politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s Migration dilemma
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s Migration dilemma
Diane Abbott, the Shadow Home Secretary is always worth listening to these days, not necessarily because of the quality of her analysis, but because she tells us what her leader thinks.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Thanks, Don.
https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/802912509325938688
It's visceral stuff that can't be handwaved away or smothered with name calling.
Labour need to do several things:
*) Decide on a set of policies.
*) All get behind those policies.
*) Sell those policies to the pubic.
*) OPPOSE.
Instead there seems to be a vague, incoherent jumble and no meaningful opposition. Most, but not all, of the blame for this can fall on Corbyn's shoulders. A leader needs to lead. He isn't.
Could the Richard Tyndall wing scupper Brexit?
Something to look out for might be teams asking for clarifications of the rules, as ISTR Brawn did before the 2009 season. It might be a sign that they've come across exploitable loopholes.
1) The view that “immigration has been good for us” – who is “us”? Arguably immigration has been good for the country as a whole, at least economically (though as always there are arguments to be had here) – but as with anything, there are winners and losers: some have benefited and some have not, and it does no-one any good that the effect on the country as a whole is the same as the effect on any given individual or group of individuals. It is not that immigration is happening too fast: immigration would always be bad for the individuals who are negatively affected and good for those for those who are positively affected, regardless of speed. The “it’s happening too fast” argument is something of a sop, a way of avoiding the fact that for some any immigration at all is bad.
2) Immigration is the most obvious aspect of the cultural disconnect between the Labour Party and its traditional supporters, but it is far from the only example. While Labour are right to recognise this issue, merely addressing this one issue won’t change the fact that to people in Tameside and Sunderland and Barnsley, many of the issues Labour tends to get exercised about – Palestine, nuclear disarmament, transgender rights – seem at best rather ephemeral. Labour needs to recognise that immigratin is not the only reason its traditional supporters are not as enthusiastic about voting Labour as they might be.
Retaining a level of freedom of movement while remaining in the Single Market is a grown-up, defensible policy. It is not one that Jeremy Corbyn is capable of making, even he were inclined to do so.
Got a few early thoughts. Might include them when I write the season review.
However: I disagree than the EU and NHS are religions. *Some* people treat them as if they were religions (e.g. some high church Europhiles); have faith in the organisations and use that to avert valid criticisms. Such people are in a small minority though, and the organisations are not religions in themselves.
People are free to believe what they damn well please as long as they don't cause harm to people who don't believe the same things.
(*) Might be wrong though.
http://order-order.com/2016/11/28/250458/
There are also two Hamilton specials (to beat Schumacher's title record, and to beat Schumacher's race win record). Not backing either myself but as regulations tend to be around for 4-5 years, they're perhaps better bets than backing him for next year's title (he's just 2.5 for that).
Like coming up with a workable plan for Brexit?
However, few F1 drivers last more than 15 years in F1, yet alone at their peak performance. This means Hammy would have about five more seasons, and he would have to win each one to beat Schuey's title record.
The race record is more likely. If there are around twenty races per season, he will have around one hundred races before he retires. He would need to win over a third of them to beat Schuey's race record. That's only a little above his performance over his first ten years.
They'd have to be *really* good odds to take those bets on. The title record is very, very unlikely IMO, the race record just unlikely.
That's also leaving out the fact that F1 with that sort of dominance by any driver would be fairly boring, just as it was through some of the Schuey years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_winners
https://twitter.com/wefail/status/803185186691223552
Your post reminds me of a university lecturer I used to work with who was also a clergyman. On the rare occasions when he wore his clerical collar on campus he was abused (often obscenely) not by students but by some academics, invariably from the social science faculty.
Some immigration has enriched us culturally. But - and it is this brutal fact which Labour refuses to face up to - some has not. Until we start making a distinction between those who are an asset to this country, who fit in, who want to become British and those who are not, who refuse to fit in, who despise Britain we are not going to get this right.
Also, in seeing this issue as just one of economics, Labour is making a mistake. It's not just about wages and jobs etc. It's also about a sense that Britain is a home for people and those who come here should seek to make it their home and fit in and not take the piss and that we should only invite in those who are a benefit to us not those who are not and should be able to remove those who abuse our hospitality. Labour too often gives the impression that the only determinant of who should be allowed into a country should be the desire of the would-be immigrant - a sort of "I want. Must have" immigration policy. See, for instance, all the emoting about the Jungle.
If Labour want a few principles on which to base an immigration policy they could start here -
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/05/31/mind-the-gap/
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
She should be touching his noodly appendage regularly.
BTW, I really did not like Mercedes comments to Hammy yesterday. Not only does it indicate a slight pro-Nico bias, but it would have deprived us of a great end of the race.
