Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

When even a twat like Ken Loach starts to realise.

Loach is clearly saying that capital and the state exploits migrant or illegal workers and uses their desperation in order to undermine the conditions of existing workers - he's not arguing for tighter border controls or immigration policy - he's arguing for those two sections of the working class to organise togther. That's the whole point of the bloody film.
 
editor said:
So, your achievements are....

Numerous...But no films as yet. One of the other things to catch my eye in the Observer yesterday was a review of Andrew Anthonys book.
 
butchersapron said:
Loach is clearly saying that capital and the state exploits migrant or illegal workers and uses their desperation in order to undermine the conditions of existing workers - he's not arguing for tighter border controls or immigration policy - he's arguing for those two sections of the working class to organise togther. That's the whole point of the bloody film.

Which shows that he is still a bit confused on the issue.
But mass migration legal or illegal is not something that i think any rational person should support from a left wing point of view.
 
tbaldwin said:
Which shows that he is still a bit confused on the issue.
But mass migration legal or illegal is not something that i think any rational person should support from a left wing point of view.

Confused as in doesn't agree with you as per your OP?
 
From that article: "Both sides are losing out - Britain has an unmonitored workforce while other countries are losing people in the prime of their working life who are taking their talents out of their home nations."

It's the second part of that statement which is a bit surprising coming from Ken Loach. The implication is that it'd be better if fewer people of prime working age took their talents out of their poorer home countries.
 
The implication is that it'd be better if fewer people of prime working age took their talents out of their poorer home countries.

Well, yes, but the real implication is that it would be better if people weren't forced to take their talents out of poorer nations. I don't see that there is any necessary contradiction in saying that people should be free to work and live in any country that they wish but that it is sad to see talented and necessary workers from the 'third world' scrubbing loos in the UK
 
butchersapron said:
Loach is clearly saying that capital and the state exploits migrant or illegal workers and uses their desperation in order to undermine the conditions of existing workers - he's not arguing for tighter border controls or immigration policy - he's arguing for those two sections of the working class to organise togther. That's the whole point of the bloody film.

Good post- Loach perhaps ought to make clear how immigration controls make this working together harder (perhaps he does say this but wasn't quoted I don't know) but what he certainly doesn't do in the article is say that it's the fault of the immigrants or that we should have more immigration controls.

He calls for more trade union powers to stop bosses exploiting workers- nothing too wrong with that as far as I can see.

"Veteran director Ken Loach called for a repeal of anti-trade union laws and tighter health and safety controls in Britain as his latest film emerged as a leading contender for the top prize at the Venice film festival last night."

By the way John McDonnell MP I thought put it well in his letter to the Trade Union Conference Organsing Against Immigration Controls when he wrote:

"To the Trade Union Conference Against Immigration Controls,
31st March 2007, from John McDonnell MP

Dear conference

As many of you will know, my constituency Hayes and Harlington is
home to two of Britain 's immigration prisons, Colnbrook and
Harmondsworth. Here people who have committed no crime are locked up
before being deported, often to countries where their very lives are
in danger.

Migrants are not criminals but human beings who would contribute to
our society as any other citizens. I welcome and applaud this
conference because it is essential that migrants and other workers
join forces to support each other and fight for a society in which
no one is left behind.

Divided, employers will exploit undocumented workers and use them to
drive down wages and conditions for everyone else, disposing of them
the moment they are no longer needed. Together we can support each
other and build a mass movement that will deliver the changes we so
badly need.

Trade unions will never be strong enough to win the struggles we
face unless we embrace migrant workers regardless of their status.
We cannot expect migrant workers to support our struggles unless we
support theirs, fighting against the twin threats of detention and
deportation and refusing to cooperate with the immigration system in
reporting the undocumented, or cutting off services.

Ultimately our struggle is the same: for fair wages and conditions,
and a decent life in which we are all treated equally and with
dignity.

John McDonnell MP"
 
selamlar said:
Well, yes, but the real implication is that it would be better if people weren't forced to take their talents out of poorer nations. I don't see that there is any necessary contradiction in saying that people should be free to work and live in any country that they wish but that it is sad to see talented and necessary workers from the 'third world' scrubbing loos in the UK

That seems a reasonable guess at Loach's thoughts on the matter.
 
Belushi said:
I'm still gutted about the Labour leadership election, I was going to rejoin in order to vote for him.

If you hadn't joined by the time he failed to get the nominations, you would have been too late to vote for him anyway.

Look into the LRC if you're interested in other ways to further that line of politics between the occasional leadership elections.
 
dash_two said:
From that article: "Both sides are losing out - Britain has an unmonitored workforce while other countries are losing people in the prime of their working life who are taking their talents out of their home nations."

It's the second part of that statement which is a bit surprising coming from Ken Loach. The implication is that it'd be better if fewer people of prime working age took their talents out of their poorer home countries.

