Also In The News - part 3

[LiberalFox]

I don't agree with the protectionist stance that high skilled work should somehow be reserved for British people or that it's immoral to 'poach' people of talent from nations with weaker economies. It's easy to sit behind your computer in a nice western country and say that someone born in Africa is the property of the state they were born in. Probably a state whose borders are only what they are due to white people carving some lines on a map in the 19th century. I don't watch a football match and come away appalled that people born outside the UK are playing football here. I come away entertained because our football league attracts some of the best talent in the world to play here. I don't come away from A&E appalled that a first generation immigrant might have saved my life. I recognise how I'm fortunate to get such high quality healthcare. (although the way things are going I probably don't come away from A&E in that scenario) 

 

There's absolutely no reason why it should ever be a bad thing to encourage people of talent and ambition to study at our universities and to give them the opportunity to settle here and work and become valuable members of our society. It's never a bad thing to allow high skilled people to migrate here for economic reasons. 

 

I'll only make one post so as not to overly politicise the thread. But I'm proud that this country offers people places to study, to work and offers people in desperate need a place of shelter. I strongly oppose the government's efforts to curtail that. I'm disappointed but not surprised that the Labour party are failing to challenge the tired anti-immigrant narrative simply offering a more 'competent' version of the status quo. 

 

 

[Lionator]

Good banter tbf.

 

 

[Nalis]

A couple of people mentioned Ireland and tax before so this is a bit of a crude analysis.

 

There are three camps; old money, the young rich folk who work in tech and working class on the right.

 

The old money have reaped the benefits of being a bit of a 'Liechtenstein on the Liffey' with low corporation tax.

 

The young techies are the loudest in the media. They usually work for an American based tech company who set up their European HQ in Ireland to benefit from tax breaks. They like to tell you Ireland is one of the most progressive accepting nations in the world, that Ireland is very liberal and not like those racist Brits across the water.

 

The second band barely mix with the working class and live in their bubble with like minded people. When you think working class in Ireland, you're essentially thinking of the southern states in the USA. Cost of living in Ireland is insane though and the gap is widening massively, they blame immigrants instead of the rich getting richer - sound familiar??

 

When I lived in Dublin, I heard far more racism than I have in my time in England. Obviously that doesnt mean racist doesnt exist in the UK or that institutionalised racism doesnt exist over here.

 

I'm very proud of being Irish but the portrayal that there is tiny minority on the right isnt exactly factual.

 

Also, a lot of the financial success is/was based on deals with big tech in the States and tax breaks for them to based themselves in Ireland.

 

Some people in Ireland get so defensive over this but for a country the size of Ireland to compete internationally its a almost a necessity and I think it was a brilliant strategy to create jobs. Say what you want about tax aviodance schemes, other countries do it so why not Ireland? As a knock on effect, the local population has become more educated too.

[BKLFox]

Well colour me pink, why do any of us take note of any pledges regardless of party.
 

Every party is trying to look into a crystal ball or maybe they all just write pledges on small bits of paper then pick them out 1 at a time from the crystal bowl, either way they are all meaningless at the time of announcement.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67528894

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

12 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

I don't agree with the protectionist stance that high skilled work should somehow be reserved for British people or that it's immoral to 'poach' people of talent from nations with weaker economies. It's easy to sit behind your computer in a nice western country and say that someone born in Africa is the property of the state they were born in. Probably a state whose borders are only what they are due to white people carving some lines on a map in the 19th century. I don't watch a football match and come away appalled that people born outside the UK are playing football here. I come away entertained because our football league attracts some of the best talent in the world to play here. I don't come away from A&E appalled that a first generation immigrant might have saved my life. I recognise how I'm fortunate to get such high quality healthcare. (although the way things are going I probably don't come away from A&E in that scenario) 

 

There's absolutely no reason why it should ever be a bad thing to encourage people of talent and ambition to study at our universities and to give them the opportunity to settle here and work and become valuable members of our society. It's never a bad thing to allow high skilled people to migrate here for economic reasons. 

 

I'll only make one post so as not to overly politicise the thread. But I'm proud that this country offers people places to study, to work and offers people in desperate need a place of shelter. I strongly oppose the government's efforts to curtail that. I'm disappointed but not surprised that the Labour party are failing to challenge the tired anti-immigrant narrative simply offering a more 'competent' version of the status quo. 

