Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
Sounds like you've done extensive research.
The next Labour leader thread
- Thread starter Ricochet J
- Start date
I'm talking about my specific area. It's generally classed as a 'safe' Labour seat but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if it isn't next time. Immigration and Brexit are going to be huge at the next GE. How many potential voters have you talked to?
Possibly the right policies just the wrong country. That's not going to happen in the UK, we are simply not that sort of people, either ideologically or culturally.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Coming from you, Skunks, the line lacks any bite. How many voters aligned with the BNP, Britain First, UKIP, EDL et al, who have used their vote to buttress racially-charged stances, policies and parties that either express them directly or dog-whistle to it all, have voted against Brexit? 2-3%? I'm sure further national attitude surveys, polling and hate crime figures will indicate that, whether it be out of ignorance, protest or outright prejudice and hatred, the ratio of the population that's well into the racist territory is growing. And indeed the easiest and safest for them way to advocate their preferred modes of discrimination in society is to exploit public concern over globalisation and immigration. Are they all evil to the core? I think some are being badly used for political capital, but their behaviour and attitudes make it hard to empathise much with their situation.
I think McDonnell would find more allies for either his higher minimum wage or universal income (meaning total reform of the benefits and social security system), both of which can assist in greater formation of co-ops and other worker-led initiatives. Alas, I think this more nuanced stance will be called 'red tory' now.
Last edited:
Lol. Campaigning for Labour. Talk about a fruitless exercise. Good luck with the next GE
Hint Mr Labour Campaigner - If you want people to give them your vote, don't call them racist.
Someone else confusing racism with a desire for controlling immigration.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
But when there's racism, be it out in the public, Labour, the Tory party or business, it must be confronted. Doing a Boris or Hannan and ignoring the issue won't help anyone's politics. Arguments about what's best for the country and economy, the skills and investment we need, and the systems best fit and cost effective for the task are all valid to have. This however does not justify open discrimination, assaults and reduction in the rights of minority citizens in the brutish attempt to deflect problems onto a particular demographic and to drive them out of their communities. Such idiocy won't help anyone get any more jobs and funds, nor will it help Britain's standing in the post-Brexit world of trade, where we will still need to attract significant numbers of people to visit, study, invest, work and settle here.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
How a staunch Labour party supporter (and maybe campaigner, or is that someone else here?) can post the above whilst the Labour party are unrepentantly so blatantly anti Semitic I don't know
Personally I find this striving for a utopia of none racist thoughts and actions risible, it's against basic human tribal nature. Some people will prefer some races over others, just as they prefer a car manufacturer over another, or a region over another, and it's normally based on perceived and experienced interaction with a race, religion, region or product. Bad experiences can be ameliorated, perhaps, but the initial judgemental approach is probably entrenched in the human psyche.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
We absolutely have a right to discriminate. If we don't want some people coming here, then we ought to be able to stop them.
I wouldn't consider skin colour to be a good reason, but people from less developed parts of the world with a different culture and value system? Absolutely.
We don't need more low skilled workers and we probably don't even need more professionals. Automation is about to eradicate huge swathes of low skilled work. We need to focus on better educating the people we do have.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,217
Better tell the NHS that all those immigrant doctors and nurses aren't required....
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
The solution to the shortage of native doctors and nurses isn't to import more people, but to invest in training and better wages so British people will take the jobs. You think we don't have enough to spare intellectual capacity to train up more highly paid doctors?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,217
The solution to the shortage of native doctors and nurses isn't to import more people, but to invest in training and better wages so British people will take the jobs. You think we don't have enough to spare intellectual capacity to train up more highly paid doctors?
I think it takes years and medical schools are already over subscribed, how does that solve our immediate shortage?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Thompson_NCL, nativism collapses because the population without immigration is changing in such a way that no automation on the horizon will ameliorate its demographic challenges in terms of age, health, etc. Indeed, even if we were to press every able-bodied, disabled, sick or untrained body that's currently out of work into training or just about any job, we still wouldn't fully meet our pension contribution requirements, let alone wider industrial, technological and indeed cultural needs (and then you disregard the cost of repeated failure, people quitting jobs and unable to upskill to fit in the economy). Meeting the future by ossifying in authoritarian protectionism is a funny way to ensure one's people prosper.
