Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

kabayiri

phillw wrote: »

...
The levels of immigration we've seen aren't any reason to leave the EU & anyone who thinks they are isn't considering all the facts. It's as if they are just scared of immigrants.
...

You're just as autocratic as the most rabid of Leavers.

I can easily see why the country is so divided.

Mass migration isn't liked in many parts of the country. It could be due to deep austerity exascerbating things, but it doesn't change it.

If we are going to have mass migration, then I want the cheapest workers who deliver most value. These sort are no longer in the EU. It's an overpriced market. You seem to think my ideas are xenophobic which is a weird redefinition of the term.

StevieJ

kabayiri wrote: »

You're just as autocratic as the most rabid of Leavers.

I can easily see why the country is so divided.

Mass migration isn't liked in many parts of the country. It could be due to deep austerity exascerbating things, but it doesn't change it.
If we are going to have mass migration, then I want the cheapest workers who deliver most value. These sort are no longer in the EU. It's an overpriced market. You seem to think my ideas are xenophobic which is a weird redefinition of the term.

Ok, but is that what the voting public voted for when voting for Brexit?
In my view the Labour administration 'opened the floodgates' in 2004 with a fairly logical solution to a looming problem, the 'demographic timebomb'
Although not admitted (we only expect about 14000 to arrive), I think the Labour administration was hoping to improve the young/old ratio by the unprecedented immigration of easily assimilated white, young Baltic and Polish workers. This has been quite successful in achieving that aim, however the increased competition for jobs at the bottom end has reduced wages and increased state subsidy (tax credits). This in my opinion has resulted in the Brexit calamity.
I don't think the replacement of those European immigrants with Non-European immigrants (on even lower wages) is going to ease the situation, do you?

sevenhills

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Will alienate the element of the electorate that they are targeting ahead of the next election. The disenchanted, the disengaged. Of which there are many. Disaffection with the EU, Globalisation is coming to a head. Wealth is far from being spread equally.

They are the ones that are not in touch with what is happening in the real world and are swayed by fake news.
We will probably have a better democracy if the do not vote, not that any MPs are interested in better democracy.

kabayiri

StevieJ wrote: »

...
I don't think the replacement of those European immigrants with Non-European immigrants (on even lower wages) is going to ease the situation, do you?

I suspect we need more joined up thinking.

There are only a couple of businesses I have visited which use mostly EE labour.

Initially, they were useful, pretty compliant and most would live on site. But then expectations on money and other things rise.

Consumers won't pay more money for the food products, so you have to control costs somehow.

Bringing in cheaper labour from outside would impact one of the major cost components, but I concede that some of the benefit should be spent improving the local infrastructure.

I'd rather this than seeing even more jobs exported to Vietnam and Cambodia and the like. There are competitors doing exactly this.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

Mass migration isn't liked in many parts of the country. It could be due to deep austerity exascerbating things, but it doesn't change it..

Pretty sure the reason isn't just 'deep austerity'....



The nation has been drip fed a diet of anti-immigrant propaganda for the last few decades and it's hardly surprising so few people know the facts when this is all they see at the news stand every day.

Enterprise_1701C

StevieJ wrote: »

Ok, but is that what the voting public voted for when voting for Brexit?
In my view the Labour administration 'opened the floodgates' in 2004 with a fairly logical solution to a looming problem, the 'demographic timebomb'
Although not admitted (we only expect about 14000 to arrive), I think the Labour administration was hoping to improve the young/old ratio by the unprecedented immigration of easily assimilated white, young Baltic and Polish workers. This has been quite successful in achieving that aim, however the increased competition for jobs at the bottom end has reduced wages and increased state subsidy (tax credits). This in my opinion has resulted in the Brexit calamity.
I don't think the replacement of those European immigrants with Non-European immigrants (on even lower wages) is going to ease the situation, do you?

