THE FOURTH OF JULY

[niall Y]

I believe that what we face in this country , is "managed decline" The whole of Europe and America seems to be in a similar position. We no longer have an empire to plunder, and are now moving through a post industrial period..

We haven't had the wit to hold on to strategically important industries and have sold out our businesses to foreign buyers. The mantra of "free trade" has reigned supreme. Successive governments have presided over the selling of the "family silver" and we are now at the mercy of markets.

There has been all too much reliance on "property bubbles" to provide an illusion of wealth, which has resulted in the price of property and rents soaring to new heights. Small wonder then that the government is largely impotent.

 

[sploo]

They haven't had the chance. Yet. I'd happily have Braverman for P.M.

Braverman is terrifying. That level of cruelty, evil, and total lack of self awareness, mixed into one human being (and I use the term "human" lightly) is a truly scary prospect for leadership in any capacity.

Remember that people who delight in cruel treatment of others wouldn't stop for a second to apply that cruelty to you, the moment that it suits them. The people who support those who inflict evil on "others" (when they consider those "others" to be their enemy also) rather lose sight of that fact.

 

[Jacob]

I believe that what we face in this country , is "managed decline" The whole of Europe and America seems to be in a similar position.

More like mismanaged decline, except for the wealthy who have gained enormously since the ideology of neo liberalism kicked off. Previously was "the post war consensus" whereby the tories accepted that a little bit of socialism was inevitable and in fact desirable!

We no longer have an empire to plunder, and are now moving through a post industrial period..

We haven't had the wit to hold on to strategically important industries and have sold out our businesses to foreign buyers. The mantra of "free trade" has reigned supreme. Successive governments have presided over the selling of the "family silver" and we are now at the mercy of markets.

yep. Neo liberalism, de-regulation, brexit, free-markets, globalisation, all ideological cliches fro the right. etc etc

There has been all too much reliance on "property bubbles" to provide an illusion of wealth, which has resulted in the price of property and rents soaring to new heights.

Yep. Those who have, have more, and vice versa. Housing bubbles favour house owners (28% of UK population with housing on 5% of the land) and seriously disadvantage everybody else. Just look at the rental sector.
Property in general even more severe - half of UK owned by by less than 1% of the population.

Small wonder then that the government is largely impotent.

Yep. It's a big task reversing 40 years of increasing income inequality. Worse in USA but happening throughout the "first" world to varying degrees.
One useful thing to bear in mind is that it is basically a simple issue. Unfortunately it requires an enormous effort and big changes to remedy.
I've been reading Stiglitz! https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...ncome-tax-high-earners-70-per-cent-inequality

 

[Richard_C]

You may like Braverman's ideology, you may not. There is however no doubt about her incompetence. Failure to budget meant she had to go to the Treasury for £3bn emergency funding, knee jerk policy struck down by courts because she failed to follow proper process, and more. I think we have the right to expect basic competence from our Government, she and many of her colleagues have failed miserably.

 

[Jacob]

You may like Braverman's ideology, you may not. There is however no doubt about her incompetence. Failure to budget meant she had to go to the Treasury for £3bn emergency funding, knee jerk policy struck down by courts because she failed to follow proper process, and more. I think we have the right to expect basic competence from our Government, she and many of her colleagues have failed miserably.

They aren't too bothered about competence its all about hanging on to power by appealing to certain dubious sectors of the electorate.
A 5 year old could work out that the Rwanda scheme is moronic.

 

[sploo]

They aren't too bothered about competence its all about hanging on to power by appealing to certain dubious sectors of the electorate.
A 5 year old could work out that the Rwanda scheme is moronic.

That's an excellent example of the incompetence; even if you (as an individual/voter) are totally opposed to any form of immigration, the Rwanda policy is utterly crazy. Expensive, unworkable, and wouldn't actually do anything whatsoever to tackle the problem. Let's at least step up and have competent evil; rather than incompetent evil.

 

[selectortone]

I'm ashamed of being a citizen of a country that could enact something as evil as the Rwanda scheme. If it was proposed as a TV drama it would be dismissed as too far-fetched.

 

[Spectric]

I'm ashamed of being a citizen of a country that could enact something as evil as the Rwanda scheme.