 

 

 

You seem to frame this largely as a moral issue, ignoring both the political context and the implications for social, economic and political stability in this country. You also mainly focus on "people of talent and ambition" coming to do high-skilled work, but then suddenly merge this with an argument for asylum for people "in desperate need of shelter" - a quite different case.

 

Re. your straw man depiction of opposing arguments: I'm not a protectionist and won't be appalled to see foreign-born players run out in blue shirts this afternoon. Likewise, I wasn't appalled when an Egyptian surgeon operated on my heart - and I was immensely grateful, indeed moved at the wonderful care my Dad was given in his last couple of years by mainly African carers. I'm also happy to see foreign students attend UK universities and British students attend foreign universities - beneficial all round and it's a massive shame that Brexit has removed most of the options to do this via Erasmus schemes within Europe.

 

But my previous post concerned the political realities behind the surge in immigration under the Tories - not a wider moral argument or personal hostility to immigration in general. The official figures identify 2 main factors in this surge: foreign students and foreign workers, particularly those coming to do health and care work. Note that these are 2 DIFFERENT groups - not 1 group of talented and ambitious people studying, then opting to pursue high-skilled careers in the UK.

 

On average, I believe that international students pay at least twice the fees of UK students. That suggests that the influx of international students come disproportionately from privileged sectors within their own countries, so I'm not sure that's necessarily something to be proud of. It also points to UK motivation: universities under-funded by the UK government maximising income from comparatively wealthy foreign students.

 

The other group comprises those coming to work, in particular, in health & care. I presume they mostly have already been trained in their home countries (maybe not all care workers). While I've no problem with some overseas influx, a policy of mass recruitment of foreign workers qualified at their own country's expense does seem like immoral "poaching" to me. So what is the Tory motivation for this, when Brexit, which I opposed, was supposed to be partly about protecting jobs for Brits? There's a massive shortage of health/care workers, at least partly because real wages have been falling for years and stress increasing. Yet the Govt has spent all year fighting NHS fair pay strikes, thereby increasing vacancies, stress & waiting lists. What have the Brexit Tories done to attract UK workers to fill health/care vacancies? Surprise, surprise, they don't really care about British workers, but are happy to cut public spending by importing workers on the cheap. What have they done to improve pay, conditions and esteem for care work so as to attract Brits? Again, importing cheaper labour without improving funding or conditions seems to be their solution.

 

But the govt of any responsible nation state has to protect the interests of its own citizens (until such time as we have global democratic governance - which is a long way off). It also has a responsibility to protect economic, social and political stability. Just this week, we've seen an anti-immigrant party win elections in Netherlands, anti-immigrant riots in Dublin and a chainsaw-wielding demagogue elected Argentine President in a context of economic instability. At the moment, despite other massive problems, UK unemployment is low but that might not remain the case - and it does nobody any favours, Brits or immigrants, if economic/social problems combine with perceptions of excessive immigration, allowing the Far Right to scapegoat foreigners. We've had far too many toxic, autocratic regimes in Europe, the Americas and Asia recently to risk that. Already, at a time when the UK faces major structural/economic problems, Reform UK is polling 10%, which could easily increase if cost of living and public services problems persist.

 

On the separate asylum issue, I share your opposition to govt failure to offer a safe route for asylum claimants (I believe the French even offered to allow the UK to set up a claims processing office in France) and its disgraceful use of the issue to diverts voters with race-based fear and division. I also oppose the dishonest argument that asylum seekers should always go to the nearest safe country - we should take our fair share of those displaced by war, persecution and tyranny. I don't see Labour's policy as "a more competent version of the status quo". Labour is committed to properly funding the asylum system so as to eliminate the massive backlog and to working with other govts to tackle people-trafficking gangs. If achieved, they would not be "the status quo" but an admirable improvement. As well as being a cost to taxpayers, it is massively unfair to asylum seekers that their lives are in limbo for years, unable to work or progress while claims aren't processed. As a large proportion  of asylum seekers come from places like Afghanistan, Syria and Iran, I'd expect a lot to be granted asylum, which I'd welcome (despite all the vitriol, asylum seekers only constitute a small proportion of migrants). If a Labour govt wrongly sent lots of persecuted people back to dangerous regimes or failed to offer a safe route for claimants, I'd join you in criticising this. The criminal gangs will be a harder nut to crack, but as Labour would adopt a less confrontational, nationalistic approach than Johnson & Truss, there's a chance of multinational action to tackle gangs. Of course, some asylum seekers deserve to be rejected: p.21 of the current Private Eye has an eye-opening article by an Albanian correspondent about the sudden mass influx of Albanians involved in crime gangs, drugs trade and violence.