Which is at least a step in the right direction.
For years the Liberal Left have by and large ignored the devastating consequences of supporting mass migration.
If even somebody like Ken Loach is starting to question that it can only be a good thing.
 
selamlar said:
Well, yes, but the real implication is that it would be better if people weren't forced to take their talents out of poorer nations. I don't see that there is any necessary contradiction in saying that people should be free to work and live in any country that they wish but that it is sad to see talented and necessary workers from the 'third world' scrubbing loos in the UK

I'd agree with that too. Of course it'd be much better if people weren't forced by war, persecution or poverty to cross borders.

But how do we best fight for that better world? Is tbaldwin suggesting tighter controls? If so that's shit because it plays all the more into the hands of unscrupulous exploitative bosses.

We should be for maximum solidarity between all workers - regardless of status- against discrimnation of migrant workers, because as welll as being wrong it's used against all of us- for health and safety for all, for trade union control of wages, jobs, condiitons etc.

Obviously a massive fight- in fact not acheivable on any sustainable basis without challenging capitalism itself imo.

And far from easy- but some victories are possible and people getting organised in solidarity with ne another definitely gets results

But it's clear that our allies in this fight are migrant workers not out of sympathy but out of solidarity and a shared interest.
 
tbaldwin said:
Which is at least a step in the right direction.
For years the Liberal Left have by and large ignored the devastating consequences of supporting mass migration.
If even somebody like Ken Loach is starting to question that it can only be a good thing.

This is what I don't understand about your argument. I mean, supporting migration would mean supporting the right of migrants to have the same protection of their pay and conditions as everyone else, no? I have never heard anyone of any kind of leftish persuasion supporting the kind of discrimination against migrants that forces them into the clutches of gangmasters and exploitative employers. Anyone except you, that is.
 
butchersapron said:

True. There are plenty of highly-credible and very popular leftwing parties out there to get involved with instead if you've given up on Labour.

Here we go again.
 
Fruitloop said:
This is what I don't understand about your argument. I mean, supporting migration would mean supporting the right of migrants to have the same protection of their pay and conditions as everyone else, no? I have never heard anyone of any kind of leftish persuasion supporting the kind of discrimination against migrants that forces them into the clutches of gangmasters and exploitative employers. Anyone except you, that is.

What you fail to understand is that as an Internationalist, i think you have to look at the International consequences for the majority of the worlds population.
Now you may think that supporting the rights of a few individuals to live where they like overrides all other concerns but i dont.
I think that if you do give a shit about people from poorer countries, you cant ignore those left behind in those countries.
And gangmasters would not disapear with open borders. Far from it they prosper and grow with the new opportunities.
 
I support the right of all individuals to live where they like, not just a few of them. Why would I just support a few, you weirdo?

I don't agree with you about gangmasters - they flourish because of the existence of desparate people who are unable to find legitimate work.

And what about the people who are currently supported by relatives working abroad? Do they not feature in your majoritarian calculations?

Anyhoo, as has been pointed out by more or less everyone, these debates just go round in circles (as this one is already doing), so I'll leave you to it. Have fun! :)
 
tbaldwin said:
What you fail to understand is that as an Internationalist, i think you have to look at the International consequences for the majority of the worlds population.
Now you may think that supporting the rights of a few individuals to live where they like overrides all other concerns but i dont.
I think that if you do give a shit about people from poorer countries, you cant ignore those left behind in those countries.

So, you'd only let working class refugees into the country.
 
Fruitloop said:
I support the right of all individuals to live where they like, not just a few of them. Why would I just support a few, you weirdo?

I don't agree with you about gangmasters - they flourish because of the existence of desparate people who are unable to find legitimate work.

And what about the people who are currently supported by relatives working abroad? Do they not feature in your majoritarian calculations?

Anyhoo, as has been pointed out by more or less everyone, these debates just go round in circles (as this one is already doing), so I'll leave you to it. Have fun! :)

1 That is just right wing nonsense. Who do you think benefits most from supporting the so called right of people to live where they like?????????

2 You clearly havent thought that through. Do you seriously imagine that Gangmasters and Unemployment would disappear if we all supported free market policies on migration?

3 Yes. But the minority of people who migrate are not more important than the majority who dont.

4 Shame. You ask some good questions at times.
 
goldenecitrone said:
So, you'd only let working class refugees into the country.
No.
But i would definetely be most opposed to countries like the UK taking skilled workers from poorer countries.
I think anybody who does has the morals of a sewer rat.
 
From my reading of history mass migration has always been encouraged by capital as an economic tool to reduce wages, undermine unions and solidarity, just look at America, no chance of any socialism there. This totally uncritical approach by the far left and much of the liberal left just leaves it open to the far right to exploit/utilise. Tbh, its this idealism that everything will be ok, that such major changes do not bring difficulties that really gets my goat, its pie in the sky politics which is marginal and makes the left marginal.

oh, imo, Loach is clearly saying that the best and the brightest are being 'poached by the west
 
treelover said:
From my reading of history mass migration has always been encouraged by capital as an economic tool to reduce wages, undermine unions and solidarity, just look at America, no chance of any socialism there.
Actually historically the high point of socialist sentiment in the US was probably coincident with the high point of immigration.
 
Back
Top Bottom