That is a Labour argument in that you state what you don't like but don't offer a credable alternative. It also shows that our politicians are just clueless, you don't solve a problem by re-inventing the wheel, that is last resort and you look around and see what others are doing and use that as a starting point or the basis for your policy so what is wrong with the Australian points system.

I believe that what we face in this country , is "managed decline"

I don't see much management but plenty of decline, it is really just a natural cycle where you grow and grow until the bubble burst and then decline. There have been much larger empires than the British and they all went down the pan, we had our chance and now it is someone elses turn so once we hit the bottom then there is only back up.

 

[Jacob]

That is a Labour argument in that you state what you don't like but don't offer a credable alternative.

Credible alternatives aren't on offer from the main parties. Staying in EU was part of the solution, making it a mutual shared problem. They take far more per capita than we do.

what is wrong with the Australian points system?

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...nd-naked-prejudice-against-migrants-australia

I don't see much management but plenty of decline, it is really just a natural cycle ....

Nothing natural about it at all.
It was policy decisions based on de-regulation and neo liberal ideology thanks to Thatcher and Reagan. An abject failure all round - even worse in USA where millions lost their homes and livelihoods
"The collapse of the housing market during the Great Recession displaced close to 10 million Americans as rising unemployment led to mass foreclosures. 1 In 2008 alone, 3.1 million Americans filed for foreclosure, which at the time was one in every 54 homes, according to CNN Money."

 

[selectortone]

That is a Labour argument in that you state what you don't like but don't offer a credable alternative.

Sorry, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Richard_C]

so what is wrong with the Australian points syste

We have similar rules for legal migration, not called a points system but has criteria. It works well enough despite the scare stories.

If you curtail it, as some politicians want, you have to decide which crops go unharvested, which care homes close, which financial and technology firms move their activities to other countries, which hospitals go uncleaned. . Our skills training has been dire for decades, we are an ageing, sick nation, we need migrant workers and will do for the foreseeable future.

Rwanda was/is about illegal migration, which is tiny in the whole scheme of things, and completely different.

Since we left the EU we can't enforce a returns agreement or expect France to help us much, why should they? We didn't just leave the EU, the language of some politicians and much of the media alienated them. With willing partners and police data sharing, all of which we threw away with Johnson's hasty deal, we could reduce or even stop the illegal traffic. Too late.

You can't get to Australia in an overloaded inflatable, you can cross the channel. So we have a wholly different set of circumstances. To be like Australia we would have to drag the British Isles 200 miles out into the Atlantic.

 

[Dovetail]

Surely this thread is not allowed?

Im happy to contribute, but rules......

It's being monitored and I will discuss with the mods. This may be moved soon.

 

[sploo]

Since we left the EU we can't enforce a returns agreement or expect France to help us much, why should they? We didn't just leave the EU, the language of some politicians and much of the media alienated them. With willing partners and police data sharing, all of which we threw away with Johnson's hasty deal, we could reduce or even stop the illegal traffic. Too late.

It never ceases to amaze me that the Venn diagram of those who make the most noise about not being able to return migrants on boats to France, and those who actively promoted the UK leaving the EU, is basically a circle. It's almost as if some people don't understand actions and consequences.

 

[RobinBHM]

That is a Labour argument in that you state what you don't like but don't offer a credable alternative.

It is always difficult for an opposition party to do much beyond stating what you dont like....Conservatives have been in power so they get judged on their policies and results or lack of

The Rwanda scheme can only work by disapplying ECHR, and the supreme court has ruled Rwanda is safe, resulting in a govt bill to declare it is safe.
The Rwanda scheme in terms of infrastructure is not suitable as a system to relocate many asylum seekers
So it isnt a scheme designed to function it is only a scheme built on the hope it discourages people arriving on our shores

on that basis, it could be argued it is not a credible plan, and therefore Labour dont need a credible alternative



In terms of Labour, they do have an alternative plan including sorting out the home office, getting an agreement with France to process there and negotiate a system with the EU -you may argue its not workable, but it is as credible as Rwanda


the reality whichever party is in power is that refugees disperse all across Europe and some come to the UK, EU nations will never collaborate because it means politicians making agreements on how many asylum seekers to take. Without collaboration the gangs wont get smashed. the result is each country will try harder and harder to repel asylum seekers and more will drown as they get more desperate

there is no easy answer

 

[RobinBHM]

We have similar rules for legal migration, not called a points system but has criteria. It works well enough despite the scare stories.

