General Election 2015

[Green Goose]

Henry_17 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Green Goose,

>

> What are the benefits of immigration?

> economic???

On the economic side, we have seen a massive spread of "Western Union" outlets where our immigrants externalise the money they have derived from wages/benefits etc to their relatives overseas. This drains money out of the UK economy.Great economic benefit, eh?

mobility of labour??

No big thing!

Mobility of capital???

Sure! They export capital from the UK which has a negative effect on the UK but ends up building mansions and businesses in Lahore, Ibadan, Kinshasa, Gdansk, Jakarta, Kassala etc etc. Just what we need , eh?

You omitted to mention other contributions like religious extremism, crime, suburban ghettos, cultural isolationism, corruption, unwillingness to assimilate etc etc

Tell me more about it please.

[Blah Blah]

Henry,

Whilst I acccept some aspects of GB's time as chancellor were detrimental, isn't that just the nature of being a chancellor during boom times? Nigel Lawson had his own clangers.

When did the housing market see a crash exactly under New Labour? See that is the one sector that has been protected from crashing since the crash of the late 80's (the one in which 300,000 home owners found themselves in negative equity). If anything the low interest rates were created to stop that happening again. The housing market is just about the poorest example you can give of impact of ecenomic crashes in the last 25 years.

We could thouh talk about welfare reform instead. In 2007 - 2010 25000, to 40,000 people needed referral to food banks. As of 2015 it stood at over ONE MILLION referrals. 44% of which were due to welfare reforms and sanctions. Is that a measure of a successful management of an economy? Cant blame anyone but the coalition for that.

It is true to say that with the exception of things like that, both Labour and the Tories essentially believe in the same free market system.

But one thing I also know is that the free market does NOT take care of everything. Employers and companies are in business to minimise costs and maximise profit (most of them anyway). They don't care if you eat properly, have somewhere decent to live or even have a pension when you are too old to work, or help if you become ill. THAT is why we have a benefit system. Personally I feel totally ashamed that we have become a country that puts people already at the bottom in an even worse situation. And I make no apologies for that.

[Blah Blah]

Green Goose, a higher percentage of immigrants work than UK nationals and PAY TAX. They can do what they like with their disposable income just as you can do with yours.

You know it's a funny thing but the Spanish say exactly the same about all those British ex pats running small businesses/ bars in spain and employing (shock horror) british people. Exactly the same things. It's nonsesne there and it's nonsense here too.

[Green Goose]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Green Goose, a higher percentage of immigrants

> work than UK nationals and PAY TAX. They can do

> what they like with their disposable income just

> as you can do with yours.

>

I didn't say anything about %ages working or whether they paid tax or not. I highlighted the fact that massive amounts of capital gets externalised and that this this is a negative factor associated with immigration.

Now please let me have a quantifiable positive contribution.

GG

[Blah Blah]

Ok how many British people make investments that are held abroad then. Offshore tax havens? Do they have a negactive impact? Of course they do but the only money going out of the country that you seem to be bothered about is that earned by immigrant workers, many of whom are doing min wage jobs btw.

I'm all for a sensible balanced debate, but not one that picks on the usual suspects.

[Blah Blah]

The highest figure I could find for money shipped abroad by immigrants is 2.3bn a year (Daily Mail). The highest figure I can find for income lost to offshore investments and tax avoidance schemes is 99bn a year (BBC). Banks facilitate these investments and it is estimated the money involved is 23 trillion per year. So let's talk about that shall we if you are really so concerned about money going out of the economy.

[Henry_17]

Green Goose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Henry_17 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Green Goose,

> >

> > What are the benefits of immigration?

> > economic???

>

> On the economic side, we have seen a massive

> spread of "Western Union" outlets where our

> immigrants externalise the money they have derived

> from wages/benefits etc to their relatives

> overseas. This drains money out of the UK

> economy.Great economic benefit, eh?

