Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I just read about the KKK distancing themselves from the BNP (specifically Griffin) in The Star (lunchtime newspaper of choice ). In some ways it seems strange that we desire a more extreme 'right wing supremo' to replace Griffin. I wonder if the BBC will have the balls to do a Griffin/Paxman interview, I'd watch that.

@Spiggott - Yeah - I'd watch that, too. It'll be less of a middle-class smugfest, and harnessing the power of Griffin's nervous tics while Paxman slaps him about would probably solve our energy problems for a few years.

MGS asked how I could identify people as foreign whilst at a JobCentre - I replied that they where using interpreters. Once again, I never explicitly stated that non english-speaking people were taking all retail jobs in major metropolitan areas. Unless you can provide a direct quote of me saying this, I guess it's 1-1 - so S8N!

Anyway - let's get back on topic, as this can't have been much fun to read for other posters.

When the KKK distance themselves from you - you have major problems!

I hope they do so. But they'll have to be careful about how they go about it. If the accusations (which havn't been denied yet) that the BBC 'cherry picked' the audience to cause maximum disruption are fully proved then they (BBC) will have to provide an opportunity to redress the balance. Let him trip himself up with his own words, not try to mislead him into saying something he does not mean to.

Now while I think that this will show up the BNP it will be very uncomfortable for the mainstream parties, as for all their faults the BNP are asking the questions that the majority of voters are wanting asked. I saw a poll taken after the show in which a tiny fraction would consider voting BNP but an overwhelming majority wanted the government to answer the questions he was raising.

Non PC has never been so popular.....

Andrew

Well that is a fair point.

No party has made the case for immigration. If anything, the current govt. have leant backwards to appease Daily Mail readers.

I believe the BBC have denied cherry picking the audience. I have in the past wondered how Question Time go about picking people out of the audience to give these questions. I had always assumed that some sort of pre-selection was used if not of the audience then certainly of the questions. If they get this pillock making a fool of himself again on TV it may be no bad thing.

@Albatross: As your worker numbers are just a figure you pulled out of your arse I don't suppose it matters how many. Don't be so hasty to keep score it's unbecoming, and stop that irritating passive aggressive ploy of demanding the end of a conversation without allowing for a retort. I think you will find that the lumpen-proles love a good squabble.

@GS - Being a lumpen prole, I too love a good ruck! . It's just that a Mod was telling me (I assume) to knock the insults on the head. But fine, let's keep going - I'm game if you are RedS8N was keeping score, so that was a retort to him - and you still haven't found the quote I mentioned. What numbers did I furnish you with? I inferred that there where a lot of foreigners at the JC - MGS asked how I knew that - I replied that they were using interpreters.
Liked the Guardian article - Asylum-seekers up? Interesting. But yeah, people seem to be going home due to the recession, and (slightly)fewer seem to be coming in, fair enough.

Good.

Albatross wrote:…and you still haven't found the quote I mentioned. What numbers did I furnish you with?

Which one did you mention, this one? “I never explicitly stated that non English-speaking people were taking all retail jobs in major metropolitan areas.” Quite right, many isn’t all, have a cookie. My disagreement you’re your position still stands as there is there’s absolutely no substance to your claim. "Many" and "very often" suggest a great number of the total available (otherwise it’s completely meaningless) if not an actual numerical value.

How do you know these "many" people in these jobs are foreign? As your mean of determining they were foreign in the Jobcentre was that they required interpreters what are your means in say McDonalds or Primark? BTW: Accents don't count.

Then there's this:

Albatross wrote:Actually, I don't think he [Nick Griffin] said anything that bad...

Is this trolling disguised as literalism (he was very careful to not reveal his true beliefs) or something else?

The Dreadnote wrote:According to Radio Times, the panel also includes Justice Secretary Jack Straw and Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman. I'll be watching, even though it'll probably just make me angry if I have to listen to the tossers.

