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.

nfe wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Cheap workers are needed for example in seasonal agriculture because there aren't enough British people available.

And when those workers have British children a lot of them end up educated and don't want to work the kind of jobs their parents used to do.

If those workers aren't British, their children aren't either (legally, culturally may be a different matter!).

Most long-term immigrants naturalise at some point.

I recently watched the Theresa Vs. Boris docu-drama on the BBC about that last year's sham of a leadership contest. It's still up on iplayer.

I'm a political junkie, so yeah, I was in there, but it's a still a good watch in a fascinating car crash sort of a way.

These people are so lacking in self-awareness, so incompetent, so devoid or bereft of vision or talent, and the tragedy is that these people make the decisions for the rest of us

jouso wrote:

nfe wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Cheap workers are needed for example in seasonal agriculture because there aren't enough British people available.

And when those workers have British children a lot of them end up educated and don't want to work the kind of jobs their parents used to do.

If those workers aren't British, their children aren't either (legally, culturally may be a different matter!).

Most long-term immigrants naturalise at some point.

Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


None of this addresses Howard's point:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Again, encouraging immigration to pay for an ever growing, aging population is not sustainable. How do you pay for the growing population today, in 20-30 years time? Even more migration again? At what point does it just collapse? Open door, mass migration is not needed, we need migration targeted into key services with shortages, not just throwing the doors open to cheap workers which primarily suits corporations to depress wages.

Well it does but you are missing the point that you need to consider the ages of migrants versus elderly. We have an aging population. In 30-40 years time about 25% of our population will be over the retirement age. This will include a proportion of migrants. Since the early 2000s migrations has been roughly steady by about 250k to 300k per year. There's no particular reason to see that this will change in the coming years assuming things stay the same. As such barring any world calamity it is likely that this migration figure will remain roughly 'as is'. Our own natural instincts will mean that there is no such thing as 'uncontrolled migration' else we would have a million people one year and none the next. Given that we have roughly steady immigration. The vast majority are working age. Hence in 30-40 years the then immigration will sustain the now immigrants in retirement. The real problem is the reduction in UK births, as such the UK populace is not having supporting enough children to offset it's own pensioners. We are covering this shortfall by a sustainable migration that will support itself in future if you leave it alone, but it will also support the 'bump' in our aging population.

Now lets assume we suddenly try and control our immigration to the 10's thousands. Now we have a problem where the number of working people declines rapidly leaving a massive shortfall in the ability of the country to be self sustainable in 30 to 40 years - the population declines and a larger proportion of the population is required just to manage this older generation. All immigration does is maintain our population *in the long term* as those people that settle will then also start having less children as human populations have less children when they are in stable environments. The assumption that the population will continue to grow is based on the assumption that birth rates will not fall any further in the existing populace, but they will continue to do so simply because less children having less children means a declining population.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:


Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).

That depends on what you mean by naturalise? Many work, bring up families, use the local gym, rent/buy a house and so on. Is that not naturalised (though I really hate the wording as that implies there is some relevance in swearing an arbitrary allegiance to a certain piece of rock).

nfe wrote:

jouso wrote:

nfe wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Cheap workers are needed for example in seasonal agriculture because there aren't enough British people available.

And when those workers have British children a lot of them end up educated and don't want to work the kind of jobs their parents used to do.

If those workers aren't British, their children aren't either (legally, culturally may be a different matter!).

Most long-term immigrants naturalise at some point.

Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).

Seasonal agricultural workers move around Europe as the seasons bring work in different areas. They don't tend to settle in one area near one type of crop.

Tories cheer as they vote down a Labour proposal to increase wages for the emergency services.

Cheered.

They don't learn, do they?

nfe wrote:

jouso wrote:

nfe wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Cheap workers are needed for example in seasonal agriculture because there aren't enough British people available.

And when those workers have British children a lot of them end up educated and don't want to work the kind of jobs their parents used to do.

If those workers aren't British, their children aren't either (legally, culturally may be a different matter!).

Most long-term immigrants naturalise at some point.

Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).

Yeah, of course I wasn't refering to the seasonal pickers but rather the rest of the cheap workforce working hospitality and other unskilled labour.

Whirlwind wrote:

nfe wrote:


Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).