>

> mobility of labour??

> No big thing!

>

> Mobility of capital???

> Sure! They export capital from the UK which has a

> negative effect on the UK but ends up building

> mansions and businesses in Lahore, Ibadan,

> Kinshasa, Gdansk, Jakarta, Kassala etc etc. Just

> what we need , eh?

>

> You omitted to mention other contributions like

> religious extremism, crime, suburban ghettos,

> cultural isolationism, corruption, unwillingness

> to assimilate etc etc

>

> Tell me more about it please.

Green Goose,

Even though the point regarding Western Union is anecdotal, let's address it: it argues that those immigrants who send the fruits of their low skilled labour back to their home country, back to their relatively impoverished family, are extracting value from the UK, becuase by definition any value leaving the UK must equal pay that was in excess of the value of services rendered. Aside from the point that the argument does not apply to immigrants as a whole given that less than 100% of immigrants repatriate funds, it essentially claims that those immigrants that do repatriate earnings, who are of course on average less advantaged in terms of the environment they were born into than those born here, less literate in English than those born here, have somehow managed to swindle UK Plc into overpaying for the value of their labour. Given the beleif these individuals have taken jobs that were otherwise due to UK born individuals, taken jobs from UK born individuals who are protected by minimum wage legislation and other employment rights, and that on average enjoy these benefits more than immigrants due to the overeprestation of immigrant workers in the black economy, these immigrants must have also managed demonstrate that the minimum wage is set at an economicly inefficient level, a level that is too high.

Regarding religious extremism, refusal to assimilate etc. please can you define two well meaning immigrant applicants. One was born into a situation so desperate that despite all the issues you highlight that can be found amongst a minority of other immigrants, we should still let her in despite the risk that she could turn out to be one of those very threatening immigrants, becuase we can't justify that her predicament should be ongoing. The other is born into a situation that is quite desperate, but even though it is literally deciles worse than anything us or our children will ever have to face, we still deny him an escape because of the risk he could be an extremist, or a refusenik with regard to UK culture.

[????]

Green Goose you may like my political analysis but I do not share your views on immigration at all, just to make that very clear.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The highest figure I can find for income lost to offshore investments and tax avoidance schemes is

> 99bn a year (BBC).

Though that sounds like the rather made-up figure by the terribly numerically inept Tax Research UK. The official figure is ?34bn.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Green goose, I accept that the things I liste are 'widely held beliefs' that s why the Tories were successful. They are not fully justified however. See my earlier post.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Henry_17 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rah,

>

> "Tories sold the family silver at Rock bottom

> prices" worse to figuratively sell the family

> silver than to literally have sold the family

> gold?

The point I was making was that by decimating the social housing stock of this country in an attempt to roll back the state, they have ironically, left taxpayers picking up the far bigger cost of private rents. Selling of public asseets at under market value is not smart. Especially when the state will end up buying the same services back in from the private sector at a higher rate. It's ideology over pragmatism which I object to.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Although immigration produces a net economic benefit to the country, I do concede that the impact of it is not uniform across different sections of society. For those working in previously well paid trades, I can see how a large increase in eastern European tradesmen will have negatively effected them personally. Also, immigrant populations aren't evenly spread across geographical areas - some areas have seen huge and fairly sudden changes, whilst others haven't. The areas which face the brunt of these changes often tend to be less affluent. So I do get why a lot of people get annoyed at the laid back attitude of some of the middle classes to immigration - they aren't really effected in the same way.

That said, those with a legitimate grievance (as described above) are relatively few. A lot of the people who are 'anti immigration', are actually well off, middle class suburbanites, who actually have little direct experience of immigration. A lot of the areas where immigration was a big issue, have very small numbers of immigrants, or for that matter, ethnic minorities.

That's not to say that there isn't a legitimate debate to be had, but don't' kid yourself that many of those UKIP and Tory voters in Surrey, Kent etc, actually just don't' like foreigners.