If you curtail it, as some politicians want, you have to decide which crops go unharvested, which care homes close, which financial and technology firms move their activities to other countries, which hospitals go uncleaned. . Our skills training has been dire for decades, we are an ageing, sick nation, we need migrant workers and will do for the foreseeable future.

Rwanda was/is about illegal migration, which is tiny in the whole scheme of things, and completely different.

Since we left the EU we can't enforce a returns agreement or expect France to help us much, why should they? We didn't just leave the EU, the language of some politicians and much of the media alienated them. With willing partners and police data sharing, all of which we threw away with Johnson's hasty deal, we could reduce or even stop the illegal traffic. Too late.

You can't get to Australia in an overloaded inflatable, you can cross the channel. So we have a wholly different set of circumstances. To be like Australia we would have to drag the British Isles 200 miles out into the Atlantic.

a very good, factual summary

immigration is a very emotive subject, politically it is expedient to talk about having low levels of immigration, but if thats what the government want, they should tell the public how they intent to deal with the resulting economic issues.

Our economy needs immigration to grow, or we have to change our economy and stop having such a large hospitality sector and start training nurses, doctors, dentists, etc etc

And then theres the problem of university funding

And then theres the problem of pensioners to working people ratio



There is a very good reason why governments of both flavour have told the public they will be tough on immigration....whilst simultaneously having policies which encourage high levels of immigration (somebody even stated "10s of thousands when it was in fact 100s of thousands)

 

[Terry - Somerset]

That we need an effective way to manage immigration (legal and illegal) is IMHO beyond argument, and seems accepted by both main parties.

Legal immigration requires a set of criteria to be applied - that we should prioritise training and development of home grown talent seems rational. Excessive reliance on imported skills and manpower denies opportunities for UK citizens, and is unsustainable in the longer term.

Tories have a plan for illegal immigration - Rwanda. I think it expensive and probably ineffectual but at least it is a plan.

Labour, after looking at their website Plan have no policy for illegal immigration - just the inconsequential and aspirational statement "an asylum system – rebuilt. The criminal gangs – smashed. The exploitation of some of the most vulnerable people in the world – prevented"

Completely empty of substance.

It leaves voters with a choice of a plan which probably won't work, or no plan at all. Why would one vote for either of the clowns??

 

[selectortone]

Why would one vote for either of the clowns??

As I said before, I'd vote for the lettuce if it meant getting the Tories out.

 

[Jacob]

.....

Legal immigration requires a set of criteria to be applied - that we should prioritise training and development of home grown talent seems rational. Excessive reliance on imported skills and manpower denies opportunities for UK citizens, and is unsustainable in the longer term.

T'other way around.
It goes like this.
We have a labour shortage.
This impacts on productivity in whichever area you care to look.
This in turn disadvantages others with lack of necessary goods/services, which in turn can create unemployment.
Hence migration worldwide, has historically enriched both the migrants AND their hosts, not least because migrants tend to go where the work is (obviously) and if the work gets done others get the benefit and it creates more employment opportunities.
We have a labour shortage - we need them.
Even without a labour shortage immigration tends to increase production, especially as they tend to be young, fit and highly motivated.

Tories have a plan for illegal immigration - Rwanda. I think it expensive and probably ineffectual but at least it is a plan.

Ridiculously expensive, inhumane and pointless. Just a stunt.

Labour, after looking at their website Plan have no policy for illegal immigration - just the inconsequential and aspirational statement "an asylum system – rebuilt. The criminal gangs – smashed. The exploitation of some of the most vulnerable people in the world – prevented"

Completely empty of substance.

I agree

It leaves voters with a choice of a plan which probably won't work, or no plan at all. Why would one vote for either of the clowns??

I'm voting green!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

As I said before, I'd vote for the lettuce if it meant getting the Tories out.

The Greens or LibDems are the usual alternative destination.

The lettuce inevitably leads to the former as best choice - worthy, decent, environmentally sound, politically neutral, well intentioned with almost no chance of forming the next government. You can confidently assert you did not vote for the government, no matter who wins or how bad.

LibDems have a small core of support and attract dissatisfied Tory and Labour voters who can't bring thenselves to vote for the other side.

 

[selectortone]

The Greens or LibDems are the usual alternative destination

Wasted votes that might end up with a hung parliament. I'm voting Labour.