[LiberalFox]

@Alf Bentley (won't quote as it was very long).

 

You're right my post focused more on moral side. I'm surprised you say you aren't a protectionist because I think a lot of your points are protectionist. Do you see that as a word with negative connotations or is it more the case you think that it's 'just common sense' (for want of a better phrase)?

 

I wrote a really long post about my thoughts on immigration on a politics oriented site but thought it would be disrespectful to write too much here so I tried to shorten it and make it more about the moral side than my thoughts on policy. I'm tired of there being an anti-immigrant narrative in this country and I feel that both the Conservative and Labour have fueled it for decades without actually tackling the root causes and creates a blurring of the lines between racist and xenophobic talking points and reasonable discourse about immigration policy. 

 

The thrust of my argument elsewhere is that working class people get a higher quality of life in Britain than someone of the same economic value would in a hypothetical global average. So you have this situation where as you say we end up with an immigration system that protects established society from what would happen if you suddenly granted everyone everywhere the right to work and reside in the UK and that's true of every liberal democracy. On the other hand for some people that are economically valuable they are much closer if not equal to their value on a world labour market and actually it's the relative security and depth of British society that keeps people here and attracts them here. It's in every ones interest for immigration policy to welcome those people here.

 

Lastly the asylum seekers who are really a separate argument but get lumped in under the umbrella of immigration. 

 

One of the problems with all this is that the reason working class people have a reasonable stake in immigration policy is because a laissez-faire approach to immigration across the board benefits employers who can make use of cheap labour but makes existing society poorer. There is a downward pressure on all wages and an upward pressure on public services and housing. So that's actually a perfectly good reason to want controls on immigration. But even if immigration is controlled, it doesn't address the fact that you can outsource working class labour very easily these days and the fact that technology is increasingly finding ways to replace working class labour with machinery. So you will still have the same issues even if you curb low skill immigration. 

 

I don't think any political party has really got to grips with that issue and so the immigrant bashing will carry on and you will get things like Brexit which I think are fueled by this anti-globalist sentiment.    

 

 

 

[st albans fox]

There are quite a few Israeli ministers who were dead set against the hostage release agreement and 4 day truce on the basis that Hamas were in quite a bit of trouble militarily in Gaza. (Some on the basis that they are right wing ‘extremists’ but I’m ignoring those).  Israel are really uncomfortable about the slow release, a dozen at a time, because it gives Hamas four days to regroup in the south and parts of the north and only results in 50 hostages (plus hopefully all the non Israelis but that’s not necessarily going to happen) 

 

if this delay means that we effectively have 3 days to get 24 Israelis released then that’s going to play badly in Jerusalem and the question will be could it take a week to see the first 52 out ? That would put netenyahu in an even worse position - he can’t pull the plug on the deal and he is effectively being played by Hamas. 

 

the reasons given by Hamas for not making todays release don’t really matter - it’s what happens which is. No one will be able to verify if drones were flying when they should/shouldnt.   As has been commented on repeatedly here, Hamas seem so much more adept with their tactics than Israel. 

[Leicesterpool]

Are we very much in world war three... we have got the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. War in the middle east, unrest in the far east... just seems to be kicking off where ever. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

52 minutes ago, Leicesterpool said:

Are we very much in world war three... we have got the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. War in the middle east, unrest in the far east... just seems to be kicking off where ever. 

There's always different wars going on around the world, there's more besides the ones you mention, mostly civil wars.

 

To get a world war you'd need a block of allied countries against another group of countries with a common cause.

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, Leicesterpool said:

Are we very much in world war three... we have got the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. War in the middle east, unrest in the far east... just seems to be kicking off where ever. 