[david_carnell]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I read today Labour has changed their voting rules

> for the next leader election. Last time, they had

> three colleges - MPs (about 260), Labour members

> (250k) and unions (2 million). The MPs and

> members voted narrowly for David M, the unions

> voted strongly for Ed and got him over the line.

>

> This time, it's one person one vote. In other

> words, the 2 million union votes will decide the

> election. Don't suck up completely to the unions

> and you leadership bid is effectively scuppered.

>

> That's Labour screwed for 2020 already.

You can't have it both ways, Loz.

The unions are affiliated to the party. They are responsible for its founding and its funding. They also represent exactly the type of voter you and others have said the party are struggling to connect with.

If you pay, through your union subs, to fund the party I think its fair you should have a say in the leadership.

It will force candidates to appeal to a far wider caucus than just their colleagues. I think that can only be a good thing.

If you cut that link, the party ceases to perform its raison d'etre.

[????]

I think the biggest problem for Labour is that old and unsolvable schism between the left and right in that the left has proper old school socialists, followed by pretty heavy state interventionists. Neither of these two really believes the deficit narrative and will be pointing to the Greens and the SNP as the way Labour should be going. These include McClusky, proper old school unions but also alot of the Merto Guardianistas and anyone who votes under 25 . Then you have the old Blairites (still a strong Caucaus in the PLP) plus a lot of aspirational workers plus a significant chunk of middleclass labour voters ? these believe in the values of labour but are a bit more right economically and do believe in the general politics around the deficit(this is also where a whole bunch of ex-Labour voters sit, not all). The difference on defeceit politics looks pretty unresolvable to me.

Of course the schism exist in other parties. The conservatives is largely on Europe (and also a side one on the sane versus the insane ? social liberal and metropolitan vs the reactionaries0) but in general terms this can hold together a bit easier. In the Liberal democrats between proper lasiseez faire liberals (afraid of state/business having too much power) and the ex-hippy Greens bit (but this has now largely gone)

Personally I?d now welcome PR now as I?d like to vote next time or the time after and it feels in the medium term with PR we may get some realignment around the middle ground that I?d feel comfortable with and Liberal Democrats ?nearly? represent ? socially liberal, economically rightish, a touch libertarian but more empathetic than the Tories. Not too much to ask for.

[JohnL]

Cameron said he'd rule from the middle - and I think he said it again recently.

But the first week of his government - it doesn't feel like it.

Maybe they're getting the controversial stuff in whilst the labour party is in turmoil ?

[Otta]

For what it's worth, Quids and rahrahrah are the two posters on this thread who's posts I want to read.

Rahrahrah for new Labour leader, with Quids as her angry spin doctor.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Cheers Otta (I'm a 'he' by the way)

[Loz]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You can't have it both ways, Loz.

>

> The unions are affiliated to the party. They are responsible for its founding and its funding. They

> also represent exactly the type of voter you and others have said the party are struggling to

> connect with.

Whilst Labour did lose a lot of it old school union vote to UKIP, its problems are much wider than that. They have to appeal to a wide range of voters. The lesson from 2015 should be if you only target your core support, you lose.

Like it or not, most of the electorate don't like the idea of unions controlling a party.

> If you pay, through your union subs, to fund the party I think its fair you should have a say

> in the leadership. It will force candidates to appeal to a far wider caucus than just their

> colleagues. I think that can only be a good thing.

The unions no longer have a 'say' - they have 90% of the voters. It will force the candidates to suck up to the unions, at least for the leadership campaign.

> If you cut that link, the party ceases to perform its raison d'etre.

No, unless the party starts to widen its appeal, it will cease to be a serious threat to the Tories. That's the message from 2015, and that's what you're not getting. If Labour elects someone perceived to be a union lackey, they will lose wider public support. Like it or not, unions are not popular outside the union movement. Blair knew that, and that's why he (successfully) moved the party in the way he did.