/ There fixed that for you

@GS - he said some pretty outlandish stuff, but it wasn't the political pornography most people were expecting, that's all I meant. You're not a MOD - don't act like one.
I also think you are fairly biased and definitely have some sort of agenda behind this line of questioning. If you want to call me a racist, at least have the courage of your convictions and do so - you are very obviously implying that my postion is based on racial politics. My position is this: Especially during a recession, we should have a stricter immigration policy, given the high levels of unemployment in the UK. Foreign unskilled workers should not be allowed enter the country and take jobs from British workers (of every ethnicity). The article you linked to DID show that people where going home in greater numbers and that immigration growth was slowing. It also showed that Asylum-seeker numbers are on the increase. The immigrant population is still growing - growth hasn't stopped, so I was technically correct in my OP. Your bias won't let you see or admit this, apparently.
And why do non-british accents not count all of a sudden?

@Andrew: Polls are unreliable sources of information. You can only say "the majority of poll-participant voters wants this or that". A poll involves at best a few thousand people, and these people want their opinions to be heard, it's just slightly representative of a general population, but never an accurate source of information. Sadly, many people think polls are! which breeds braindead statements of "he says what everyone in this country thinks but is afraid to say themselves". besides, people who have time to fill in polls obviously have time to spare, might be uneducated/unemployed and will in some cases take a more extreme stance because of that, skewing the result.I used

I'm not a minority for NOT thinking what "everyone" thinks but "dares not say". I think the MAJORITY of people think it's BS to make such statements. Among these "taboos" a lot IS actually said by people ("Benefit-takers stink", "the government never does anything right" etc.).

Moreover, the only way to make the market for unskilled work fair is to fix wages for jobs (with room for inflation). Everyone in the same country, with the same job and experience/skill should earn the same amount of money. No mutations should be allowed for immigrant workers. This will improve the opportunities for native speakers, or those immigrants with an accaptable level of skill in the required language. In my country, quite a few immigrants speak better Standard Dutch than a lot of provincial natives, who just grunt or drawl for a bit and expect anyone to understand what they are saying... even British dialects/accents are more intelligeble than the weird sounds some of my fellow countrymen/women produce when they appear to be talking... and I live in a tiny country!

Herohammernostalgia wrote:Everyone in the same country, with the same job and experience/skill should earn the same amount of money.

What reason would there be for paying two people who are equally valuable differently without your policy enacted?

well, someone might actually ask LESS money for a job to improve his chances to be hired.

I wrote what I wrote, because there is the notion in many western countries, that foreign labour is cheaper, hence more in demand for employers. That is because prices of living can be very different depending on the country. For example, a Czech could have a better life with Dutch minimum wage when he returns to his homeland with his earnings than a Dutchman staying where he is with the same salary. This is the cause of anxiety for many "native people" as said Czech might ask less money for his work, knowing he could have a good life with less money than the Dutchman entitled and requiring to a certain minimum or standard rate of pay (which he has to take as iit is offered, or he/she can negotiate for more, rather than offering to do it for less)

I know pretty sure that official labour, i.e. through job/employment centres are following local laws on employment and salaries. More concern should be aimed at black market labour, illegally "tax-free" labour (clandestine?). That damages the state and it's social institutions (the state loses two tax opportunities), and the job opportunities for all other people who follow the legal channels.

Herohammernostalgia wrote:well, someone might actually ask LESS money for a job to improve his chances to be hired.

I wrote what I wrote, because there is the notion in many western countries, that foreign labour is cheaper, hence more in demand for employers. That is because prices of living can be very different depending on the country. For example, a Czech could have a better life with Dutch minimum wage when he returns to his homeland with his earnings than a Dutchman staying where he is with the same salary. This is the cause of anxiety for many "native people" as said Czech might ask less money for his work, knowing he could have a good life with less money than the Dutchman entitled to a certain minimum or standard rate of pay.

Wouldn't the logical move be for the Dutchman then be to move to the Czech Republic? (Ha! Almost said Czechoslovakia!) And for the people in the Czech Republic to raise prices where they can (do to the influx of new income)?

I have no doubt that the cost of living in China is lower than it is in America (Meal for five costs $10? Sweet!), but they still don't have the actual purchasing power that the average American in America (or person of another wealthy nation in that nation) would likely have. Most impoverished Americans have cable, if I recall. A lot more people own cars, food is a lot less of their budget, etc.

In that sense, the people living in poorer countries should theoretically deserve a wage somewhere between their actual wage and the wages paid in wealthier nations.