Further, discriminating against developing countries and merely throwing aid money at the problem, hoping they go away, has the flip side of Britain's fortunes declining and the developing world rising; would you like to be shut out of opportunity and the freedom to take your labour, mind and money where it'll make the most difference then? I don't think so. Would you like to marry and love whom you chose, not whom your state tells you can afford to love? You probably do. Would you like to start a business where it can get the talent and funds to survive and go global or peter out and die in obscurity? Again, you probably would. Do you want a better future for your children, wherever it lies or whatever it takes to get there? I think you do. So there's very little that separates you and that plucky migrant on the big issues of one's life.
For now, Theresa May seems to be willing to indulge your stance a little (not that she wasn't tough in the Home Office before, to the point she had to U-turn), albeit rather cautiously, whether it'll make a difference and isn't turned around by its economic impact is an open question. As PM one's calculus changes.
Antisemitism enjoys a broad range of conspiracy folklore on the extremes, yes. It's neither strictly a left or right thing. This is the reason both May and Corbyn are looking at various aspects of discrimination and racial inequality in society. I welcome all such efforts to address the situation be it in the case of white working class boys failing to benefit from the education system, BAME representation in the professions or racism in political parties. Further, there's no contradiction in advocating one's position and seeking to improve one's political party at the same time.
You seem to have implicit bias and social conditioning mixed up. However, let's consider which ideal creates a more stable society in the world that is connected, rapidly changing and poses problems no single 'tribe' can fix on its own: nature red in tooth and claw, backed by myth, stereotype and pseudo-science; or equality before the law, backed by universal rights, evidence and social progress?
To me the choice is an easy one to make. Taking the slippery slope option would eventually turn on society itself, however isolated you make it -- the grievances of the financial crash and marketisation and globalisation that preceded it won't go away by simply shunting out the newcomers or shuffling the deck of countries we welcome people from. I'd also venture to add that the majority of the current flux stems from decades of dead investment in the regions, poor infrastructure and the politics that likes taking the benefits of globalisation for granted without spreading the proceeds further than its immediate voter base and material party support.
Further, discriminating against developing countries and merely throwing aid money at the problem, hoping they go away, has the flip side of Britain's fortunes declining and the developing world rising; would you like to be shut out of opportunity and the freedom to take your labour, mind and money where it'll make the most difference then? I don't think so. Would you like to marry and love whom you chose, not whom your state tells you can afford to love? You probably do. Would you like to start a business where it can get the talent and funds to survive and go global or peter out and die in obscurity? Again, you probably would. Do you want a better future for your children, wherever it lies or whatever it takes to get there? I think you do. So there's very little that separates you and that plucky migrant on the big issues of one's life.
For now, Theresa May seems to be willing to indulge your stance a little (not that she wasn't tough in the Home Office before, to the point she had to U-turn), albeit rather cautiously, whether it'll make a difference and isn't turned around by its economic impact is an open question. As PM one's calculus changes.
How a staunch Labour party supporter (and maybe campaigner, or is that someone else here?) can post the above whilst the Labour party are unrepentantly so blatantly anti Semitic I don't know
Antisemitism enjoys a broad range of conspiracy folklore on the extremes, yes. It's neither strictly a left or right thing. This is the reason both May and Corbyn are looking at various aspects of discrimination and racial inequality in society. I welcome all such efforts to address the situation be it in the case of white working class boys failing to benefit from the education system, BAME representation in the professions or racism in political parties. Further, there's no contradiction in advocating one's position and seeking to improve one's political party at the same time.
You seem to have implicit bias and social conditioning mixed up. However, let's consider which ideal creates a more stable society in the world that is connected, rapidly changing and poses problems no single 'tribe' can fix on its own: nature red in tooth and claw, backed by myth, stereotype and pseudo-science; or equality before the law, backed by universal rights, evidence and social progress?