 

"Historians might quibble over the exact details, but by most accounts, there are no periods in history that have been free from war. Much of recorded history has also been filled with imperial or colonial occupations, where a powerful nation uses force to rule over other nations".

 

Source: University College, London.

[LiberalFox]

43 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

There are quite a few Israeli ministers who were dead set against the hostage release agreement and 4 day truce on the basis that Hamas were in quite a bit of trouble militarily in Gaza. (Some on the basis that they are right wing ‘extremists’ but I’m ignoring those).  Israel are really uncomfortable about the slow release, a dozen at a time, because it gives Hamas four days to regroup in the south and parts of the north and only results in 50 hostages (plus hopefully all the non Israelis but that’s not necessarily going to happen) 

 

if this delay means that we effectively have 3 days to get 24 Israelis released then that’s going to play badly in Jerusalem and the question will be could it take a week to see the first 52 out ? That would put netenyahu in an even worse position - he can’t pull the plug on the deal and he is effectively being played by Hamas. 

 

the reasons given by Hamas for not making todays release don’t really matter - it’s what happens which is. No one will be able to verify if drones were flying when they should/shouldnt.   As has been commented on repeatedly here, Hamas seem so much more adept with their tactics than Israel. 

I feel like Hamas still hold the initiative. Obviously Hamas chose to attack on 7/10 and they chose to target civilians and they chose to take hostages. Since then it's been Israel trying to use its military to regain control of the situation and bring about the release of the hostages and to destroy Hamas, the second objective I think is more an emotional and politically necessary one for Israel. I'm very critical of Netanyahu and the overall strategy Israel has followed in relation to Gaza in the last few decades but as a standalone situation it's a nightmare. 

 

 

[foxy boxing]

1 hour ago, Leicesterpool said:

Are we very much in world war three... we have got the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. War in the middle east, unrest in the far east... just seems to be kicking off where ever. 

The world does seem more polorized. It is a war of ideology. Freedom and democracy against countries wanting to impose their authoritarianism on others. Countries wanting to keep their influence over others from diminishing. Its about power and control. Divide and conquer. There are no easy solutions as with all conflict Its about compromise and what you and the other are prepared to live with, if you can't Its fight and die!.

[st albans fox]

30 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I feel like Hamas still hold the initiative. Obviously Hamas chose to attack on 7/10 and they chose to target civilians and they chose to take hostages. Since then it's been Israel trying to use its military to regain control of the situation and bring about the release of the hostages and to destroy Hamas, the second objective I think is more an emotional and politically necessary one for Israel. I'm very critical of Netanyahu and the overall strategy Israel has followed in relation to Gaza in the last few decades but as a standalone situation it's a nightmare. 

 

 

Apparently the ‘issues’ are resolved but the last few hours have shown who holds the upper hand during the truce period.  Netenyahu will be livid but whilst civilians are being released he is impotent - the public have seen women, kids and grandparents returned to their families. No PM can be responsible for stopping this. And after four days, the pressure to continue the truce will continue in order to release more - and Hamas can easily make this five per day to drag things out for weeks …

[LiberalFox]

50 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Apparently the ‘issues’ are resolved but the last few hours have shown who holds the upper hand during the truce period.  Netenyahu will be livid but whilst civilians are being released he is impotent - the public have seen women, kids and grandparents returned to their families. No PM can be responsible for stopping this. And after four days, the pressure to continue the truce will continue in order to release more - and Hamas can easily make this five per day to drag things out for weeks …

I worry that Israel doesn't seem to have a coherent plan. I still find it shocking that Hamas were able to carry out such a large scale terrorist attack on southern Israel and it took days for the Israelis to secure their own borders. The hostages were always going to make any military action complicated. I would have thought that ~200 hostages including foreign nationals being kidnapped into the Hamas tunnel network would be up there as one of the worst case scenarios for Israel to have to deal with. I don't really know of any relevant historic examples of something like that. I don't think there is any other option than to negotiate. 

[st albans fox]

9 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I worry that Israel doesn't seem to have a coherent plan. I still find it shocking that Hamas were able to carry out such a large scale terrorist attack on southern Israel and it took days for the Israelis to secure their own borders. The hostages were always going to make any military action complicated. I would have thought that ~200 hostages including foreign nationals being kidnapped into the Hamas tunnel network would be up there as one of the worst case scenarios for Israel to have to deal with. I don't really know of any relevant historic examples of something like that. I don't think there is any other option than to negotiate. 

Yep

hamas know that once there are no hostages left, they lose leverage. I’d expect that once all the children, elderly and female hostages are released (that could take some time), the men will likely be declared combatants and therefore POW’s rather than hostages. Some of them were indeed soldiers but all Israeli citizens have national service and many are reservists. So to declare a male thirty y o civilian as a POW wouldn’t be seen as unreasonable to Hamas.  We could see this truce extended for a couple weeks whilst captives are released but then Israel will have a big call to make if Hamas do indeed refuse to negotiate over males aged 18/45. 

[westernpark]

6 hours ago, st albans fox said:

There are quite a few Israeli ministers who were dead set against the hostage release agreement and 4 day truce on the basis that Hamas were in quite a bit of trouble militarily in Gaza. (Some on the basis that they are right wing ‘extremists’ but I’m ignoring those).  Israel are really uncomfortable about the slow release, a dozen at a time, because it gives Hamas four days to regroup in the south and parts of the north and only results in 50 hostages (plus hopefully all the non Israelis but that’s not necessarily going to happen) 

 

if this delay means that we effectively have 3 days to get 24 Israelis released then that’s going to play badly in Jerusalem and the question will be could it take a week to see the first 52 out ? That would put netenyahu in an even worse position - he can’t pull the plug on the deal and he is effectively being played by Hamas. 

 

the reasons given by Hamas for not making todays release don’t really matter - it’s what happens which is. No one will be able to verify if drones were flying when they should/shouldnt.   As has been commented on repeatedly here, Hamas seem so much more adept with their tactics than Israel. 

There’s a lot of frustration personally about this, I think you’re right regarding who it benefits. Furthermore, I suggest it supports the notion that Netanyahu was unaware of any potential attack on October 7, because he is not showing well in reaction to events.

[MPH]

4 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

I feel like Hamas still hold the initiative. Obviously Hamas chose to attack on 7/10 and they chose to target civilians and they chose to take hostages. Since then it's been Israel trying to use its military to regain control of the situation and bring about the release of the hostages and to destroy Hamas, the second objective I think is more an emotional and politically necessary one for Israel. I'm very critical of Netanyahu and the overall strategy Israel has followed in relation to Gaza in the last few decades but as a standalone situation it's a nightmare. 

 

 

 

one look at the state of Gaza would suggest otherwise. Israel controls who goes in and out of Gaza, not the other way round, Israel controls the flow of fuel, food, electricity water and internet into Gaza, not the other way round..

 

The ONLY card Hamas have is the hostage card, but if they mess about too much more with that, that card will be null and void too..

[st albans fox]

8 hours ago, MPH said:

 

one look at the state of Gaza would suggest otherwise. Israel controls who goes in and out of Gaza, not the other way round, Israel controls the flow of fuel, food, electricity water and internet into Gaza, not the other way round..

 

The ONLY card Hamas have is the hostage card, but if they mess about too much more with that, that card will be null and void too..

It’s a massive card - the Israeli public will care more about their hostages than the desire of netenyahu to destroy Hamas (because fundamentally they know it’s not possible ).  hamas’ fighting forces are primarily underground - as are probably most of the hostages so the likelihood of Israel getting the fighting age males out is in my opinion a very long shot unless it’s part of a wider ceasefire agreement that effectively leaves Hamas intact (although there maybe room for an ‘ arrangement’  that appears to remove them as a military force).  There are other factions in Gaza like Islamic jihad  - they aren’t even mentioned in discussions because the reality is that it’s too complicated. 
 

the USA and Qatar have a big job on their hands trying to sort this out 

[LiberalFox]

10 hours ago, MPH said:

 

one look at the state of Gaza would suggest otherwise. Israel controls who goes in and out of Gaza, not the other way round, Israel controls the flow of fuel, food, electricity water and internet into Gaza, not the other way round..

 

The ONLY card Hamas have is the hostage card, but if they mess about too much more with that, that card will be null and void too..

Perhaps this is true. I'm loathe to justify the military action due to the immense suffering inflicted on all the people of Gaza though from an Israeli perspective a 3 to 1 exchange of prisoners for hostages is quite good considering they exchanged 1000 prisoners for one soldier in the past. 

