Keir Starmer

[Jacob]

I'm always sceptical when it comes to studies created by some obscure academic so let me give you an actual working example of how migration has grossly affect the people in my locality.

Sounds like you are offering another amateur study done by some unknown geezer on youtube!
Or did you put much time in on this? Do you have any figures? Are there a lot of would-be casual workers being put out of work by this?
Irrelevant anyway - migrant farm workers are generally not immigrants - they go home when the job is done and they don't come and go by dinghy across the channel.
Casual farm work has always been done by a large proportion of migrant workers, travellers etc. Has this changed?
Why would you blame the migrant workers for working for less - do they have a choice - surely the employers set the wage rates? Maybe they should join a union?

 

[ey_tony]

Sounds like you are offering another amateur study done by some unknown geezer on youtube!
Or did you put much time in on this? Do you have any figures? Are there a lot of would-be casual workers being put out of work by this?
Irrelevant anyway - migrant farm workers are generally not immigrants - they go home when the job is done and they don't come and go by dinghy across the channel.
Casual farm work has always been done by a large proportion of migrant workers, travellers etc. Has this changed?
Why would you blame the migrant workers for working for less - do they have a choice - surely the employers set the wage rates? Maybe they should join a union?

I've lived in the area where I live now since 1976. It's a rural market town area and over the years I've got to know most of the people or families in town and surrounding villages.
I am also fully aware of the trading that takes place in the area but unlike you with your dismissive attitude I have actually witnessed the results of migration over the past two decades and it has changed the working practices of the area considerably and not for the better.
Quite a while ago the local people I chatted to who relied on the seasonal work for part of their income complained that because of the Eastern European gang bosses they were frozen out of the traditional work supply. Sorry but as I've said before you and like thinkers simply don't live in the real world.

Last year I was sat in the local doctor's waiting room, waiting to be seen by the nurse for my annual health check and the names of patients are announced both audibly and visually on a TV screen and seven out 10 of the patients waiting to be seen while I was there were of ethnic origin. Most judging by their names when announced were of Eastern European extraction.
If we pop into the local LIDL supermarket we are often surprised to hear English accents.
I have no issues with migration per se but to say it has little or no effect on the rest on the population is quite frankly absolutely ludicrous.

 

[Jacob]

This is interesting. Are they trying to pull a fast one? Not as daft as they look?https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/10/rachel-reeves-capital-gains-tax-rise-budget

 

[spanner48]

I don't think Labour will be worse than the Tories. In their favour they don't have an ideology, which is what drove the tories round the bend - all that free-market nonsense. Except of course Starmer's very strong commitment to the Israeli extreme right, which has been the only consistent feature of his leadership and is very questionable.
in spite of the hot air about "change" they don't have much direction either; much like the older forms of tory party; all about just doing the minimum to keep things going, low taxation, protecting "the establishment" and property interests.
A creative lefty opposition might nudge them along a bit.

"Starmer's very strong commitment to the Israeli extreme right" ? What else to you expect? Both Keir and wife Victoria are of the Faith, and observe Shabbat.

And when in May it was last recorded, of the then Shadow Cabinet's 25 members, 17 were registered members of Labour Friends of Israel. The publication of that has since been suppressed. One wonders WHY . . . .

 

[spanner48]

The RNLI, Border Force, or any boat or ship which sees people in distress at sea has a legal duty to assist. If some countries such as Australia disregard international maritime law, that's not a valid reason for us to do likewise.

It's an irony which is lost on many, that almost all Australians are 'boat people'. The first Fleet of British settlers who went there were 'illegal immigrants', who, on arrival, because the only genuine Australians - the indigenous Aboriginal people, were hunter-gatherers and were sparsely dispersed, declared Australia to be 'Terra Nullius' - land that is legally deemed to be unoccupied or uninhabited. Once the First fleet arrived, they subsequently invited other British 'boat people' to turn up. Attitudes which prevailed then, are now part of Australia's DNA.