That depends on what you mean by naturalise? Many work, bring up families, use the local gym, rent/buy a house and so on. Is that not naturalised (though I really hate the wording as that implies there is some relevance in swearing an arbitrary allegiance to a certain piece of rock).

I was exclusively talking in a legal sense, I don't think rights associated with arbitrary geopolitical borders should be at all meaningful but they're what we're talking about

Kilkrazy wrote:

nfe wrote:

Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).

Seasonal agricultural workers move around Europe as the seasons bring work in different areas. They don't tend to settle in one area near one type of crop.

Eh, yeah? That's exactly what I meant when I said their naturalising obviously hasn't been the pattern.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

nfe wrote:

jouso wrote:
Most long-term immigrants naturalise at some point.

Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).

Yeah, of course I wasn't refering to the seasonal pickers but rather the rest of the cheap workforce working hospitality and other unskilled labour.

Again, they're mostly EU these days and they've tended not to bother so much since there is (was!) no need. When they have it's usually in applying for permanent residency, which does have similar results but doesn't make them UK citizens.

I don't think any of this is right, incidentally. I'm a no-borders-at-all-as soon-as-possible guy.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Tories cheer as they vote down a Labour proposal to increase wages for the emergency services.

Cheered.

They don't learn, do they?

As long as Tory supporters don't learn, their masters never need to.

nfe wrote:

Whirlwind wrote:

nfe wrote:


Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).

That depends on what you mean by naturalise? Many work, bring up families, use the local gym, rent/buy a house and so on. Is that not naturalised (though I really hate the wording as that implies there is some relevance in swearing an arbitrary allegiance to a certain piece of rock).

I was exclusively talking in a legal sense, I don't think rights associated with arbitrary geopolitical borders should be at all meaningful but they're what we're talking about

May's view on being naturalised though appears to require people from other countries to get a tattooed barcode on there arm. No one needs to be force naturalised. Just let people do and go where they wish.

There is a reasonable argument that private businesses and individuals are best placed to decide where people are wanted for genuine reasons, rather than the UK government or Mrs Miggins.

If the insomnia is bothering you...

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/negotiating-documents-article-50-negotiations-united-kingdom_en



fair few more papers & positions than the UK has prepared thus far it seems.


Our lot better get their arses in gear.

 reds8n wrote:
If the insomnia is bothering you...

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/negotiating-documents-article-50-negotiations-united-kingdom_en



fair few more papers & positions than the UK has prepared thus far it seems.


Our lot better get their arses in gear.

How would we know? According to May and her supporters we don't need to know what our position is. Apparently it would be stupid to "reveal" your hand.

I think it shows how confident and well organised the EU is, and how weak and ill-prepared we are.

It's a debacle.

You know, I'd like to see at least one week to by without one of our political parties shooting themselves in the foot.

Please think of the feet!

On the subject of Brexit, it's amusing to see people being shocked at Corbyn's decision to fire 3 of his shadow ministers over the single market vote.

Corbyn has been anti-EEC/EU since the 1970s, and in the grand scheme of things, Corbyn needs the UK out of the EU if he's to embark on his great nationalisation project.

If anybody was hoping that Labour would back a 'soft Brexit' ( I despise that term ) then they're in for a shock.

Hard Brexit is the only game in town.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Hard Brexit is the only game in town.

This is why so many of us who supported remaining are, to be honest, fething livid about what is going on because; a) it completely ignores what nearly half of the country wanted at a time when finding common ground and building bridges is desperately needed and b) there were plenty of leave campaigners prior to the referendum stating categorically that if you voted leave it wouldn't mean we would leave the single market. If they had been honest about what they were intending to do the vote would probably have gone very differently.

 Jadenim wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Hard Brexit is the only game in town.

This is why so many of us who supported remaining are, to be honest, fething livid about what is going on because; a) it completely ignores what nearly half of the country wanted at a time when finding common ground and building bridges is desperately needed and b) there were plenty of leave campaigners prior to the referendum stating categorically that if you voted leave it wouldn't mean we would leave the single market. If they had been honest about what they were intending to do the vote would probably have gone very differently.

That's something we'll never be able to prove, but I've been saying for months that in the short-term, Brexit will see the UK go backwards, but IMO, the long term benefits are worth it.

To be fair to the EU, and I don't like to be fair to the EU, they have been honest and upfront about the four freedoms being non-negotiable.

Having access to the single market is not the same as being part of it. It's an important distinction.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On the subject of Brexit, it's amusing to see people being shocked at Corbyn's decision to fire 3 of his shadow ministers over the single market vote.

Corbyn has been anti-EEC/EU since the 1970s, and in the grand scheme of things, Corbyn needs the UK out of the EU if he's to embark on his great nationalisation project.

If anybody was hoping that Labour would back a 'soft Brexit' ( I despise that term ) then they're in for a shock.

Hard Brexit is the only game in town.

I take back everything mean I've ever said about Corbyn.

Eh, even a blind squirrel is right twice a day.

 Jadenim wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Hard Brexit is the only game in town.

This is why so many of us who supported remaining are, to be honest, fething livid about what is going on because; a) it completely ignores what nearly half of the country wanted at a time when finding common ground and building bridges is desperately needed and b) there were plenty of leave campaigners prior to the referendum stating categorically that if you voted leave it wouldn't mean we would leave the single market. If they had been honest about what they were intending to do the vote would probably have gone very differently.

I think the best thing to do is request asylum from (or migrate to) another EU country. Then you can move abroad as the population of England and Wales (Scotland will leave soon enough and maybe NI) decide that the best way forward is to build a wall, become a country of grouchy OAPs, and flush the country's and their children's/grand children's future (those that are left anyway) down the toilet whilst yelling non-sensible (or plainly incorrect) soundbites at each other. Still at least by being in the EU you can point and laugh at the idiocy of it all with pretty much everyone else in the world (apart from Trump supporters who seem to have a fair amount in common).

Don't be silly Whirlwind.

I have no desire to leave my country for the EU. If my country is sinking, I want to stay and help bail it out not desert it like rats.

I'll say this to Shadow Captain and Future War Cultist: I know you're not great fans of Corbyn to say the least, which is fair enough, but when it comes to Brexit, I would trust Corbyn any day of the week to deliver Brexit over May, Bojo, Gove, etc etc

Corbyn has been on record since the 1970s with his opposition to EEC/EU and that level of opposition has not dropped one bit.

I disagree with Corbyn on a lot of things, but for 40 years, he's stuck to his guns on Europe and I can respect that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Hard Brexit is the only game in town.

This is why so many of us who supported remaining are, to be honest, fething livid about what is going on because; a) it completely ignores what nearly half of the country wanted at a time when finding common ground and building bridges is desperately needed and b) there were plenty of leave campaigners prior to the referendum stating categorically that if you voted leave it wouldn't mean we would leave the single market. If they had been honest about what they were intending to do the vote would probably have gone very differently.

I think the best thing to do is request asylum from (or migrate to) another EU country. Then you can move abroad as the population of England and Wales (Scotland will leave soon enough and maybe NI) decide that the best way forward is to build a wall, become a country of grouchy OAPs, and flush the country's and their children's/grand children's future (those that are left anyway) down the toilet whilst yelling non-sensible (or plainly incorrect) soundbites at each other. Still at least by being in the EU you can point and laugh at the idiocy of it all with pretty much everyone else in the world (apart from Trump supporters who seem to have a fair amount in common).

As I've said before, I respect EU supporters even though I disagree with them. A Remain supporter who voted on June 23rd, is worth a thousand leave supporters who didn't vote.

I sincerly hope that Remain supporters stay and help build our country's future. After all, it's your country as well, but if people have to leave for whatever reason, I respect that as well. Having lived and worked abroad, I know it's not easy, so they have my respect for doing that.

In my biased view, and I've always said this, the first 5 years will be tricky, becuase things will have to adjust to the new order of things, but in a few years time when things settle down, I think we'll be ok.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I have no desire to leave my country for the EU. If my country is sinking, I want to stay and help bail it out not desert it like rats.

The eagles prefer to soar to new roosts when the nests are get ran over.... If the UK want's to shoot itself in the bow, keel and hull for what is effectively ideological nonsense then you can't expect people that prefer to stay in a more inclusive, wider, tolerant society to leave the sinking ship rather be press ganged into doing it and try and rescue the situation for other parts of the population. That's not really 'rats leaving a sinking ship' it's just common sense if you think that for no fault of your own the ship is listing badly and about to try and go down with all aboard. If you want to try and stay and bail it out with a leaky bucket and rag then fair enough...

