I think that WY is actually arguing for a system that's similar to the ones that they have in Australia or Canada, rather than just open borders.
The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Wandering Yid
- Start date
-
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
-
EU Membership absolutely does prevent it.
Everyone accepts that there is a maximum amount of net immigration we can support in this country - we're already the most densely populated major country in Europe (hence housing crisis, hospital waiting lists, overfilled classrooms), and most politicians agree that the current levels between 200-300k per year are unsustainable.
So long as we have open-door immigration with the EU, which ALONE provides more immigrants than the major parties would like to accept IN TOTAL, we are incapable of having a fair immigration policy with the rest of the world, as its not in any of the major parties interest.
The same is true of various other EU countries, though.
It will become something that's changeable, as the more powerful members will want to change it.
The major parties in the UK are happy with the current immigration levels, on the other hand.
I'm a little torn, and for reasons to do with where I currently live, a tad biased.
As a trade block, we're certainly better in. The downside is the politics of the whole thing and, of course, the federalists who won't give up on their push for a federal Europe.
Immigration is a sideshow compared to the economic and major political argument.,
As a trade block, we're certainly better in. The downside is the politics of the whole thing and, of course, the federalists who won't give up on their push for a federal Europe.
Immigration is a sideshow compared to the economic and major political argument.,
Tories have always said they want immigation in the 'tens of thousands' not the 'hundreds of thousands'.
Not sure what Corbyn's stance is but Labour under Miliband frequently said that immigration in the 300,000 level was unacceptable.
Corbyn's always been very pro-freedom of movement and I doubt that's changed.
The Tories are doing what they always do. Say whatever it takes to get elected, then do whatever suits your ideology.
In the case of immigration, the current situation is a big positive for their backers, so they're very much in favour of it.
They claimed that they were going to make big cuts when that was completely impossible and they knew it.
I can think of countless examples of Tories saying they want less immigration, I can't recall a single case of one saying they want more, or even saying current levels are fine...
I agree. Yet immigration continues to rise while they're in power and they're not doing anything to change that.
If I tell you that I'm not a thief and yet I continue to steal things, do you believe my words or my actions?
You seem to have arrived at my point. They're not doing anything to change that, because they can't, there is literally nothing they can do, because we're in the EU!
No, it's because they don't have any interest in doing so.
They say that they do because it appeals to their core voters and prevents more people joining UKIP.
Everything that they actually do suggests that the complete opposite is true.
Why would they want to reduce it?
Because reducing immigration reduces strains on the aforementioned housing, NHS, education system, social services etc - the improvement of which increases their chances of getting elected in future years, and simultaneously helps them to achieve their goal of eliminating the structural deficit.
Why would they want more of it?
They have no intention of reducing the strains on any of those things, though. Quite the opposite.
They're happily privatising the health and education systems, reducing the role of social services and ignoring housing completely.
They're not worried about getting elected in the future, as the current system will elect either them or something pretty similar.
They won't be out of work either way and it's just a matter of time until the party gets back in, even if they do lose.
Even if this were true, and I don't believe it is, it is far easier to privatise a service which is performing well than one which is performing badly and losing increasingly large sums of money.
Not to the public it isn't. It's standard practice to run a service badly before selling it off.
Investors will know it's true value and you can sell it for less than it's proper price, just like the Royal Mail.
The voters will see a reason why it was sold and will be less likely to see it as a stitch-up, though.
You take a more cynical view of Tory policy than me. Regardless, if the thing which is causing the NHS to perform badly is immigration (which it is within this argument), any investor knows that there is nothing they can do to counter that, and so the investment value is genuinely diminished rather than it being a case of under valuation.
Your argument also doesn't explain why the Labour party have been so useless at running the NHS and education, given they had no interest in selling them off
The Labour party were part of the move towards privatisation. They weren't that different to the Tories under Blair.You take a more cynical view of Tory policy than me. Regardless, if the thing which is causing the NHS to perform badly is immigration (which it is within this argument), any investor knows that there is nothing they can do to counter that, and so the investment value is genuinely diminished rather than it being a case of under valuation.
Your argument also doesn't explain why the Labour party have been so useless at running the NHS and education, given they had no interest in selling them off
Immigration has a mixed effect on the NHS at the moment, but wouldn't be harmful to a privatised health system.
Everyone using it would have to pay for it, so it's not an issue if and when it's sold off.
No but the Welsh Assembly, which generally escaped the temporary neoliberalisation of Labour politics, has a dreadful record of running its hospitals.
I personally don't believe anyone would try to implement a pay-to-use, not free at the point of need health service in the UK, it's a no go area, even for the Tories, regardless oh how little you think of them.
They're doing it at the moment. Everyone's blaming Jeremy Hunt.
He'll do irreparable damage and then sell it off. He co-wrote a book about it.
People will blame him, rather than the party. He won't care, as he'll be off working for private healthcare companies.
It's a family trait, apparently. Virginia Bottomley is doing a wonderful job for BUPA.
But Hunt's junior doctor policies are aimed at making the NHS more financially responsible... surely, under your argument, the Tories would be doing the reverse...
Last post of the night may pick you up in the morning if you've got anything interesting to say
Good discussion PNP even if we clearly have very different perspectives on the world