In Australia the question of whether British colonisers had regarded the continent as terra nullius at the time of the original settlement, and, if so, whether this was a proper designation, has been at the centre of several important legal cases in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. They took diseases and alcohol there, and cruelly treated (still do), Aboriginal people. If you want to know how racist Australia was/is, it's worth reading about the 'Stolen Generation'.

The Stolen Generations (also known as Stolen Children) were the children of Aboriginal and Torries State Islanders descent who were forcibly removed from their families by the Australian federal and state government agencies and church missions, under acts of their respective parliaments. The removals of those referred to as 'half-caste' children were conducted in the period between approximately 1905 and 1967, although in some places mixed race children were still being taken into the 1970s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations

Back to international maritime law:

International maritime law requires ships to assist people in distress at sea, regardless of the circumstances:

• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): Article 98 of the UNCLOS requires states to require ship masters to help anyone in danger at sea, unless it would seriously endanger the rescuing ship.
  
  
• International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS): This 1974 convention regulates maritime rescue.
  
  
• International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR): This 1979 convention regulates maritime rescue.
  
  
• Duty to rescue applies equally to all: The duty to rescue applies regardless of the circumstances, including to people who contributed to their own distress.
  
  
• Duty to proceed with all speed: If a ship is able to provide assistance, it must proceed to help as quickly as possible.
  
  
• Duty to inform: The ship should inform the search and rescue service or the people in distress that it is helping.

The duty to rescue at sea is rooted in maritime tradition and is considered customary international law.

That's exactly as it should be and is exactly what happens around our shores, though undoubtedly there are those who think it should be otherwise.

Assist? Yes. But that does not preclude dropping them off - safely - back in France

 

[spanner48]

Not true at all. Farage is multi-millionaire and all the leaders of reform and many other hard-right nutters, tend to be very well off.
Here is a well known gang of racists and all mega rich:

View attachment 189949

People on low incomes can be suckers for the propaganda coming from the chaps above and the right-wing media dominated by right-wing, mega-rich, non-doms. Add that to an endemic basic level of racism always lurking below the surface.
It's very traditional for the establishment to encourage the blame game, to distract attention from themselves as real culprits of much that is wrong in society. Any target will do: single mothers on benefits is popular, black people, foreigners, socialists, the unemployed, the woke, students, .......etc

"People on low incomes can be suckers . . . . " ? Home counties condescention, in a nutshell

 

[flying haggis]

Ok so we have a duty to rescue them but we don't then have a duty to look after them to the point of housing, healthcare etc. If they have managed to finance a long trip across several countries then pay for an expensive dinghy trip they obviously had money so should be looking after themselves not expecting the UK to do it.

 

[flying haggis]

Legal immigration last year exceeded illegal by a factor of 10 - net legal ~700k, illegal ~70k.

The UK is an attractive place to live, despite frequent criticism from some quarters. It is relatively wealthy, democratic, law and order prevails, tolerant etc etc. That migrants take huge risks to get here is unsurprising.

Making asylum application easier may reduce the number arriving on small boats only through enhancing legal routes. It is likely to increase total immigration.

There is a gulf between the two opposing views on immigration - those who see it as a humanitarian duty and benefit vs those who regard it as a disruptive and costly burden at the expense of UK citizens. Both views have some justification.

To put illegal immigration into some sort of context - 70k pa compares with a total UK population of ~70m - 1 in 1000.

For a moderate size town with a population of 100k there would be 100 new arrivals each year. Of these ~75% are aged 18-39 and (one assumes) capable of significant economic contribution.

There is a very strong case to speed up the asylum process and apply the following outcomes:

• allow those whose claims are granted to take up paid employment swiftly - thus contributing to the society which has granted them the right to stay
• swiftly deporting those who fail in their claim to discourage any whose claim is less than plausible.

Legal immigration at least means they arrive with documentation unlike the illegals who seem to "lose" their passports but strangely not their expensive trainers or smartphones!

And just where are all those jobs for those granted asylum so that they can contribute to society???

 

[Jacob]

"People on low incomes can be suckers . . . . " ? Home counties condescention, in a nutshell

not because they are poor but because they can often be not happy people, for all the obvious reasons, and looking for causes.
Bin there dunnit. Not home counties and been skint for much of my life.