It appears that Corbyn isn't really listening or seeing what happened to May. So you've got a hard right Tory party or a hard left Labour party neither that want to see other points of view and sack people that disagree with them. In essence Corbyn isn't actually any better than May in terms of being inclusive. So he's rapidly trying to purge any people that disagree with his politics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/five-shadow-ministers-forced-to-quit-corbyn-shadow-team-after-voting-soft-brexit_uk_59552c3ce4b02734df30af9f?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-chairman-deselected_uk_59562e36e4b0da2c7322c70f?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

The problem with this is then you have two parties that won't compromise and we will just end up with the NI fiasco spreading into the UK. It's all well and good thinking it will be all right in the end, but this period is likely to end up being the most damaging to UK for generations and it's not likely that the country will recover over that time. Not simply because of Wrexit but also how the politicians are handling it all. Corbyn is going to get a shock when he wakes up one morning to find that a lot of people voted for him to stop May not because they really supported a hard left alternative. The likelihood is that if he was looking to get a massive majority for the same thing then May would have been the one gaining ground to stop Corbyn. As such I would recommend to anyone to leave the Country because it's shipping water really fast now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'll say this to Shadow Captain and Future War Cultist: I know you're not great fans of Corbyn to say the least, which is fair enough, but when it comes to Brexit, I would trust Corbyn any day of the week to deliver Brexit over May, Bojo, Gove, etc etc

Corbyn has been on record since the 1970s with his opposition to EEC/EU and that level of opposition has not dropped one bit.

I disagree with Corbyn on a lot of things, but for 40 years, he's stuck to his guns on Europe and I can respect that.

As would I. I'm on the fence regarding Corbyn.

What I don't like is how he's blatantly a Marxist, and though I do agree with some socialist policies (protect the NHS, bring back and build more social housing etc), I think he might take things too far. I also don't like the company he keeps or has kept in the past, the IRA, Hamas etc. He's a fan of some very repressive regimes like Venezuela.

Before this election, I'd always considered Corbyn to be more of a reformer, not someone likely to win an election and lead a Government. Someone who would purge Labour of the Blairite wing, and drag the party kicking and screaming back to its roots in the Left. I didn't think he could ever win an election but after this General Election anything is possible.

I don't particularly like or agree with the Left, but I think its important to have a stark and distinctive choice between parties. We need a traditional socialist party of the working class and working middle classes, just as we need a traditional social conservative party. This clustering of the parties in the centre ground (that gives rise to the phase "You can't get a cigarette paper between them!" does us no good.

From the moment Corbyn was elected to lead the Labour party I've been cheering him on, gleefully watching as he purged and marginalized the Blairite old guard of New Labour. I utterly LOATHE the New Labour Blairites and what they did to this country and elsewhere, particularly Iraq. I'll never forgive them, and until this election I'd resolved to never vote for the Labour party. I still didn't vote for the Party really, rather I voted for my local Labour MP because I liked him as an individual, he directly helped to create my current job, and the Tory candidate was insulting.


So in summary...I'm warming to him.


Also, I will say one final remark. Its always been my firm belief that Parties do not win elections, Governments lose them. We do not vote for the opposition because we like them, we vote for the least crap option to kick out the utter rotters currently in charge. I have no doubt that we'll be having similar conversations in 10 or 15 years time about how awful that Corbyn Government was.

I'm constantly bemused at how some people (not referring to anyone here, just generally in life) keep smugly pointing to the facts that statistically more young people and 'better educated' people voted Remain and Labour. And then blindly self-congratulating without cottoning onto the wider context/correlation of what they're saying.

That is to say, the fact that 50% of young people now go to University, whereas most old people did not.

In other words, plenty of older people are just as intelligent as the young 'uns voting today. They have alternative qualifications which would have been the equivalent of the generic degree now, and had to sit through much more selective and rigorous exams for the qualifications they do have. Formal education is great, but just because a 22 year old has a 2:2 in Psychology from the University of Kingston in reality does not mean that they're better educated or smarter than a 50 year old pharmacist who sat themselves through night school in the 1980's.

Frankly, the metrics of young people attending University now is so high compared to what it used to be that you could correlate virtually any activity/knowledge/behaviour primarily involving by young people and say it's technically performed by the better educated segment of the population. Young people are both more likely to have heard of the indie music group Seafret, and to also have degrees. That doesn't mean that two things are related though. The education doesn't make them more likely to have heard of Seafret , any more than it necessarily has anything to do with which way they recently voted.