I know pretty sure that official labour, i.e. through job/employment centres are following local laws on employment and salaries. More concern should be aimed at black market labour, illegally "tax-free" labour (clandestine?). That damages the state and it's social institutions (the state loses two tax opportunities), and the job opportunities for all other people who follow the legal channels.

I agree that it's never good for criminals to benefit while law abiding citizens suffer, but I don't see why anyone should be unable to sell their labor for a specific price. Much like drug-dealing and the like, it's never easy to come in and stop two consenting adults from agreeing to exchange things.

What you say, I can't deny to be a valid opinion. Sure he could [move to the Czech Republic], but if he will work there, his mobility to move back or visit his homeland is reduced. Raising prices and wages will take a long time to 1) be accepted, 2) take effect. In the mean time, the potential problem remains. In addition, those who complain about immigrant labour have little international mobility to start with. It's moving an issue to another place, rather than a solution. In addition, Europe is very different from the USA, few countries speak the same language, and a lot of foreign languages are not part of school curriculi. Teaching in the language might be unavailable or expensive. A Texan will have an easier time migrating to, say, Massachussets than a Dutchman in Poland or Spain were few people speak foreign languages the Dutchman might know (french, English, German)
Immigrating to a cheaper country with lower wages seems a bit counter-intuitive, or do you mean "work in the Netherlands, live in the Czech Republic"? I find that a big hassle just to save money...

Purchasing power is quite local in most cases, it does affect imported goods but it it's effect is far more national than international. besides, prices could be lower, wages are too, so it's not very effective to migrate to low-wage/price countries. Chinese, indeed earn very little money, and they obviously pay less to just live. Domestic luxuries are priced accordingly too.

I'm not at all against immigrant labour, but if immigrants are allowed to do a job cheaper, it's unfair to the local unemployed.

Herohammernostalgia wrote:I'm not at all against immigrant labour, but if immigrants are allowed to do a job cheaper, it's unfair to the local unemployed.

You could look at it that way for sure. I would not go so far as to call it unfair, mainly because business has always worked in this fashion; only recently have people been getting "fair pay for fair work". You can look back over the last century alone, and see how drastically things have changed.

Regardless of these changes though, large companies have adapted accordingly. In construction, labor goes for about 10$/hour, at least for a simple job, or a stady job (20$ is nice, but half the work is most definitely not). If someone hired a migrant worker for less than that, I would say that those people, are in fact the real problem. It has less to do with competition in the field, and more to do with a lot of consumers not giving so much as a flying feck, as long as they save a lot of money in the process. The reason that you and I, can now get massive TV's, and computer monitors, is because a bunch of companies, took their business (in part) to cheaper workers, simply to make money, and in turn, change that money into progress.

When you see a person working harder than you, it is fair to assume that you should be trying to compete for whatever work there is in that field. The problem with this, is that for an average native, of relatively comfy origins (as in, not whatever country the immigrants are coming from, for lack of work), it can be realistically impossible to do so. Essentially, the cheaper goods get, the cheaper the labor becomes. This is most definitely not in proportion to the bottom line in most cases, but it does often lead to relatively efficient economies. You run into problems, when massive companies, make massively stupid decisions, and that is basically where we are right now.

Unionizing is simply not the answer, and even though minimum wage is outrageously low, people that take those jobs out of necessity are not really a major part of the problem. I really don't mind that there is no work at McDonalds for me, just that a plethora of other problems, create a very, extremely nasty job market; where a lot of people simply scramble for work, and the cheaper bids are usually the ones to get the work. I prize quality and forethought, the problem is that a lot of consumers (basically most) could give a rat's ass, as long as whatever they are getting is as "good" as the next persons, "thing'... people like shiny stuff, and they like it incredibly cheap.

@Albatross: However the increase in asylum seekers is quite small, around 400 people from all walks of life. Yes the immigration numbers are growing, they always have and always will, what matters is the rate of growth. Raising the bar for immigration eligibility and repatriating criminal and illegal immigrants are good ideas. Closing the borders every time there’s an unemployment spike (of which this one is certainly not as bad as the previous one in the early 90s) is not. Accents don’t count because there’s no guarantee that the person you’re talking to is not a British citizen.

