Yes, you’re right. Not one of the 60 million people in this country realises that. Thank you for educating us.
Don’t you think there might - just might - be an element of entertainment about this? That he made a mistake and we’re all finding it hilarious?
As for naivete - I’d suggest the naive person is the one who doesn’t realise that every little word a politician on an election campaign will be scrutinised and that it matters immensely. I’d posit that you are somewhat naive about the nature of the media.
Yes, if that’s the best scandalous behaviour the Brits can come up with, I feel sorry for them. Now giving protesters the finger and saying “fuddle duddle” in Parliament, that’s memorable.
Really? I say that the assertion that immigration has driven down wages for Brits isn’t backed by the evidence. Prof Blanchflower says that there is “some evidence” of a “not enormous” effect "among “the least skilled”. Prof Nickell suggests that workers in a particular sector of the economy have seen their pay fall. I found his relevant paper here, BTW. He says that
They don’t address themselves to the question of whether the pre-A8 accession workers who are seeing wages driven down are indigenous Brits. So I’ll stand by my assertion that sweeping statements about immigrants driving down wages aren’t backed up - the best that can be said is that **some **low-skilled sectors have seen a **small **amount of downward pressure. Now I grant that these effects are not equally distributed across the UK - they cluster in specific regions. What is less obvious, but no less real, is the positive effect of immigration on the economy. One cannot, for example, argue both that jobs are scarce in a particular area, and that such large numbers of immigrants are taking jobs there that local services cannot cope. There clearly are jobs there, and they have been created by the fact that immigrants will do them at a price that makes it economical for the employer to engage them. Economically speaking, this is good news.
However, the main point is that immigration is a chimera. If you are poor and unskilled and out of work, it’s very tempting to blame it on the Pole who came over and took “your” job by the dastardly technique of accepting less money and a lower quality of life to do it. The reasons you’re poor and unskilled and out of work are that a) the education system failed you (even now, the single biggest factor determining academic achievement is parental socio-economic status, for Christ’s sake) and b) the government hasn’t lifted a finger to replace the failing manufacturing sector that employed your mum and dad or c) encourage/enable you to learn new skills. Unskilled labour is a mug’s game - there will always be someone willing to do it for less, whether they come over here or wait for the factory to come to them.
*Signficant here meaning statistically significant, not economically significant, NB
There are numerous stories about Gordon Brown’s dreadful people management skills, at the Treasury, and inside No.10. Too frequently he seems wooden and uncomfortable meeting voters - he makes Al Gore look like a natural. Much of the Labour Party privately regrets letting him take charge - but few other people wanted to drink the poisoned chalice of leading the party at the fag end of a Labour government. More and more he resembles Anthony Eden, who also waited years for the job, and made a mess of it once he he got his hands on it.
Err, have you actually been following the thread? I’ve been specifically talking about the least skilled workers, so why the scare quotes? They’re the very subject of my posts. In addition, a “not enormous effect” becomes a very real effect when you’re on barely any money to begin with. If you’re just earning above the minimum wage, then any reduction in average salary is going to have a huge effect on your quality of life. How the hell can you not understand this?
Yes, in particular, I’d wager that the sorts of towns where these effects are magnified are towns like Rochdale and Oldham, the town with the lowest average salary in the UK, and other ex-mill towns which have seen large influxes. You’d also note, these are two of the towns that I’ve specifically mentioned in my previous posts.
I fail to see the dichotomy. You needn’t have swathes of immigrants landing in a town to overwhelm services like social services, the health services or education, especially when these services were chronically underfunded in the first place. Even a small number of foreign language children enrolled in a school need specialist translators and educational materials, i.e. additional funding that’s not always forthcoming.
Err, yes, exactly as I said in my first post in this thread: these ex-mill and mining towns have been left to rot since the Thatcher years. Redevelopment money hasn’t been forthcoming.
So altering the balance of a countrys population for no other reason than to win votes in a cynical ploy for power, is something which is a good thing, right? Do I even have to try and point out how ridiculous your remark was?
I’m not basing my argument on anecdotes, as even a cursory scan of my posts will make clear. The only anecdote I’ve mentioned in this thread was a counter-anecdote to your rather fanciful depiction of the Polish cleaners with multiple PhDs apiece and perfect diction.
First, they’re not scare quotes, they’re quotes. Because I’m quoting directly. I didn’t intend it to be anything else. Second, I the hell understand this just fine. But I say again, immigration is not the problem. Immigration is, if anything, a symptom. If A8 accession had never happened, the lives of people in Oldham and Rochdale would still be bloody hard. In particular, I’d argue that a) any remaining manufacturing jobs would have relocated to Eastern Europe by now and b) unskilled service jobs like cleaning would still be in the hands of Philippinos, Nigerians, Albanians or other immigrants who were already doing them ten years ago. Treating Eastern European immigration as the cause of people’s ills is a complete red herring. Immigration has been good for the country overall. If this has come at the cost of a particular section of the population, the answer is not to reduce immigration but to find ways of redressing the balance. Better redistribution, investement in education and services and some sort of industrial policy are the answers and it’s vitallly important for parties of the left to make this point, because agreeing that our problems would be solved if there were just fewer Lithuanians around is playing in the hands of far-right parties like the BNP.
Far as I can see no one has yet posted her remarks, so here they are, courtesy of the BBC transcript:
Quite apart from the comedic value of “where are the Eastern Europeans flocking from?” (…err Eastern Europe maybe?) those words suggest to me that Mr Brown was correct in his diagnosis. I’d be ashamed to hear a phrase like that coming out of my mouth, or any of my friends’ or relatives’.
Can I ask in your opinion, what a reasoned debate about immigration would be, and what should people say if they are opposed to immigration? This is a serious question, and not attacking you or anything. I’m just curious.