...of a green and pleasant land [Owsblog 2006]. Before I go on just let me make it clear that this post isn't just a dig at the festering shite heap that was New Labour...but I do start off with that:
“ Every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception.” Labour election manifesto 1997We know that in their 1st term - from 1997 - immigration tripled; in their 2nd term it quadrupled (from the 1997 figure) [MW - pdf]. This seemed bad enough and then we found out it was entirely intentional and had a 'subsidiary political purpose' and was not just the result of a booming economy and perceived skills shortage. Now, we learn of ANOTHER round of secret immigration intentions: "The secret immigration policy they tried to hide". "Behind closed doors, EU negotiations will trigger a new wave of cheap labour into Britain." Who and when will the public be informed? These are new, irreversible commitments. Not Labour, 'even though Peter Mandelson initiated all the current agreements', not David Cameron or the Coalition...not UKIP, or the Greens or even the Unions (although apparently the RMT may yet force some sort of 'alert').
5 comments:
There is actually an economic theory, which i wish I could name, which suggests that immigration can only be a good thing for a country because it generates 'new' money.
The theory is fine in practice, in fact if you look at this country's internal migration up to 1950 that's how Britain worked. Money came back from the West Indies sugar trade which in turn funded the cotton industry which in turn was responsible for the movement of people around the country to Lancashire and Yorkshire to work in the mills (people from East Anglia received assisted passage would you believe) and people to London to work in the docks.
But. And unlike Pippa's it's a big but.
What the theory didn't know was that a) wages would be driven down and b) perhaps more importantly it didn't anticipate the huge level of remittances.
LOL...Pippa's butt...mmmmmmmmmm
Of course I agree having been most o my working life in other countries! And of course your point re internal movements around the country etc to where the work was. the Irish of course on the railways (Chinese in the US version). Trouble is most of this was when there was no safety net, no dole, no 'generous benefits' that we see today. Fine that half a million Poles (despite the ludicrous estimation the government made of 10 to 20 thousand East Europeans per year!) come to work and thousands go back home and others come BUT when the work ends and they want to stay the problems start (50% London births to foreign mothers etc)
If immigration is so good for an economy then why isn't Africa or basket case Middle East doing it?
Anon, they are! European oil industry workers (as a prime example) etc are immigrant workers and good for those economies; management level and upwards on ranches and farms in Africa and South America producing goods for local and export markets are often - or were - made up of a large percentage foreign (immigrant) workers. Neither case is comparable to the chronic open-door policy the UK allows (US, Australia, NZ etc have very tough rules to allow 'the right sort' of immigrant in, unfortunately the UK has rules but doesn't apply them as EU and assorted home-grown liberal lefty twats make sure almost no-one is turned away)
The middle east certainly is, not in the construction industry where Bangladesh is the main supplier but in IT, procruement services and logistics Britain is a huge contributor of employees both on Government contracts and through private schemes.
Post a Comment