So these sweeping statements that you posted are neither racism nor trolling? You’ve externalised your employment problems onto another group (immigrants) and you post these comments knowing full well they will get a reaction. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

http://www.slapnickgriffin.co.uk/

@GS - I don't advocate closing the borders, only being more selective about who we let in, I'm not suggesting we implement anything that is not already in place in several countries (Australia and USA spring to mind). You don't stop being an immigrant after obtaining a British passport, either - so the citizenship point you raised is irrelevant.
And if wanting British jobs to go to British people makes me a racist, I suggest you stop reading Guardian articles and have a lie down. I am the only British employee in my workplace (I'm working part-time whilst at Uni as a mature student), and there are currently around 3 million britons who are unemployed. Am I racist if this makes me uncomfortable? Who are you to say that? What makes you my moral authority? Did I miss that email?
I'm not the only person in the UK concerned about immigration - read a newspaper.

There are various issues with immigration.

1. All EU citizens have the right to reside and work in other EU member states. This also benefits Brits who want to go and work abroad.

Obviously not everyone agrees this is ideal, however there will be some very heavy political lifting to be done to get us out of our treaty obligations.

Without some clear plan of how to do this and a good idea of how it will affect everything (Brits being denied work abroad, for example) it's useless to worry about this aspect of immigration.

2. Immigration has been tightened by the skill points system similar to what is used in the US and Australia.

3. It has also been reduced by the fall in the value of the £, which makes the UK a much less attractive place to work in and send money home to Poland or wherever. Most immigrants are moving on economic reasons. If they home country could be made a better place to live and work, they would not be so keen to come to the UK. (Clearly not an easy fix!)

3. We can't automatically give preference to British born workers if they are low skilled. Some rather high percentage of schoolchildren leaves English schools semi-literate/numerate and this does not fit them for work in the modern economy.

Whilst it isn't their fault, to deny businesses the chance to employ well educated foreigners does not address the core problem and probably makes things worse by dragging down UK productivity.

4. There is a certain amount of illegal immigration going on. This needs to be effectively addressed or it acts as a poisonous wedge issue for the whole thing.

Or, they could do the hard, but far better job and at least fix it in the European Union as a whole, and later, the UN too! It would solve so many problems...

Herohammernostalgia wrote:What you say, I can't deny to be a valid opinion. Sure he could [move to the Czech Republic], but if he will work there, his mobility to move back or visit his homeland is reduced. Raising prices and wages will take a long time to 1) be accepted, 2) take effect. In the mean time, the potential problem remains.

I still think a chance to increase the standard of living is worth pursuing, even if it's being pursued slowly.

In addition, those who complain about immigrant labour have little international mobility to start with. It's moving an issue to another place, rather than a solution.In addition, Europe is very different from the USA, few countries speak the same language, and a lot of foreign languages are not part of school curriculi. Teaching in the language might be unavailable or expensive. A Texan will have an easier time migrating to, say, Massachussets than a Dutchman in Poland or Spain were few people speak foreign languages the Dutchman might know (french, English, German)

True, there's some loss inherent in trying to move between two places; learning the language is one example, the plant ticket there is another.

Still, this should effect both the Czech going to the Netherlands and the Dutchman going to the Czech Republic equally. The only reason you would move is if you had a lot to gain; enough to overcome the inconvenience of moving.

Immigrating to a cheaper country with lower wages seems a bit counter-intuitive, or do you mean "work in the Netherlands, live in the Czech Republic"? I find that a big hassle just to save money...

Isn't it natural that flexibility in where you're willing to work/live will result in being able to pursue the most amount of wealth? I mean, if you really like staying where you are, then you may value that over a chance for more money; but that's just the choice you often have to make. It's the same as me being, say, offered a job in California. I don't particularly want to move there, so that would factor into my decision of taking it.

Purchasing power is quite local in most cases, it does affect imported goods but it it's effect is far more national than international. besides, prices could be lower, wages are too, so it's not very effective to migrate to low-wage/price countries. Chinese, indeed earn very little money, and they obviously pay less to just live. Domestic luxuries are priced accordingly too.