We have a floor to the price of wages, the minimum wage, but this floor is acting as the new normal level for a greater % of jobs each year. It is a fact that although there has been a significant increase in the supply of jobs in the UK in recent years, our wage rates paid to workers here have barely grown in the past 8 years. This must be due to a major increase in the supply of workers willing to work minimum wage. Some calculations are that currently >80% of new jobs are being filled by non-UK workers. As Mrs T once said "you cannot buck the market".
But what is a 'grown-up' policy on migration right now?
How does the policy you describe differ from the status quo?
And if it does differ significantly- haven't the EU been pretty clear that membership of single market = freedom of movement?
I think this migration issue is really difficult for Labour- I don't see a simple solution at all...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmPtH4IDFNQ
This is still a totem of faith amongst most of the party, even in the Corbyn era, and I see very little sign that Labour 'gets it' on immigration, with one or two exceptions like Tristram Hunt, John Mann and Ed Balls.
Can we legally remain in the EEA if we exit the EU? Could we then control our own borders if we did that? If we remain in the EEA, do we have to pay?
I suspect the answers are No, No, and Yes?
Mr Brind, nicely argued, but it looks like Labour as a whole (Billy Bunter in the vanguard) are slowly conceding that changes to immigration controls are needed whatever Jezza believes.
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/803193591376072704
Unfortunately for them, this is a motive that many voters have picked up on.
That is why voters want the power to control immigration back. They want to see a beauty contest on this matter, and they will select what they like.
Wikileaks
RELEASE: US diplomatic cables on the Three Mile Island nuclear incident, SALT II treaty and placing nukes in Europe https://t.co/mUY3OL78oX https://t.co/R3WXIPKY8l
RELEASE: US diplomatic cables on the election of Thatcher, assassination of MP Neave, IRA Warrentpoint bombing https://t.co/mUY3OL78oX
Edit
RELEASE: US diplomatic cables on the Sandinista revolution, the coups in El Salvador & Grenada & Ecuadorian election https://t.co/EN0PW5LWeF
RELEASE: Over 500k US diplomatic cables on the Iranian revolution & seige of Mecca https://t.co/u8OZDdH17v
Guide: https://t.co/qEqDA3qTRP https://t.co/X8bJunT8a9
"Britain’s role in and responsibilities to the world outside its borders matter of course but a political party needs above all to be rooted in and have an instinctive feeling for its own country.
It needs to make voters here feel that they are its primary and most important concern. A party which seems to voters to be a Mrs Jellyby, more concerned with the far off poor than with the needy in our own neighbourhoods (e.g. Corbyn’s concern with the migrants in French camps) is likely to end up wondering why those needy persons no longer answer their doors when it comes knocking for votes. A bleak future indeed."
In response Nick Palmer said this:
"4. How does it feel about the nation it seeks to govern?
I don’t intuitively agree with Cyclefree’s view of “Britain first”. I think we should follow the more subtle policy of ensuring that Britain’s needs get fair consideration. That’s an important role for Britain’s government nobody else will bother), but I don’t favour putting our needs above everyone else’s."
I don't know whether Nick's view is representative of other Labour people but a party which "does not favour putting our needs above everyone else's" is going to find it hard to craft an immigration policy (and many other policies besides) attractive to a big enough majority of British voters.
Thus not dissimilar to the attitudes of the elites in the USSR, for example.
Hamilton reportedly threatened to quit after the Spanish Grand Prix this year. That's pretty well-sourced, according to Ted Kravitz. I wonder if his prima donna approach is beginning to annoy the management.
After some consideration, I think Hamilton's tactics were fair enough. Not in keeping with his "I'm a real racer" shtick, but smart strategy, and better than the deliberate crashes we've seen by Senna, Prost and Schumacher in the past.
The closest she gets to the headline is "there is something in terms of faith ... that lies behind what I do"
All she is saying is that her upbringing has made her the woman she is and that informs her decisions.
No more controversial than saying "May means May"
No doubt we'll be hearing all about Farage's new project in the new year.
But does God bleach One's teeth?
How off putting is that?
*Except when they say something we like.
Regards,
Scotnats and Remoaners
Since some blame his reliability issues at the beginning of the season on that swap, that is interesting. It might also explain why he threatened to quit. The allegation is that the German Mercedes team wanted a German champion rather than another Hammy title.
I must say that Nico's championship is as undeserved as his father's was. Neither were the best driver in their winning seasons.
The real problem is twofold. First, the budget cuts have left far greater pressure on public services. Immigrants are blamed for that pressure (whether or not they actually cause it).
Secondly, low productivity has led to low wage growth. Immigrants are blamed for suppressing wage pressure when some of the workers who are complaining would do well to consider whether they might improve their own marketability.
But much of the complaining is done by cosseted oldies who no longer toil and who have been given superpriority for public spending. The baby boomers have been pampered from cradle to grave. Shame about those who follow them.
