Ken Loach ..part 2
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
there all up there baldy, from the appalling treatment of migrants, thru to the way the immigration system means people stay here rather than returning 'home' & the fact that stopping legal migration just causes more illegal migration and in far far worse conditions - including in how they impact on 'native' workers. Not to mention how you havent got a clue how to bring you preffered policy about, other than shouting bollocks on the internet,.
Belboid straight questions. Can you?
As for implementing prefered policy. Opt out of EU clause letting people move within eu countries...Strictly limit number of Australians and White South Africans let in the UK.
Pay developing nations reparations for any skilled worker migrating to the UK.
Governments can and do limit immigration.
At the moment on both sides reactionary anti social voices seem to be the loudest.
On one side....Happy to take skilled workers from poorer countries.
On the other people wanting to keep poorer people out.
Both of them are equally as bad.
As for implementing prefered policy. Opt out of EU clause letting people move within eu countries...Strictly limit number of Australians and White South Africans let in the UK.
Pay developing nations reparations for any skilled worker migrating to the UK.
Governments can and do limit immigration.
At the moment on both sides reactionary anti social voices seem to be the loudest.
On one side....Happy to take skilled workers from poorer countries.
On the other people wanting to keep poorer people out.
Both of them are equally as bad.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
sorry you cant work anything out for yourself baldy, the inherent questions are fairly apparent. how about we see if you agree with those premises:
that 'tougher' immigration controls would lead to a very harsh treatment, even harsher than at present (20,00 in detention centres for instance) for would be migrants trying (as they undoubtedly would) to get thru the controls
that stopping legal migration would lead to a large increase in illegal immigration, and illegal work in even worse conditions than generally occur today, further impoverishing those workers and reducing wage costs for the 'native' population too
And your above response is not in any way an answer to how you would have your preferred policy brought about - ie, how you hope to influence the government to implement it, other than by mouthing off on the internet
that 'tougher' immigration controls would lead to a very harsh treatment, even harsher than at present (20,00 in detention centres for instance) for would be migrants trying (as they undoubtedly would) to get thru the controls
that stopping legal migration would lead to a large increase in illegal immigration, and illegal work in even worse conditions than generally occur today, further impoverishing those workers and reducing wage costs for the 'native' population too
And your above response is not in any way an answer to how you would have your preferred policy brought about - ie, how you hope to influence the government to implement it, other than by mouthing off on the internet
belboid said:
1 belboid....You talk about harsh conditions for migrants...( i guess you mean migrants coming to countries like the UK?).yep....It is difficult for some of them......
But why is that so important to you........It is hardly comparable to the situation many people face across the world.
2 I am not against all legal migration. But i dont believe that making legal migration more difficult would lead to more illegal migration.
I think the opposite would be the case.
3 I think that people should be arguing against economic migration in order for people to look at doing something about its causes and effects.
So i say what i believe on here and generally.
What would you suggest i do instead?
belboid said:
My arguement is that you can not talk about harsher punishments for stricter migration controls. Without also taking into account the likely consequences of less or no controls.
You must beliving in cloud cuckoo land if you think a free for all,where people are encouraged to go where the money is, would lead to anything but a huge disaster.
I liked Bread and Roses. Went to see that at the Prince of Wales as part of a nosweat thing and Ken Loach was there with a Q&A afterwards. I think his films are great. Kes! What a classic film.
It was around the time just after this country had gone to war in Iraq.
Great night.
I liked this latest film. Loved the masturbatory approach of the main character in a pretty obvious relation to the politics of the 80s linked with modern times.
It was around the time just after this country had gone to war in Iraq.
Great night.
I liked this latest film. Loved the masturbatory approach of the main character in a pretty obvious relation to the politics of the 80s linked with modern times.
ok tbaldwin - so technically how would you control immigration? i think it can only be controlled at the point of demand - no demand = no immigration - continuned demand = continued immigration .. it is easy to say tighter controls but belboid is fair to query what this would mean in practice
belboid - why do you obsess on the affect on migrants not the far far greater affect on those who already live in this country? directly and more importantly indirectly by allowing capital/neo-liberalism to continue - without immigration the contradictions in capital in this country would explode .. you and your left wing colleagues are providing, ironically, a moral and intelectual justification to a process that continues to fuck us all
- you say you are against poaching yet contradictoraly then say the key issue is poverty in the third world - no it is not - that poverty exists, fact, but the move of desperately needed workers to the north would NOT exist without neo liberal created demand. it is particularly sick that in a country like south africa where there has been significant investment in the health service it is seeing so many workers move north
- you ignored the 'accusation' that supportting the free movement of 'blacks' and 'slavs' to do our dirty work is simply racist .. yes or no??