By 2020, the Tories will have completed the boundary review and, should Scotland try again for independence and succeed, it will be a long, long time before Labour get another look-in at government unless they reinvent themselves.

[????]

Even over at the Guardian there are signs of some reflection....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/14/working-class-tories-are-not-just-turkeys-voting-for-christmas

[Louisa]

I so wish the urban left wing intelligensia would just accept that unions are toxic for the Labour movement. Think outside your bubble for one second please.

Louisa.

[TillieTrotter]

Wow! Go Suzanne Moore, mucho respect.

[david_carnell]

It's not a bubble Louisa. The unions were and are the bedrock of the party. Without them, what does the party stand for? Who does it represent?

Not every trade union is Mark Serwotka or Bob Crow(RIP). That's your bubble and your skewed thinking. Most are entirely reasonable organisations working with and alongside employers, not against them. And this country would be a poorer place without the rights that they have helped introduce and defended.

Unions represent a vast range of workers from across public and private sectors and barely any engage in the sort of industrial action that the media obsess over.

I understand Loz's point about going beyond your core support but it's also evident that Labour lost that too. Concerns about immigration, low wages and housing amongst traditional working-class voters weren't addressed adequately and UKIP capitalised on that.

I also think Loz mistakes union members (not the unions themselves - this isn't a block vote) having a say in the election with the unions controlling the party. If you work for Barclays and voted Tory does this mean the big banks control the Conservative Party? Of course not, and neither will any Labour leader be "controlled" by the unions after the election.

The Blair analogy doesn't work either - he won the union vote in his election too. He even beat Prescott in the union vote. I agree that perception will be key but I think any Labour leader who loses sight of standing up for the rights and interests of the ordinary worker (union member or not) shouldn't be standing at all.

There doesn't have to be a mutual exclusivity between being in favour of strong workers' rights and being able to target aspirational voters too.

[DaveR]

"They

> also represent exactly the type of voter you and others have said the party are struggling to

> connect with."

Union members = c.25% of the workforce (but 55% in the public sector vs 15% in the private sector), and numbers are likely to go down as the overall number of public sector employees continues to fall. Also, older than average, and disproportionately located in Scotland/N Ireland/Wales/North of England. So, a shrinking minority and, I suspect, one that continues to overwhelmingly vote Labour, in England and Wales at least. Not really the voters Labour needs to target to win seats from the Tories.

"> If you cut that link, the party ceases to perform its raison d'etre."

And, as Loz observed, that's the so-called 'existential' challenge for the Labour Party, if they genuinely want to pursue policies that appeal to voters in the centre.

"Like it or not, unions are not popular outside the union movement."

Interestingly, union membership in the private sector has been creeping up in recent years - see in particular the 'one firm' unions that are a product of the 90s TU legislation. I think there is a pretty wide recognition that unions can perform an essential function in ensuring that employees are not exploited/treated badly, but that is currently outweighed by the distaste for political grandstanding and unwarranted militancy amongst largely public sector workers, may of whom are pretty well paid with generous pensions etc.

[Blah Blah]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The highest figure I can find for income lost to

> offshore investments and tax avoidance schemes is

> > 99bn a year (BBC).

>

> Though that sounds like the rather made-up figure

> by the terribly numerically inept Tax Research UK.

> The official figure is ?34bn.

Thanks Loz, not easy to find good figures sometimes but it still makes the point that if we are talking about income going offshore, immigrants sending money home is nothing compared to other forms of offshore activity.

[Blah Blah]

I belong to a union Louisa, and it's affiliation with the Labour party is nothing to fear, really it isn't. Unions perform a very important role in making sure employees aren't totally screwed over. And as someone pointed out above, most of them are not run by firebrands. The work they do is important, most of which is amicable negotiation between employer and union. We don't have to go far back to see what a non unionised country was like. DO you really want a country where all parties are funded by corporations and bankers?