I'm not sure what you're saying here; what I'm saying is that even if you factor in the difference in the price of living, there are countries that a are poorer and richer than others. A loaf of bread might cost less in Russia, but your average American can still buy more loaves.

Wrexasaur wrote:You could look at it that way for sure. I would not go so far as to call it unfair, mainly because business has always worked in this fashion; only recently have people been getting "fair pay for fair work". You can look back over the last century alone, and see how drastically things have changed.

Regardless of these changes though, large companies have adapted accordingly. In construction, labor goes for about 10$/hour, at least for a simple job, or a stady job (20$ is nice, but half the work is most definitely not). If someone hired a migrant worker for less than that, I would say that those people, are in fact the real problem. It has less to do with competition in the field, and more to do with a lot of consumers not giving so much as a flying feck, as long as they save a lot of money in the process.

But workers are consumers as well. If a farmer gets less money, but people buying food are paying less, than is it a good thing or a bad thing over all? (You'd have to see how much money was gained and lost. Usually when this kind of thing happens, though, it's a net gain.)

Herohammernostalgia wrote:Or, they could do the hard, but far better job and at least fix it in the European Union as a whole, and later, the UN too! It would solve so many problems...

The EU is a very long project in which the rich nations (France, Germany, UK, Holland, etc.) give money to the poor nations (Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc) much of which is invested in infrastructure, boosts their economy and stops them being poor. The Germans have also been contributing to the development of what used to be East Germany.

You'll notice that Ireland and Spain, (Greece and Portugal not so much) have been immensely boosted over the past few decades, and one hopes might now be ready to contribute to the task of funding the development of more recent accession countries like Romania and Poland.

@Killkrazy - Do I remember correctly that the points system is a relatively recent development? It'll be intersting to see how that pans out. It probably would have made sense to have had it in place before Poland etc. joined the union. D'oh!

How does everyone feel about 'President Blair'? Do you feel as full of dread as I do?

I don't know exactly when the system came into effect but it's the last year or two.

It doesn't apply to EU citizens and wouldn't keep out Poles.

I don't want to 'keep out Poles'!
I was afraid that it wouldn't prefer free movement between EU states, though.

Just read the UK Border Agency site - it said that migrants from recently-joined EU member-states still have to apply for permission to live in the UK. Interesting.

Albatross wrote:I suggest you stop reading Guardian articles... ...read a newspaper.

You really are the master of mixed messages aren't you. There's no value in an extended accusation/denial cycle. I'll pop back in if it gets interesting.

BTW: you forgot to refute the accusation of trolling.

Orkeo wrote:But workers are consumers as well. If a farmer gets less money, but people buying food are paying less, than is it a good thing or a bad thing over all? (You'd have to see how much money was gained and lost. Usually when this kind of thing happens, though, it's a net gain.)

The Farmers are not doing anything wrong when it comes down to it, and when you compare the number of farmers (I.E. jobs) to the number of people saving money, there is really no "moral" contest left. At any rate, the major issues are clearly with corporations like Monsanto, that are merely trying to GMO monocrop themselves into world power, which is basically where they are at now.

I would love to call some of my ideas about Monsantos plans science-fiction, but they would clearly work, and Monsanto would clearly take any option that benefited them beyond any moral ultimatum.

Well, I wasn't specifically referring to farmers. Just saying in general, making less in wages may not make you worse off if things become less expensive.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, I wasn't specifically referring to farmers. Just saying in general, making less in wages may not make you worse off if things become less expensive.

Agreed in general, I think I interpreted your post in the wrong way.

When goods universally stay cheap (nothing really goes backwards on the whole of it), wages don't "need" to go up much further. In the age of milk/gas doubling in cost over the past few years, while wages have stayed at a basic standstill; there is a verifiable problem in the way goods and services are flowing through the economy. As far as I can tell, marketing is getting bigger and bigger, with more and more money being poured into it, while the quality of the most basic of goods (soda for example) has gone down in general.

When was the last time you saw a can of soda for 50 cents? I had to be in elementary school the last time I saw that.

Dollar Tree was actually selling 4-packs of Stars and Stripes cola for $1 not too long ago. They were the big cans too, I was impressed.