- by continually attacking those who talk and try to find solutions INSTEAD of attcking capital in this issue you continue to suggest that you do not see the issue
belboid - why do you obsess on the affect on migrants not the far far greater affect on those who already live in this country? directly and more importantly indirectly by allowing capital/neo-liberalism to continue - without immigration the contradictions in capital in this country would explode .. you and your left wing colleagues are providing, ironically, a moral and intelectual justification to a process that continues to fuck us all
- you say you are against poaching yet contradictoraly then say the key issue is poverty in the third world - no it is not - that poverty exists, fact, but the move of desperately needed workers to the north would NOT exist without neo liberal created demand. it is particularly sick that in a country like south africa where there has been significant investment in the health service it is seeing so many workers move north
- you ignored the 'accusation' that supportting the free movement of 'blacks' and 'slavs' to do our dirty work is simply racist .. yes or no??
- by continually attacking those who talk and try to find solutions INSTEAD of attcking capital in this issue you continue to suggest that you do not see the issue
durruti02 said:
durruti...You know on this issue you are a bit of a liberal.
And much as i like Liberals, i do think they miss some important things......
The difference between us, is interesting.
You seem to want to solve things by Carrots alone....Me I'm a Carrot and Stick man......
On one hand i think your right in calling for tighter workplace regulations,more health and safety officers and more unionisation.
But lets face it....thats Band Aid......And the kind of sticking plaster that is not going to really stop the flow.
So. I support tight immigration controls. Not the type that the right want based on the finances and skills of prospective migrants.
But based on a sprinkling of Liberal humanity.
The people i would let in would be genuine refugees and people with family in the UK.
The Carrots needed are supporting genuine Internationalism.
International Labour rules and Reparations.
The consequences of economic migration are disastrous.
Taking the workers poorer countries need most is an utter disgrace.
We both know that. BUT how are we going to stop it happening.
I really think that the only way is a Carrot and Stick approach.
And i dont care how many times confused Liberals insist i want to keep the Blacks out or shoot immigrants.
Their smears and innuendos are not half as important as stopping the tide of economic migration.
tbaldwin said:
sorry pc problems! and time!!
no sorry i think you are wrong here .. it is not about carrot and stick
it is about supply and demand ... no demand .. no immigration ..
a lot of demand ( as we have now) and the strongest border controls in the world will be useless .. you can say immigration should be as you want but HOW could that in reality be implemented?
beside there is another contradiction .. it is capital that dictates right? so while i accept it is a leftist position to demand capital operates in afvour of the w/c .. i do not believe it can or will .. immigration is as it is due to the economic system and however right it may be that we only take in family members and refugees it ain't going to just happen!
p.s belboid???
durruti02 said:
YOU BASTARD.
Controlling immigration, is something that is already being done, preety much everywhere.
The arguement has to be not about can it be done,but how it should be done.
And Capitalism only works cos its full of contradictions. Even in the US regulations and laws are in place to protect workers interests.
My arguement that economic migration makes the world a more unequal place you largely accept.
And i know you would also back international labour rules and reparations. But without shutting the door on economic migration, present economic circumstances means that it will continue. And that of course would mean positive measures to address worldwide inequality would be less effective.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
durruti02 said:
I have no intention wasting any time 'debating' with a liar like baldwin. there is no debate, merely tedious repetition.
^& I've answered your points before, if you dont recall the answers, or dont believe them, well, that aint my problem. This discussion is, frankly, pointless.
belboid said:
whats up?? i remember your points and i agreed with most .. however the point is that the far right continue to make hay on this issue while the left continue to stay silent .. it is disasterous .. to simple say it is repitious is nonsense .. most debate is repitious .. lenin /kronstadt /closed shop/ in and out of labour /respect ? good or bad /..
you didn't reply to the idea that it is racist to have all the shite work being done by forigners .. do you agree with me here?
and also you did not reply to the question/ scenario that while it is indeed true much pain and sufferring are casued by immigration controls, as much or more pain and sufferring is caused by migration in the first place ... if that was the case then surely the left should come out as hard against migration as controls??
tbaldwin said:
immigration is being controlled is in the USA and the UK only to allow as much cheap labour in as possible
i accept that state rules and regs to protect the working class are argued for by the left on everything else so yes why not on immigration
my point is we will not GET better rules and regs .. neo liberalism is totally dominant and it is only by building from the base that we will ever get to challenge it
controls to my mind are a distraction .. if we had a state that would institute benevolent migration controls we would not have an economy that used cheap labour as ours does now ..
durruti02 said:
immigration is being controlled is in the USA and the UK only to allow as much cheap labour in as possible
i accept that state rules and regs to protect the working class are argued for by the left on everything else so yes why not on immigration
my point is we will not GET better rules and regs .. neo liberalism is totally dominant and it is only by building from the base that we will ever get to challenge it
controls to my mind are a distraction .. if we had a state that would institute benevolent migration controls we would not have an economy that used cheap labour as ours does now ..
Sorry D but i think your wrong on this.
rules and regs as you say are called for on everything else, but not on migration.
And then you go on to line up with the guilty liberals, saying they probably would be misused or ineffective.
Bit like the NHS and the Welfare state......
Now as a Socialist i think you would have to say that neither the NHS or the Welfare State is great.......But both are a lot better than the alternative of a free market,free for all.
Of course there are problems with supporting and calling for immigration controls. But there really is no other way in my view.
ditto time pc probs!
ok this is a disagreement about the role of the state
we agree on the problems re migration
we diasagree re the possibility of a progressive role of the state in this area .. i accept that we support the NHS and other state insitutions so i accept it can be a left wing position to demand the state protects the w/c re labour and employment
HOWEVER .. in the current period i just do not see how it would be in any way possible to get the state to act in this fashion as this cheap labour migration is intregal to the current phase of neo liberalism
and so i think that the priority is to demand w/c action ( which yes appears similalry illusive) on this issue .. build from the base!
p.s. i also argue again that migration is not controlled by borders or state action but by employment practice
p.s. actually my union branch is talking about developing a local sustainable employment policy with the LA/council .. so yes arguing that nationally would be interesting
yet again though this is about employment not borders
edited to add - it is differrent to argue that the state should control migration thru employment controls than demanding the state should force employers to employ locally ..yes?
ok this is a disagreement about the role of the state
we agree on the problems re migration
we diasagree re the possibility of a progressive role of the state in this area .. i accept that we support the NHS and other state insitutions so i accept it can be a left wing position to demand the state protects the w/c re labour and employment
HOWEVER
.. in the current period i just do not see how it would be in any way possible to get the state to act in this fashion as this cheap labour migration is intregal to the current phase of neo liberalism and so i think that the priority is to demand w/c action ( which yes appears similalry illusive) on this issue .. build from the base!
p.s. i also argue again that migration is not controlled by borders or state action but by employment practice
p.s. actually my union branch is talking about developing a local sustainable employment policy with the LA/council .. so yes arguing that nationally would be interesting
yet again though this is about employment not borders
edited to add - it is differrent to argue that the state should control migration thru employment controls than demanding the state should force employers to employ locally ..yes?
Look D we both agree the state can be used in good and bad ways.
So why the reluctance to call for state controls on migration?
I do think that calling for/supporting immigration controls alone, would be shit.
But calling for migration controls along with reparations and International labour rules is not shit. It is something that i think is essentially right and would be a hell of a lot more popular than your position which is not so clear.
So why the reluctance to call for state controls on migration?
I do think that calling for/supporting immigration controls alone, would be shit.
But calling for migration controls along with reparations and International labour rules is not shit. It is something that i think is essentially right and would be a hell of a lot more popular than your position which is not so clear.
tbaldwin said:
simply becuase i do not believe you should call on the state to do things that restrict people .. it always ends up backfiring
same as i am reluctatant to support any calls on the state
i believe what you propose above should sit comfortbly with most socialists around sw/PR/SP etc
my position is clear .. it is that political action needs to come form the base .. so in this case it shoudl be locally calling for sustainable housing and employment and campaigns against agencies and rogue employers
p.s. you still do not answer why a state based on neo liberalism would restrict itself in this way
urbanrevolt
New Member
durruti02 said:simply becuase i do not believe you should call on the state to do things that restrict people .. it always ends up backfiring
same as i am reluctatant to support any calls on the state
i believe what you propose above should sit comfortbly with most socialists around sw/PR/SP etc
my position is clear .. it is that political action needs to come form the base .. so in this case it shoudl be locally calling for sustainable housing and employment and campaigns against agencies and rogue employers
p.s. you still do not answer why a state based on neo liberalism would restrict itself in this way
You bleedin liberal durruti at this rate im thinking you might be on the verge of running off with nino to make babies.....
You sure we shouldnt call on the state to do anything....What about scrapping the poll tax???? Wasnt that going to restrict the rights of wealthy people who loved paying less rates......
If the state does something you dont like be it hospital cuts or war, we all call on the state not to do it.....Nothing wrong in that in my view....
The Poll tax revolt was a great example of political action coming from the base.....And the overwhelming majority of people wanted the state to replace the poll tax.....And Thatcher had to fall on her sword.....
nobody else is listening any more, you daft twat
On reparations yes as a demand it's fine if all very vague and we should be quite clear that the only way we could ever get to such a policy is by a mass movement built form the bottom up by the mass particiaption of working class people and controlled by them[/QUOTE]
The thing is a call for reparations is vague...But that is because not many people have really given it much thought.
But i reckon that a lot of people would support a grass roots movement with a bit of momentum behind it.
This weekend GAP were in the news for continuing to use cheap child labour. Lots of people think the way multinationals operate is a disgrace.
And from a Socialist Internationalist viewpoint, i think we should be calling for International Labour rules....Perhaps starting with demands for an International Minimum Wage from all multinational companies and their suppliers.....
What do you think?
The thing is a call for reparations is vague...But that is because not many people have really given it much thought.
But i reckon that a lot of people would support a grass roots movement with a bit of momentum behind it.
This weekend GAP were in the news for continuing to use cheap child labour. Lots of people think the way multinationals operate is a disgrace.
And from a Socialist Internationalist viewpoint, i think we should be calling for International Labour rules....Perhaps starting with demands for an International Minimum Wage from all multinational companies and their suppliers.....
What do you think?
Similar threads
- Poll
