Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%
  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%

  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
My point was really about the fallacy of using WW2 rhetoric to justify a political position in 2024. People on every side fall into that trap and I don't think it helps political discourse.

Yeah, but, no, but Stroller started it.

I do kinda agree with you on that point, though, particularly when one recalls the people overwhelmingly voting in Attlee’s administration straight after the War.
 
When you say "our", I'm assuming you speak of the whole of the European Continent, since that's were the elections are being held.

I believe, from your past posts, you're involved in finance in the City of London, with an international aspect. And domestically, you stand to benefit from cheap immigrant labour. Has it occurred to you that most other voters, UK or European, do not live in the rarified atmosphere that you do? They vote according to how mass immigration has affected their lives, which is far from imaginary.

You assume incorrectly, and I'm also not in finance or based in the City. I do, however, benefit from cheaper immigrant labour, as does the whole country on net - although I'm self-aware enough to realise there are some losers in that equation, even if there are more winners overall.

A huge amount of how people vote is imaginary. We have a rapidly aging population, and the only way we're going to be able to afford that is through much higher taxes for social care (& health), which is so controversial that it sunk May's 2017 election campaign dead, or through replenishing our workforce via immigration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stroller
Yeah, but, no, but Stroller started it.

I do kinda agree with you on that point, though, particularly when one recalls the people overwhelmingly voting in Attlee’s administration straight after the War.

Sorry, Ubes, wasn't anything personal against you - and I'm sure I've done it lots of times before. I just saw an egregious example of it and so made the point. I enjoy your contributions on this thread.

Attlee is a great example - in 1945 people wanted to move on and a new social contract was formed. I'd love to look at the history of WW2 rhetoric and see if there was a lull after the war and if it came back into prominence at certain points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uber_Hoop
You assume incorrectly, and I'm also not in finance or based in the City. I do, however, benefit from cheaper immigrant Labour, as does the whole country on net - although I'm self-aware enough to realise there are some losers in that equation, even if there are more winners overall.

A huge amount of how people vote is imaginary. We have a rapidly aging population, and the only way we're going to be able to afford that is through much higher taxes for social care (& health), which is so controversial that it sunk May's 2017 election campaign dead, or through replenishing our workforce via immigration.

Perhaps, then, I can assume you're a white collar worker, in the office and/or working from home. Those losers you refer to will be almost exclusively manual workers, who are undercut by the cheap labour you're so keen to bring in.

Here's the view of Matthew Syed in the Sunday Times this w/e. He's partly from immigrant stock himself, and is hardly a right winger:

"[We, the UK, have to] lose our addiction to low-wage labour, which saves money here and there but stores up vast liabilities because such workers are net recipients of tax funds - a classic Ponzi scheme. Instead, we should pay higher wages to attract British workers, while focusing immigration policy on high skilled individuals, who tend to integrate superbly and whose enterprise and ideas will not just boost GDP per capita but enrich our society, as immigrants often do."

He, personally, is no supporter of Farage, but believes the greater menace is the advocates of the "liberal consensus" who created the conditions for the rise of populism.

For me, he is persuasive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uber_Hoop
Sorry, Ubes, wasn't anything personal against you - and I'm sure I've done it lots of times before. I just saw an egregious example of it and so made the point.

I think mentioning WW2 on the 80th anniversary of D-Day ought to be acceptable.

You assume incorrectly, and I'm also not in finance or based in the City. I do, however, benefit from cheaper immigrant labour, as does the whole country on net - although I'm self-aware enough to realise there are some losers in that equation, even if there are more winners overall.

A huge amount of how people vote is imaginary. We have a rapidly aging population, and the only way we're going to be able to afford that is through much higher taxes for social care (& health), which is so controversial that it sunk May's 2017 election campaign dead, or through replenishing our workforce via immigration.

This is what I find most frustrating about this campaign, and Labour's part in it in particular. Pretending that you can solve health and social care problems without raising taxes, and pretending that you can drastically reduce immigration when you have an aging population and a low birth rate is just dishonest. The Liberals have at least now said that they will raise £9.4 billion from capital gains tax and a bank levy. I believe that Labour will have to do the same and more - hopefully a one-off wealth tax - but they just won't say it.
 
Perhaps, then, I can assume you're a white collar worker, in the office and/or working from home. Those losers you refer to will be almost exclusively manual workers, who are undercut by the cheap labour you're so keen to bring in.