[jgtuk]

12 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Perhaps this is true. I'm loathe to justify the military action due to the immense suffering inflicted on all the people of Gaza though from an Israeli perspective a 3 to 1 exchange of prisoners for hostages is quite good considering they exchanged 1000 prisoners for one soldier in the past. 

The Israelis have several thousand Palestinian prisoners, lots of women and children, held inside their prisons, often in solitary and not allowed visitors, without fair trial (sometimes no trial) under spurious arrest circumstances. Some spend years inside for peaceful protest or social media content, others for throwing stones at tanks… 

The Palestinians are in a woeful state at the moment, generations of refugees moved from camps (where they’ve been living for years) without consistent access to food, water, basic sanitation, energy or medical supplies. Thousands killed and injuries probably the hundreds of thousands. Amputations and other surgery without anaesthetic. 
The IDF, yesterday, had snipers at the entrance to Gaza shooting civilians in the legs as they tried to enter to find dead/injured relatives or food supplies during the “pause” in fighting. 
The Israeli government death machine is creating another generation of hate and whatever replaces Hamas (it definitely will be replaced) might be worse. 
I think that Israel thinks if it doesn’t destroy the monster they created there will never be peace in the region.  

[MPH]

4 hours ago, st albans fox said:

It’s a massive card - the Israeli public will care more about their hostages than the desire of netenyahu to destroy Hamas (because fundamentally they know it’s not possible ).  hamas’ fighting forces are primarily underground - as are probably most of the hostages so the likelihood of Israel getting the fighting age males out is in my opinion a very long shot unless it’s part of a wider ceasefire agreement that effectively leaves Hamas intact (although there maybe room for an ‘ arrangement’  that appears to remove them as a military force).  There are other factions in Gaza like Islamic jihad  - they aren’t even mentioned in discussions because the reality is that it’s too complicated. 
 

the USA and Qatar have a big job on their hands trying to sort this out 

 

you say it’s a massive card but it hasn’t stopped Israel  absolutely pummeling Gaza and risking the safety of their own hostages as well as starving the people. ( and potentially their own hostages) of food, power and clean running water.

 

Of course, Israel want their people back, but they have risked their own safety to reach Hamas..

 

[MPH]

2 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

Perhaps this is true. I'm loathe to justify the military action due to the immense suffering inflicted on all the people of Gaza though from an Israeli perspective a 3 to 1 exchange of prisoners for hostages is quite good considering they exchanged 1000 prisoners for one soldier in the past. 

 

 

Just to add, please don’t take my comments as supporting what Israel has done inside of Gaza. I 100% support their right to retaliate for what happens October 7th, but from a Humanitarian point of view, I’m devastated and upset by what I have seen in Gaza..

[Alf Bentley]

On 25/11/2023 at 14:15, LiberalFox said:

@Alf Bentley (won't quote as it was very long).

 

You're right my post focused more on moral side. I'm surprised you say you aren't a protectionist because I think a lot of your points are protectionist. Do you see that as a word with negative connotations or is it more the case you think that it's 'just common sense' (for want of a better phrase)?

 

I wrote a really long post about my thoughts on immigration on a politics oriented site but thought it would be disrespectful to write too much here so I tried to shorten it and make it more about the moral side than my thoughts on policy. I'm tired of there being an anti-immigrant narrative in this country and I feel that both the Conservative and Labour have fueled it for decades without actually tackling the root causes and creates a blurring of the lines between racist and xenophobic talking points and reasonable discourse about immigration policy. 

 

The thrust of my argument elsewhere is that working class people get a higher quality of life in Britain than someone of the same economic value would in a hypothetical global average. So you have this situation where as you say we end up with an immigration system that protects established society from what would happen if you suddenly granted everyone everywhere the right to work and reside in the UK and that's true of every liberal democracy. On the other hand for some people that are economically valuable they are much closer if not equal to their value on a world labour market and actually it's the relative security and depth of British society that keeps people here and attracts them here. It's in every ones interest for immigration policy to welcome those people here.

 

Lastly the asylum seekers who are really a separate argument but get lumped in under the umbrella of immigration. 