The very basic fact of 'Correlation is not causation' seems to have passed a lot of people by. If more young people vote a certain way, it's a statistical inevitability that the 'better educated' segment will also vote that way. It's nothing to do with how smart people are.

University education is no guarantee of intelligence. I should know, I graduated.

 Ketara wrote:
I'm constantly bemused at how some people (not referring to anyone here, just generally in life) keep smugly pointing to the facts that statistically more young people and 'better educated' people voted Remain and Labour. And then blindly self-congratulating without cottoning onto the wider context/correlation of what they're saying.

That is to say, the fact that 50% of young people now go to University, whereas most old people did not.

In other words, plenty of older people are just as intelligent as the young 'uns voting today. They have alternative qualifications which would have been the equivalent of the generic degree now, and had to sit through much more selective and rigorous exams for the qualifications they do have. Formal education is great, but just because a 22 year old has a 2:2 in Psychology from the University of Kingston in reality does not mean that they're better educated or smarter than a 50 year old pharmacist who sat themselves through night school in the 1980's.

Frankly, the metrics of young people attending University now is so high compared to what it used to be that you could correlate virtually any activity/knowledge/behaviour primarily involving by young people and say it's technically performed by the better educated segment of the population. Young people are both more likely to have heard of the indie music group Seafret, and to also have degrees. That doesn't mean that two things are related though. The education doesn't make them more likely to have heard of Seafret though, any more than it necessarily has anything to do with which way they recently voted.

The very basic fact of 'Correlation is not causation' seems to have passed a lot of people by. If more young people vote a certain way, it's a statistical inevitability that the 'better educated' segment will also vote that way. It's nothing to do with how smart people are.

I think you're right. Many young people voted Labour, and these days are more likely to be educated to a degree level, but I do wonder if they will continue to vote that way.
I've been centre left since a teen, but only recently actually joined the labour party because for the first time in my adult life they seem like a significantly different political animal to the Labour party of the 90s. At the time of Blairs election I remember thinking, thank God, at last the Tories are out. I didn't realise we'd just voted in a different flavour of Tory. (I was politically ignorant at the time tbh)
Back on topic though, what interested me in the exit poll was the amount of working people who voted Labour. The only demographic that voted overwhelmingly Tory were the retired, every other economic strata voted Labour. That tells me that he Labour party are on the right track, and we just need to wait for the Baby Boomers to peg it before we get a Govt that finally reflects the aspirations and beliefs of the rest of the population that isn't claiming a pension.

I sat down and quizzed a young hardcore Corbynite the other day over a few drinks (in an amicable sort of fashion). What I learned was that they had no idea what socialism generally entailed, or any idea of socialist history and previous administrations of that political makeup. Yet they very strongly supported Corbyn.

At first they wanted to know why I'm not all over the bloke too. When I outlined how my issues with him however (namely, the shallowness of his proposals and complete lack of explanation as to how he'll handle the negative effects of his policies in a controllable way), they got quite thoughtful. As someone who'd listened to far more of his soundbytes than me, they agreed that he hadn't really mentioned any of the more complex factors/potential outcomes of his intended policies.

I can't help but wonder if that trend holds true across the youth generally, as opposed to the older members of the population. Political and economic history isn't exactly taught evenly across the population. I'm coming to suspect that the disparity of support for Labour (a much higher percentage amongst the youth than the elderly) is down to the fact that the older buggers have actually lived under a socialist administration. They have some knowledge, even if purely from an empirical level, of what it entails.

Whereas the youth? Not so much. All they can see is a bloke who can claim to not be part of the establishment, who actually has a different set of policies for the first time in forever, who promises them absolutely anything and everything is possible. It's a heady mix. The fact that John McDonnell is a proclaimed Marxist and wants to be Chancellor means nothing, because they don't actually understand (for the most part) the full ramifications which would result if he got the post.

See, I'm not personally against a socialist administration, but I need to have faith that they know what they're doing, that they've identified the things that have tripped up other socialist administrations in the past and know how to avoid/minimise them. And I can't help but wonder if many of the 40+ crowd are sitting in the same boat as me, and that's why they're so much more dubious/sceptical of Corbyn.

Many young people voted Labour because they bribed them with free tuition.