You'd have thought the Nats had other things to worry about.....
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14931432.Nicola_Sturgeon_dilemma_as_exclusive_Herald_poll_shows_two_thirds_of_Scots_want_to_use_the_pound/?ref=twtrec
Last week, whilst most of us were busy watching the comings and goings at Trump Tower and Ed Balls on Strictly, Parliament quietly passed the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (a.k.a. the Snoopers’ Charter).
https://yiu.co.uk/blog/who-can-view-my-internet-history/
Some strange name on the list of bodies being given this power eg gambling commission, food standards, etc. If you don't already use a vpn, now is the time to sign up to one & one that ensures no logging.
"Farage is now running the Trump playbook (the new manual for all aspiring politicians), which basically consists of saying anything, what ever comes into your head."
In think you'll find the suggestion that Farage was going to America came only from the Times. Not sure that printing a wrong story is the fault of the person involved.
Our group of old gits contains religious people, agnostics and vague atheists. Teasing is allowed but no one gets upset about it. The only ones I've ever met who try to force something on you are the militant atheists.
I have an agreement with a Muslim ex-colleague that if the Pope is right, I'll let him into heaven through the back door. If he is right, he'll sneak me into paradise - on condition I leave his 72 virgins alone.
"But much of the complaining is done by cosseted oldies who no longer toil and who have been given superpriority for public spending. The baby boomers have been pampered from cradle to grave. Shame about those who follow them."
You young 'uns, you're all spoilt rotten. If you don't repent, I shall unleash the Four Yorkshiremen on you. When did you last die of Consumption?
If Hamilton rather than Rosberg had suffered a reliability failure in Abu Dhabi 2014, the latter would've won that title.
And the car matters more than the driver. It's one of the reasons it's such a shame Alonso didn't win in 2012.
"The volume measure of output reflects the goods and services produced by the workforce. Numerator of the ratio of labour productivity, the volume measure of output is measured either by gross domestic product (GDP) or gross value added (GVA). "
Looking at our PB group of resident experts for help on this, is this how our ONS etc calculate labour productivity? If yes then if we increase the minimum wage it would increase the GDP and increase the overall labour productivity (providing the number of jobs remained the same)?
Look on the bright side, God is all knowing and omnipotent. May is following God's plan, so not only will Brexit work, but it would be sacrilegious to vote anything other than Tory at the next GE.
Theoretically London and Scotland could retain free movement of people, and NI numbers could be developed to allow workers to only find employment with companies in certain areas, while other areas could develop quota's.
Could this be the hallowed 'middle ground' between free market access and controls on EU immigration? Or a bureaucratic nightmare?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/28/tata-sell-yorkshire-steel-plants-deal-safeguarding-1700-jobs/
If it could be made workable, it might be a nice bit of fudge. Not sure it is workable, however.
Edited extra bit: it might also really piss off a lot of people.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/803204310637154304
Oh dear. @EU_Commission lectures Czechs for having a “narrow” view of Castro - the Cuban leader supported the crushing of the Prague Spring
Behind both the horse and the gay donkey.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307462-trump-adviser-tells-house-republicans-youre-no-longer-reagans-party
The "Trump Advisor" being Stephen Moore a Reagan Economist.
Abbott's comment "... it is simply not the case that immigration has driven down wages, or that immigration has created the insecurity or instability they perceive" is highly telling - not just because for some, it will certainly be false, where immigrants have driven down wages, increased competition or increased demand for local services, but because of the failure to even contemplate the possibility that there are negative consequences. For people like Abbott, the immigration debate cannot be opened "because they do not know where it ends". Leave aside the anti-democratic nature of the comment and the defensive mindset it betrays, what it means is that they cannot truly connect with these voters because they refuse to accept their complaints as legitimate.
Phillipson's comment "... Immigration into Britain has boosted our economy year after year and thus raised the standard of living for people" is simply economically illiterate, failing to understand the concept of 'per capita' (and again, failing to recognise that even if the average person was better off, that doesn't mean everyone will be).
But it's the Prof Ford who hints at the real elephant in the room that Abbott so closed her eyes to. "there are many who want immigration controlled – but not if they can be shown it will make them worse off". No doubt there are. But implicitly there are also others who want immigration controlled *even if* it will make them worse off. Why might that be? The answer has to be cultural; a reaction against the multiculturalism that Labour was alleged to want to rub in the faces of the Right. Except it's not just the Right whose faces have been rubbed in it; indeed, most of all, it's been those who've traditionally voted for parties on the Left. No doubt that's one reason why Labour is so keen to not want to know 'how it ends'; because it ends in Trump, Brexit and Le Pen.
https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/803206552505241600
https://twitter.com/andrewlearmonth/status/803208202473062400