To me the choice is an easy one to make. Taking the slippery slope option would eventually turn on society itself, however isolated you make it -- the grievances of the financial crash and marketisation and globalisation that preceded it won't go away by simply shunting out the newcomers or shuffling the deck of countries we welcome people from. I'd also venture to add that the majority of the current flux stems from decades of dead investment in the regions, poor infrastructure and the politics that likes taking the benefits of globalisation for granted without spreading the proceeds further than its immediate voter base and material party support.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Okay, so let us say we need five years to add additional capacity. Why would we let people come here and settle indefinitely? A five year visa would be sufficient.
And why would we want people from Nigeria or Pakistan where their culture and level of development is much different to our own when we can have someone from Poland, Greece or Spain?
So yes, fine, bring doctors and nurses over in the short term. But in the long run we should be training up replacements not importing more people in an ever increasing cycle.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Well, many nurses are sourced from the Philippines where the training there is surprisingly very good and they get plenty of practice/experience due to the unfortunate state of the lower social classes.
You can say that the Philippines is less developed but that hardly affects their ability to integrate here. Culturally, it is not very different at all.
You cant just throw money at training institutes and expect more people to come out nurses. These places also require more people to train them and require more staff at hospitals to supervise them during their training. We actually have plenty of nurses here, the problem lies with the lack of appeal in working for the NHS.
Many leave the NHS due to poor working conditions, poor staffing and poor pay. Lack of funding has led to a struggle to fill the adequate staffing requirements, which end in hiring a smaller number for far more money from private agencies, just to fill the gaps.
I have lived with a few nurses in my lifetime, as well as went to a university with one of the largest nurse training programs (where i lived with other nurses back then) and my girlfriends mum is also a senior private nurse who ends up working for the same hospitals she worked at when she was for the NHS but now gets paid considerably more due to it being privately hired through an agency. They have all said the issues with NHS as far as nursing goes, stems for a lack of funding specifically in staffing, rather than education or outsourcing.
You can say that the Philippines is less developed but that hardly affects their ability to integrate here. Culturally, it is not very different at all.
You cant just throw money at training institutes and expect more people to come out nurses. These places also require more people to train them and require more staff at hospitals to supervise them during their training. We actually have plenty of nurses here, the problem lies with the lack of appeal in working for the NHS.
Many leave the NHS due to poor working conditions, poor staffing and poor pay. Lack of funding has led to a struggle to fill the adequate staffing requirements, which end in hiring a smaller number for far more money from private agencies, just to fill the gaps.
I have lived with a few nurses in my lifetime, as well as went to a university with one of the largest nurse training programs (where i lived with other nurses back then) and my girlfriends mum is also a senior private nurse who ends up working for the same hospitals she worked at when she was for the NHS but now gets paid considerably more due to it being privately hired through an agency. They have all said the issues with NHS as far as nursing goes, stems for a lack of funding specifically in staffing, rather than education or outsourcing.
i had a entertaining and worrying experience a few years ago when i went in for an x-ray on a mashed up foot, the radiologist was french and when she asked me how i injured myself couldnt understand me even after 3 attempts at explaining.
that is a bit of a worry that theres staff being taken on that seem to have issues with english, either the tests they take are rather poor or i must sound like that old geezer off of hot fuzz.
that is a bit of a worry that theres staff being taken on that seem to have issues with english, either the tests they take are rather poor or i must sound like that old geezer off of hot fuzz.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
Like everyone else in this thread, I don't know.
The whole hate crime thing was, to put it generously, blown out of proportion. http://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/hate-crime-is-unacceptable-in-any-circumstances-say-police
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 12,957
Five years gives you junior doctors. It takes many years after graduating in a degree in medicine to actually become a specialised in certain fields.
You don't think that a 57% (according to your chosen source) increase in hate crime is significant? I'd say taking a 57% increase in hate seriously is exactly in proportion.
There hasn't been a 57% increase in hate crime - his source explicitly states that. See the last sentence:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Is that not significant?
It should not be downplayed.
It should not be downplayed.