 

One of the problems with all this is that the reason working class people have a reasonable stake in immigration policy is because a laissez-faire approach to immigration across the board benefits employers who can make use of cheap labour but makes existing society poorer. There is a downward pressure on all wages and an upward pressure on public services and housing. So that's actually a perfectly good reason to want controls on immigration. But even if immigration is controlled, it doesn't address the fact that you can outsource working class labour very easily these days and the fact that technology is increasingly finding ways to replace working class labour with machinery. So you will still have the same issues even if you curb low skill immigration. 

 

I don't think any political party has really got to grips with that issue and so the immigrant bashing will carry on and you will get things like Brexit which I think are fueled by this anti-globalist sentiment.    

 

 

 

 

No, I'm not a protectionist by instinct - more a pinko liberal internationalist. In a utopian world, I'd like to see much more of politics and democratic decision-making, particularly on the regulation of global capitalism, become global - but that ain't happening any time soon and with Brexit the UK has even retreated back from pooling some sovereignty in a regional bloc.

 

I'd say that what comes across to you as protectionism on my part is down to: (1) Concern for democracy and economic/social/political stability; (2) Pragmatism as to what the people of this country will accept re. immigration, without risking instability and the rise of Far Right, populist, anti-democratic forces. Though, while the nation state remains important, its first democratic responsibility is to its own people, anyway.

 

My concern for democratic stability is real and justified, I think, by the rise of anti-democratic, divisive forces worldwide. Even in the UK, it wouldn't surprise me if we see the rise of Reform UK (or possibly a rehashed, Braverman-style Tory party) as a political force, perhaps before the election but certainly after it - a definite risk to democratic stability as the state of the nation and structural factors will make it enormously hard for any Labour or other govt to retain public approval, even if it does a good job. The risk of the Far Right having a chance of power in the UK by 2029 is quite real, I think - and would certainly be boosted by levels of immigration that proved unpopular. Factor in popular alienation from the democratic system, a possible rise in unemployment, climate change disruption, an increasingly unstable world, associated migration flows and A.I. and the risk gets greater.

 

I have a lot of sympathy for many of your points on an abstract/moral level, but pragmatic analysis restrains idealism for me, I'm afraid - or maybe I'm just getting old and over-cautious...

 

Sorry that I can't respond more fully but my life is busy just now, working long hours, part-overseeing 19-year-old daughter and trying to complete a move to South Devon. The good news is that, if the move is confirmed soon, I'll probably be casting a tactical vote for your lot in the election, as I'll be moving to a Tory constituency with little Labour presence but that went Lib Dem during the Blair years. 

 

Probably just as well to draw this dialogue to a close, anyway, before we piss off other posters, get banned and get this thread shut down for excess politics. 

[dsr-burnley]

7 hours ago, st albans fox said:

It’s a massive card - the Israeli public will care more about their hostages than the desire of netenyahu to destroy Hamas (because fundamentally they know it’s not possible ).  hamas’ fighting forces are primarily underground - as are probably most of the hostages so the likelihood of Israel getting the fighting age males out is in my opinion a very long shot unless it’s part of a wider ceasefire agreement that effectively leaves Hamas intact (although there maybe room for an ‘ arrangement’  that appears to remove them as a military force).  There are other factions in Gaza like Islamic jihad  - they aren’t even mentioned in discussions because the reality is that it’s too complicated. 
 

the USA and Qatar have a big job on their hands trying to sort this out 

It's also good for PR.  It seems that while Israel is still getting criticism (even from David Cameron) for unspecified potential breaches of international law, Hamas is getting credit for graciously allowing a few civilian human shields to return home. 

 

Instead of the "9 year old child returns home after 50 days" story, I think the slant perhaps ought to be "this organisation is so evil that they hold 9 year olds hostage".  

[FoxesDeb]

28 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's also good for PR.  It seems that while Israel is still getting criticism (even from David Cameron) for unspecified potential breaches of international law, Hamas is getting credit for graciously allowing a few civilian human shields to return home. 

 

Instead of the "9 year old child returns home after 50 days" story, I think the slant perhaps ought to be "this organisation is so evil that they hold 9 year olds hostage".  

Like the Israeli government who put hundreds of Palestinian children in jail indefinitely without charge or trial every year?

 

https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/news/media-centre/press-releases/new-research-reveals-ongoing-violence-on-palestinian-children--