers. Now, unfortunately, we'll leave the EU and have less immigrants - but paradoxically the competition between workers will be only more intense.

One of the criticism of the EU would be that they haven't done enough in this area - but ironically, the main reason they haven't done more to protect workers rights - even though they have done quite a lot already - is because British governments kept vetoing it.
Post edited at 14:15
 RomTheBear 08 Oct 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:
> No, you haven't accused me of xenophobia, but the OP's opening gambit was very much one of using xenophobia as a tool to denigrate what was said by the Conservatives at their conference.

> Surely, if people are open and welcoming to potential problems of immigration, then one way is to gather data about how and where they are employed?

We already do, we have plenty of ONS labour surveys for that, researchers use it, ultimately, HMRC already has all the data of who works where and their nationality, and they have it available for their research.

It wasn't what was suggested by the government, they suggested to force companies to publish lists of their foreign workers and shame them if they had too many. That is definitely pandering to xenophobia, and definitely doesn't do anything to help understand the issues, and understandably, millions of foreigners legally working in this country are now left feeling wondering what on earth they have done to deserve this.
Post edited at 14:18
 FactorXXX 08 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

It wasn't was was suggested by the government, what was suggested was to force companies to publish lists of their foreign workers and suggested they would be shamed if they had too many. That is definitely pandering to xenophobia, and definitely doesn't do anything to help understand the issues.

I think that very much depends how you want to view what happened and what papers you read.
I took it to mean that they intended to do a data gathering exercise, others think differently...
However, either way, there's no doubt that there's a lot of nervousness about raising the issues of immigration and it's potential problems/impact on the UK and some people are all too ready to accuse people of xenophobia if they put their head above the parapet.
 RomTheBear 08 Oct 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:
> It wasn't was was suggested by the government, what was suggested was to force companies to publish lists of their foreign workers and suggested they would be shamed if they had too many. That is definitely pandering to xenophobia, and definitely doesn't do anything to help understand the issues.

> I think that very much depends how you want to view what happened and what papers you read.

I've read the transcript of the speech, and the interview. I read both right wing and left wings newspapers.

> I took it to mean that they intended to do a data gathering exercise, others think differently...

Don't be disingenuous - it clearly wasn't, and it's obvious, as explain above - we already have this data. Even if we didn't, the intent of the policy was clearly "name and shame", not gathering stats for public policy.

> However, either way, there's no doubt that there's a lot of nervousness about raising the issues of immigration and it's potential problems/impact on the UK and some people are all too ready to accuse people of xenophobia if they put their head above the parapet.

That's is simply not true, all we hear about is immigration, both labour AND the Tories are talking of the problems of immigration, exaggerate them, and spread myths and lies far from any evidence, just to try to get votes. Yes, they are playing with fear - hence the accusation of xenophobia - totally justified in this case.

I agree with you it was the case that in the past you couldn't talk about it - but now the situation is reversed, hold views based on evidence instead of perception and you're immediately accused of being the PC brigade.
Post edited at 14:37

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...