Here's the view of Matthew Syed in the Sunday Times this w/e. He's partly from immigrant stock himself, and is hardly a right winger:

"[We, the UK, have to] lose our addiction to low-wage labour, which saves money here and there but stores up vast liabilities because such workers are net recipients of tax funds - a classic Ponzi scheme. Instead, we should pay higher wages to attract British workers, while focusing immigration policy on high skilled individuals, who tend to integrate superbly and whose enterprise and ideas will not just boost GDP per capita but enrich our society, as immigrants often do."

He, personally, is no supporter of Farage, but believes the greater menace is the advocates of the "liberal consensus" who created the conditions for the rise of populism.

For me, he is persuasive.

He is, and I'm fine with his view in theory. I'm not sure it actually pans out in reality. Minimum wage in this country is comparatively high vs most other countries for a start. Secondly, despite this, unemployment has stayed remarkably low despite various economic shocks in recent years. And thirdly, the nuance Syed describes is a world a way from the nonsense Farage et al sprout - most recently with his target of 'net zero immigration'. I'm glad Syed acknowledges the desperate need we have for skilled immigrants - if we could all even just agree on that, then I'd be happy enough.
 
I think mentioning WW2 on the 80th anniversary of D-Day ought to be acceptable.



This is what I find most frustrating about this campaign, and Labour's part in it in particular. Pretending that you can solve health and social care problems without raising taxes, and pretending that you can drastically reduce immigration when you have an aging population and a low birth rate is just dishonest. The Liberals have at least now said that they will raise £9.4 billion from capital gains tax and a bank levy. I believe that Labour will have to do the same and more - hopefully a one-off wealth tax - but they just won't say it.

I'm looking forward to the Lab manifesto as I'm - as it stands - going to vote for them for the first time, but increasingly reluctantly. I'd really rather them be up front about where the pain will be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stroller
He is, and I'm fine with his view in theory. I'm not sure it actually pans out in reality. Minimum wage in this country is comparatively high vs most other countries for a start. Secondly, despite this, unemployment has stayed remarkably low despite various economic shocks in recent years. And thirdly, the nuance Syed describes is a world a way from the nonsense Farage et al sprout - most recently with his target of 'net zero immigration'. I'm glad Syed acknowledges the desperate need we have for skilled immigrants - if we could all even just agree on that, then I'd be happy enough.

There's no reason why the UK couldn't take in skilled migrants, and maintain net zero immigration for a period. That might head off the kind of problems, and voters reaction to those problems, that we're seeing on The Continent. Remember, the issues re migrants is not restricted to economic.
 
There's no reason why the UK couldn't take in skilled migrants, and maintain net zero immigration for a period. That might head off the kind of problems, and voters reaction to those problems, that we're seeing on The Continent. Remember, the issues re migrants is not restricted to economic.



I am not sure we need highly skilled immigration tbh
We need care workers, fruit pickers, seasonal farm workers.
 
Sorry, Ubes, wasn't anything personal against you - and I'm sure I've done it lots of times before. I just saw an egregious example of it and so made the point. I enjoy your contributions on this thread.

Attlee is a great example - in 1945 people wanted to move on and a new social contract was formed. I'd love to look at the history of WW2 rhetoric and see if there was a lull after the war and if it came back into prominence at certain points.

Nothing personal taken.
 
I am not sure we need highly skilled immigration tbh
We need care workers, fruit pickers, seasonal farm workers.

Rather interestingly, down in Kent (where I have cause to go regularly these days) the farmers are turning away young kids because it’s cheaper to recruit the immigrants. That in itself can’t be right.
 
Last edited:
Rather interestingly, down in Kent (where I gave cause to go regularly these days) the farmers are turning away young kids because it’s cheaper to recruit the immigrants. That in itself can’t be right.
What immigrants...legal ones.
That cannot be right...as they have to be paid ( adult) minimum wage. Kids get a lower minimum wage.


So the farmers are employing illegal immigrants?
 
I am not sure we need highly skilled immigration tbh
We need care workers, fruit pickers, seasonal farm workers.

Skilled immigrants in manufacturing, technology, financial services etc would bring real value.

Seasonal workers can be given a seasonal visa now anyway. Pay care workers more, and UK residents will apply in greater numbers
 
What immigrants...legal ones.
That cannot be right...as they have to be paid ( adult) minimum wage. Kids get a lower minimum wage.


So the farmers are employing illegal immigrants?

Maybe or maybe not. There seems to be quite a lucrative racket in housing 25 blokes in your garage and ferrying them in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr