...as long as THEY don't have to do the labour of course
New Labour think tank IPPR supports mass immigration
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
...as long as THEY don't have to do the labour of course
isn't it???
and they have all said they are happy for foreigners to do this work .. and yet they accuse those who criticise this migrant fueled cheap labour economy of being bnp/racist etc etctrez bizarre!
Your post is so full of distortions, gross oversimplifications and daft divisions that I don't know where to start.
It's probably best to say that migrants and an organised workforce are clearly not necessarily exclusive, divided ideals. As others have pointed out migrants have often been amongst the most organised and motivated - it's the failure of unions to include and protect them in the past, and of the 'native' w/c to show solidarity - best seen by your continued division an descriptors in this thread of immigrants as exploited cheap labour - that's hindering a more equitable future.
Immigrants come over here to make a better future for themselves, not necessarily fuck over the existing working population. Hell, we've got enough scabs and unprincipled bastards born over here already.
i almost entirely agree with this post tarannau - but i understand but disagree with your position that to acknowledge that many immigrnats are exploited is bad ..
so now please will you respect that, and respect that i work alongside migrants day in day out and that i help organise migrants so they are on good terms and conditions etc etc ..
and THEN think again about what i am saying
Nobody's denying that many immigrants are exploited.
Hell, but the difficulty is that 'closed shop' and protectionist oversimpletons like Mikey contribute to the problem - talking of division, foreigners, cheap labour etc etc - making migrants them the issue rather than wider equality. It allows others to, in effect, demonise and blame them for the failure of the British w/c to show solidarity - a kneejerk protectionist and short-sighted reaction. Talk like this hardly encourages migrants to unionise or join in with other w/c movements.
Whereas as the truth is far more complex. Many British workers - both native and immigrant - are exploited, often because of the failure of the unions to engage and include in the past.
Hell, but the difficulty is that 'closed shop' and protectionist oversimpletons like Mikey contribute to the problem - talking of division, foreigners, cheap labour etc etc - making migrants them the issue rather than wider equality. It allows others to, in effect, demonise and blame them for the failure of the British w/c to show solidarity - a kneejerk protectionist and short-sighted reaction. Talk like this hardly encourages migrants to unionise or join in with other w/c movements.
Whereas as the truth is far more complex. Many British workers - both native and immigrant - are exploited, often because of the failure of the unions to engage and include in the past.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
paid bureaucrat?? .. smearing again is it?? prick .. as most people know i do a manual low wage local govt job and have done for twenty years and been a non paid steward much of that time .. and in that i have seen how migration has been used by the bosses ..
you live in a totally fantasy world that is so fucking out of touch you have ended up supporting the ultra exploitation on migrants by the bosses as it is good for the british working class, cheap food and all!!
jesus, if i said that, you would announce i was the next leader of the BNP, you fool LOL
What a dick!
Knowing that low paid manual work exists, alongside workers who have to sell their labour in order to survive, does not mean supporting 'ultra exploitation' knucklehead.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
I'm not a member of the SWP, but I hazard a guess that they have more roots in the working class than most groups, including the tofu chomping, cider swilling anarchists ones.
I'm sure the Honduran migrants in Mexico you mention will survive without your help.
again tarannau i hardly can not diasgree with what you write except re the closed shop .. in my experiance workers strength will breed inclusivity not the other way around
tarannau
"One tip Durrutti before you start spouting about on about 'Spiv' bosses for the umpteenth time, go and do a little research and see just how little the average farmer makes in the UK
Nobody's denying that there are problems with huge agribusinesses and particularly gangmasters, but the vast majority of farmers in this country are in virtual poverty - increasing their costs on labour intensive tasks (eg fruit picking) simply increases the rate of failure (more farmland for stockbrokers anyone?) and/or pushes the final retail price of the food up. And - judging by the miserable precedents of previous Buy British campaigns and the unwillingness of most to pay for ethical or locally sourced goods - Brits will simply switch to cheaper produce from elsewhere.
Oh, and don't ever dump me in with the SWP lot again..."
i am perfectly aware of how badly off most farmers are .. but you seem unaware that those who lose out lose ut to those who use cheap labour .. so what are we saying .. that all should use cheap labour???
no surely the answer is that the big spiv firms should be stopped which would benefit poor farmers no end
that does not deal with food costs overall .. must go out so will deal with that later ..
sorry about the swp bit .. very low
"One tip Durrutti before you start spouting about on about 'Spiv' bosses for the umpteenth time, go and do a little research and see just how little the average farmer makes in the UK
Nobody's denying that there are problems with huge agribusinesses and particularly gangmasters, but the vast majority of farmers in this country are in virtual poverty - increasing their costs on labour intensive tasks (eg fruit picking) simply increases the rate of failure (more farmland for stockbrokers anyone?) and/or pushes the final retail price of the food up. And - judging by the miserable precedents of previous Buy British campaigns and the unwillingness of most to pay for ethical or locally sourced goods - Brits will simply switch to cheaper produce from elsewhere.
Oh, and don't ever dump me in with the SWP lot again..."
i am perfectly aware of how badly off most farmers are .. but you seem unaware that those who lose out lose ut to those who use cheap labour .. so what are we saying .. that all should use cheap labour???
no surely the answer is that the big spiv firms should be stopped which would benefit poor farmers no end
that does not deal with food costs overall .. must go out so will deal with that later ..
sorry about the swp bit .. very low
You argument gets weaker and weaker. It's down to the racist unions now.
I notice you didn't deny my point that workers being able to organise comes second as a priority in your mind to getting as many migrants in as possible - whether they all end up on peanuts or not. You are no different to the IPPR. You have your gut reaction: you want open borders at any price, and whether it works for the working class or not is of little importance to you.
Where do I say that I want as many migrants in as possible? I'm dumbstruck that you can come up with that conclusion to be honest.
I still love the idea that it's the working class vs migrants, as if they're exclusive groups. The bizarre implication seems to be that they're opposing forces or, more worryingly, that migrants are worthy of some kind of sub working-class status.
Like the racist <buzzword> slur too. Fine work all round from you. F- for logic, but plenty of surplus, misrepresentative effort on your part.
I still love the idea that it's the working class vs migrants, as if they're exclusive groups. The bizarre implication seems to be that they're opposing forces or, more worryingly, that migrants are worthy of some kind of sub working-class status.
Like the racist <buzzword> slur too. Fine work all round from you. F- for logic, but plenty of surplus, misrepresentative effort on your part.
Nobody needs to misrepresent you. I note you still fail to address the point that workers organising is a lesser priority to you than open borders.
So you do want restrictions on how many migrant workers can come in and improve their quality of life? No, you don't. You want as many as possible because that is your dream. Workers uniting would be a bonus, but is a lesser priority to you.
Nobody said opposing forces. Only that an easy supply of labour makes it difficult to deal with employers who are unscrupulous. You refuse to address your own arguments and misrepresent others. You should join the IPPR, or the Confederation of British Industry. Your desires differ little from theirs.
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
I'm not in favour of low wages, I'm in favour of no wages
yes we all are
.. i am sure you have read your early marx too .. but the point, as he might of said, is how to get there 
and the path your left has been taking has alienated the w/c, from progressive communal solidarity politics, to a disasterous level .. and to a level when i suggest that workers organisations should demand local employers recruit and train unemployed local kids i am called racist, bourgois, nationalist, little englander, bnp, reformist, parochial etc etc etc etc really amazing
lights.out.london
Black Flag
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
yes we all are
and the path your left has been taking has alienated the w/c, from progressive communal solidarity politics, to a disasterous level .. and to a level when i suggest that workers organisations should demand local employers recruit and train unemployed local kids i am called racist, bourgois, nationalist, little englander, bnp, reformist, parochial etc etc etc etc really amazing
You've come out clearly for further restrictions on migrant workers. No "communal solidarity" there?
clearly? really where have i said i am in favour of 'restrictions'?
FACT .. i have said i am AGAINST state immigration restrictions
FACT .. i have consistently said i am in favour of forcing employers to employ locally and at proper rates.
Yes the affect of this may mean less migrants but it is a fundamental differrence you are appear too dim, as it has been repeated to you many many times, to understand ..
but hey for a shit-smearing tosser like you why let facts get in the way?
Define 'locally'?
Why would that have any effect on immigrants at all - surely they'd be as local as the next 'native' if it was by address.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
FACT .. you're a knob.
Apparently against state restrictions, but in favour of some restrictions as yet undefined.
local .. as near as possible .. we have lost communities with disasterous results as you know .. we need to find ways of rebuilding them
yes once someone is here they are w/c and 'local' .. you read my posts where i said i had been helping closely with organising gujerati cleaners and have recruited eastern europeans to my shop??
surely you now realise my beef is with employers would encourage low wage migration for their profits and the state who get out of training up kids etc?
I'm still unsure how this definition of 'local' works. Most migrants don't sit in their home country until a job comes along - they migrate and then seek employment in the area they arrive in.
And what do you propose in an area as vast and heavily populated as London. Can only Sloanes work in Chelsea, Trustafarians in Nottting Hill and so on?
I can't see how your definition of local makes a shred of difference, unless it stops people from Wigan working in nearby Warrington for example. Nor how it rebuilds community - this notion of locality seems largely an accident of address and affordability rather than anything else.
And why you keep going on about gujerati cleaners is beyond me.
And what do you propose in an area as vast and heavily populated as London. Can only Sloanes work in Chelsea, Trustafarians in Nottting Hill and so on?
I can't see how your definition of local makes a shred of difference, unless it stops people from Wigan working in nearby Warrington for example. Nor how it rebuilds community - this notion of locality seems largely an accident of address and affordability rather than anything else.
And why you keep going on about gujerati cleaners is beyond me.
I'm still unsure how this definition of 'local' works. Most migrants don't sit in their home country until a job comes along - they migrate and then seek employment in the area they arrive in.
And what do you propose in an area as vast and heavily populated as London. Can only Sloanes work in Chelsea, Trustafarians in Nottting Hill and so on?
I can't see how your definition of local makes a shred of difference, unless it stops people from Wigan working in nearby Warrington for example. Nor how it rebuilds community - this notion of locality seems largely an accident of address and affordability rather than anything else.
And why you keep going on about gujerati cleaners is beyond me.
look nothing in life is easy .. i am talking about a principle
ok so the local hospital is short staffed it should employ people from the area rather than finland phillipines etc, indeed as Diane Abbot stated .. we used caribean women back in the 5ts .. now we reject those womens grandchildren kids and leave them to a live of nothing
i do not understand your point on the importance of locality ... do you not think employed societies where people live work and socialise in a community have advantages over the type of collapsed society we see in london today?
and yuo liek dennisr did before AGAIN confuse POSITIVE ACTION with restriction ..
again and i needs to be stated over and over .. we have 3 million and more people idle in this country and as we know the devil makes work for idle hands .. we have a "get rich quick society" where people think they will make money employing migrants on shite wages and where many unemployed have virtually given up on work and society where instead of working out what we need as a society and at what price we use cheap labour, imported overwhelmingly, instead
ffs? really i have to explain why do i go on about me helping to orgnaise gujerati workers in london?? because dopes on here have implied i am some AGAINST migrants .. instead of against exploitation .of all .
So you're basically proposing some kind of 'sons and daughters' employment policy or similar then. And you've the bare faced cheek to talk that you wouldn't have restrictions on migrant workers. Positive action my arse.
I could go on, but you've clearly not thought this through.
London society ain't collapsed anyway - I've got a good community around me. Besides, anyone trying to present London as some kind of stable city of cockney style residents is fooling themselves - the city's always been dynamic, changing and full of migrants.
I could go on, but you've clearly not thought this through.
London society ain't collapsed anyway - I've got a good community around me. Besides, anyone trying to present London as some kind of stable city of cockney style residents is fooling themselves - the city's always been dynamic, changing and full of migrants.
well bully for you .. where i live we have had 4 teenagers killed this year . the society IS fucking awful for most people .. just cos you are out of that maybe you need to have some humility, understanding and respect for those who ARE affected by what is going on
yes i do support sons and daughters in all aspects ... you absolutely refuse to deal with the fact that we have 3million unemployed with a far higher % amongst inner city bme kids .. yet you propose nothing for these kids but more of the same
and say it is acceptable that companies continue to boost profits by using cheap labour migrants instead of giving a future to our kids
btw you got kids?
and yet again you make up shit lol who ever said london was pefect a cockney heaven .. i never did .. i ALWAYS look to the future ... where we do NOT have millions unemployed and kids who think they have no future but drug dealing and gangs ..
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
double post
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
But ... but... all the drug dealing and gangs are a part of London's wich and vibwant diversity and should be celebwated wather than phased out of existance by higher living standards and better employment. London would be so dull and unexciting then.
But ... but... all the drug dealing and gangs are a part of London's wich and vibwant diversity and should be celebwated wather than phased out of existance by higher living standards and better employment. London would be so dull and unexciting then.
yes i forgot its sooo EDGY ..
" it's like wow .. you know there's this new bar and it's like on murder mile in hackney and my media job is well you know really boring though i make out its cutting edge .. we really are just all a bunch of nathan barleys .. and so this bar in clapton is really cool .. it's such a shame about all the murders but whats it got to do with me?? .. hey you been to that new electro club in shoreditch yet .. " etc etc etc blah blah blah
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
But ... but... all the drug dealing and gangs are a part of London's wich and vibwant diversity and should be celebwated wather than phased out of existance by higher living standards and better employment. London would be so dull and unexciting then.
omg hes a propa leftwing socalist 'jo!!!!?!
All that generalised blather and you still haven't come up with a considered answer to how you'd implement this 'locality' policy.
Run along now my little antediluvian fool, back to longing for retrograde 'sons and daughters' style policies. Just don't try and fool yourself that you're on the side of migrants - you're a shallow drawbridge-pull up merchant, with all the selfish, divisive motivations that you claim to fight against.
Love the barrel-scraping 'edgy' slurs btw. Considering I'm born and bred here, living in the same 2 mile stretch for pretty much all my life, you've a fucking cheek. Aren't you meant to be representing 'locals' like me, or doesn't my skin colour and heritage qualify me properly?
Similar threads