 

[Jacob]

...

And just where are all those jobs for those granted asylum so that they can contribute to society???

121000 vacancies in NHS alone.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1369216/uk-worker-shortages-by-sector/
But in any case a new worker is also a new consumer and generates work in turn. Basic economics - immigration increases GDP, although it is not a simple issue.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

You mean they're all health workers, not engineers, physicists, architects ...

 

[spanner48]

121000 vacancies in NHS alone.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1369216/uk-worker-shortages-by-sector/
But in any case a new worker is also a new consumer and generates work in turn. Basic economics - immigration increases GDP, although it is not a simple issue.

"immigration increases GDP" ? Yes, it increases total GDP; but not GDP per head – which what people actually care about. It almost certainly decreases that.

 

[sploo]

Assist? Yes. But that does not preclude dropping them off - safely - back in France

Where there are joint rescue operations that is an option, but my understanding is that if you (as a vessel of a nation) rescue people in open waters then you don't have a right to land and drop them off at a country other than your own.

I've seen it claimed that (pre-Brexit) it would have been possible. I don't know if that last bit is true, but it would be an amusing irony - given that I suspect the Venn diagram of the "send them back to France" voices, and those that voted for Brexit, will be a circle.

 

[sploo]

Ok so we have a duty to rescue them but we don't then have a duty to look after them to the point of housing, healthcare etc. If they have managed to finance a long trip across several countries then pay for an expensive dinghy trip they obviously had money so should be looking after themselves not expecting the UK to do it.

That's an utterly bizarre concept of the situation of migrants. I assume it came from the Daily Mail website?

If you were rolling in money and tried to buy your way onto the risky route of possibly drowning in the Channel then the people smugglers would ensure you were no longer rolling in money.

Of course, if you were rolling in money you wouldn't take the risky route of drowning in the Channel in the first place.

 

[spanner48]

Where there are joint rescue operations that is an option, but my understanding is that if you (as a vessel of a nation) rescue people in open waters then you don't have a right to land and drop them off at a country other than your own.

I've seen it claimed that (pre-Brexit) it would have been possible. I don't know if that last bit is true, but it would be an amusing irony - given that I suspect the Venn diagram of the "send them back to France" voices, and those that voted for Brexit, will be a circle.

"you don't have a right to land and drop them off at a country other than your own." ?

From where did this bizarre idea come? Please read the UNCLOS literature on the Law of the Sea.

 

[Chris152]

"you don't have a right to land and drop them off at a country other than your own." ?

From where did this bizarre idea come? Please read the UNCLOS literature on the Law of the Sea.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxeedx40d8o

 

[John Brown]

Legal immigration at least means they arrive with documentation unlike the illegals who seem to "lose" their passports but strangely not their expensive trainers or smartphones!

And just where are all those jobs for those granted asylum so that they can contribute to society???

I wouldn't know an Asda trainer from a D.J. Trump special edition, but I do wonder what the asylum seekers I met wanted with the 5 year old back-of-the-kitchen-junk-draw phones that they were desperate for.
Maybe it's a myth, like all the people who roll lip to food banks in BMWs. I don't know what it's like anywhere else, but my wife volunteers at the local food bank, and you can't just turn up. You have to be referred by social services. Doesn't make a newsworthy story, though.

 

[Jacob]

"immigration increases GDP" ? Yes, it increases total GDP; but not GDP per head – which what people actually care about. It almost certainly decreases that.

It's not that simple either way but the point is; one more immigrant in a job does not mean one more native on the dole. In fact world wide and historically, wherever immigrants go economies boom. They choose to go to where there is work, and work done generates more wealth/work.

 

[sploo]

"you don't have a right to land and drop them off at a country other than your own." ?

From where did this bizarre idea come? Please read the UNCLOS literature on the Law of the Sea.

What Chris said, but essentially "But these laws do not allow them to be taken to another state without that country agreeing."

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Historically, wherever immigrants go economies boom?
Historically, the numbers were minute compared to this century. We've had more immigration since 2000 than than in the whole of the rest of history.