Labour intentionally opened the floodgates to 'rub the middle classes' nose in it', they also believed the majority of the incomers would be labour voters. Hasn't done Blair's ambition to be eu president any good has it.

sevenhills wrote: »

They are the ones that are not in touch with what is happening in the real world and are swayed by fake news.
We will probably have a better democracy if the do not vote, not that any MPs are interested in better democracy.

How can can we have a 'better democracy' if the disenchanted/disengaged could ot vote? That is illogical. And the main set of MPs that are trying to strangle democracy are Labour, they are simply seeking to engineer a general election, hopefully if that happens people will be less likely to be hoodwinked by Khorbyn's lies, if he got in he would probably make himself president for life.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...
The nation has been drip fed a diet of anti-immigrant propaganda for the last few decades and it's hardly surprising so few people know the facts when this is all they see at the news stand every day.

Don't give the papers ammunition then. Everyone knows what they are like.

You can't claim to have a mass migration policy, as a government, just by opening the doors and waving people through.

You have to bolster towns and cities to cope with the increased numbers. You need better planning. You need to avoid landlords profiteering by chucking migrant workers into overcrowded and substandard homes.

The actual preparation has been poor.

We don't have enough houses today. We won't in 10 years time. Your mantra "build more houses" just rings hollow.

wunferall

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The nation has been drip fed a diet of anti-immigrant propaganda for the last few decades and it's hardly surprising so few people know the facts when this is all they see at the news stand every day.

That is as nothing compared to the diet of pro-EU propaganda which has been drip-fed via numerous sources for the past few decades; hardly surprising when the EU has a budget for their "education" of it's citizenry.

Starting from the youngest of ages in our schools this indoctrination takes many forms, from their trying to tell us that their new rules on energy efficiency for appliances is "greener" (a fallacy if it then takes a less-powerful appliance longer to do the same job) to EU signage for projects which in fact are funded by our own money being returned for whatever the project is!

Small wonder then that so many of our younger generation see the EU as being beneficial, when they have been bombarded with a huge variety of propaganda from an early age. They will learn with experience (like many of us already have) that the EU is no panacea.


Re: the EU budget for propaganda, surprise surprise the EU isn't "open" about that either (plus it can be difficult to define) but even FullFact acknowledged a budget for what can be described as EU propaganda.
Apparently an extra £350,000 was spent on the EU's indoctrination of UK schoolchildren from as young as 4 years of age starting around the time of our referendum.

So again a question.
If the EU is such a good idea, why the need for such frankly distasteful (and I'm deliberately being polite) indoctrination as to it's benefits?
Surely if it was so good the benefits would be obvious, meaning nobody would need to be told ......

wunferall

"Let's stay in the EU" say our remainers.
"Let's have another referendum. You know, just to be SURE."

Germany is in recession (funny that, it was SUPPOSED to be us Brits in recession for daring to vote "leave"!).
France is still seeing riots as a result of Macon's reforms.
The EU's East and West continue to pull in different directions, as do the North & the South.
Migration continues to be a problem; a considerable, still-unresolved problem.
EU elections will show populism / extremism continues to rise across the EU as increasing numbers demonstrate their dissatisfaction.

But hell yeah, let's give the people these facts and give them another vote.
For these alone sure they'll clamour to stay in the EU . . . . . . according to some remainers.
:wall:

Herzlos

A 2nd referendum is better for everyone.
It gives you a voice to push for the hard brexit you want, and if enough people agree it can't be stolen from you. If you let Westminster decide then you can only stand by and watch.

Can you name a greener appliance that takes so much longer than a bad one that cancels out?

My low energy vacuum works better than an old one did. Light bulbs have gone from 100w to 4w. My washing machine takes as long, fridge and freezer are still cold but cost less to run.


EUs "propaganda" department is, I think, intended to counter decades of anti-EU warmongering and to stop governments pretending it was their idea, like the Tories did for the ban on booking fees and card surcharges amongst others.

Everyone advertises; the Tories have a similar department, as does Labour and Westmister. Hell, even Coca Cola, the biggest brand in the world has a marketing department.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike the EU, but it feels like you're stretching with those ones.