The Labour Party under Keir Starmer

[MotCO]

I don't think that's a truly valid reason for blocking immigration from certain countries/nationalities, it's basically tarring all immigrants of a certain nationality, race or religion with the same brush. We really need to avoid going down that road again and undoing all the good work that has been done in that area.

I wasn't talking about blocking certain countries, but just being aware of the consequences of too much immigration, too quickly.

 

[brad465]

There are two - passport and driving licence. Those who don't drive and don't travel abroad are perhaps in a quandary, but by far the cheapest way to do ID cards for the UK would be to simply allow one to apply, free of charge, for a driving licence containing no driving entitlement. The usual fee would then apply to add provisional driving entitlement to it if they then decided to start. (The reason it should be free is that those who don't drive or travel abroad are usually the poorest people).

Many US states do it that way - it's a practical, low cost option without all the costly baggage of stuff like the National Identity Register.

I passed my driving test when I was 23, but had a prov licence for a few years prior to this, simply because as a form of approved ID it was much easier and less risky than my passport to carry round. I wouldn't be surprised if the lack of a national ID card system made this fairly common.

But there are other consequences of immigration. Unless all migrants fully integrate and consider themselves to be British rather than their country of origin, there will be problems. For example, Indians and Pakistanis who live in Britain will be upset about the outbreak of hostilities in their home countries, and may create problems over here. Likewise Palestinians and Jews, Tamils and Sri Lankans etc etc. This happened at least in Bradford in 2001, and the more migrants we have, the greater the potential problems unless they fully assimilate. It's also part of the reason why we have the Prevent programme.

The whole integration matter would carry more weight if there also wasn't a problem with some British people integrating into their own society, and also people being hypocritical on the whole issue when comparing Brits to foreigners. Grooming gangs and the riots last year are classic examples; neither group integrated into society, but one group was treated more sympathetically than the other, depending on the tribal cause. Then comparing like-for-like crimes gets hypocritical treatment: those sympathising with the 2024 rioters condemned the 2011 ones (there was a tweet from Farage in 2011 on it somewhere), or vice-versa. In short, too many groups in society are watching out for crimes like a hawk committed by individuals that backup their agenda, but quietly ignoring ones that don't.

The detail of the white paper is more interesting than the headlines, particularly as it stresses per capita growth as being more important than simple growth:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6821aec3f16c0654b19060ac/restoring-control-over-the-immigration-system-white-paper.pdf

This is often overlooked when it comes to why immigration is allowed to the extent it has been: to boost GDP growth at all costs. It's also more profitable for governments and their supporters to import labour vs spending more money and time investing in domestic education/training. If I were to be even more cynical, the property sector probably tries to influence government on immigration, as more people boosts profit by developers and landlords through increased demand, including among the MPs who themselves are landlords.

 

[oldman]

The government, and the Tories, need to start understanding that many of us have concerns other than immigration, and believe that restricting immigration still further will do more harm than "good". The electorate is not just the noisy and vocal minority who constantly complain about immigration. It's about time the rest of us are listened to, for a change.

As a Guardian-reading liberal myself, I find it useful to remember that there are far more Daily Telegraph/Times reading conservatives, not to mention Express/Mail/Sun readers. You talk of 'many of us' and 'the rest of us' as if your views - what do we want, more immigration! - were mainstream - perhaps they aren't.

 

[MotCO]

If I were to be even more cynical, the property sector probably tries to influence government on immigration, as more people boosts profit by developers and landlords through increased demand, including among the MPs who themselves are landlords.

I don't think it is cynical at all. I'm sure that there are thousands of empty or semi derelict properties in towns, convenient for jobs and transport connections, which could be upgraded to allow habitation. However, it is probably more profitable / cheaper to build in green field sites at scale, far from employment opportunities or transport hubs.

 

[nw1]

As a Guardian-reading liberal myself, I find it useful to remember that there are far more Daily Telegraph/Times reading conservatives, not to mention Express/Mail/Sun readers. You talk of 'many of us' and 'the rest of us' as if your views - what do we want, more immigration! - were mainstream - perhaps they aren't.

I'm not necessarily talking about those of us who are actively pro-immigration though. The "many of us" includes what I suspect are the majority - i.e. those that don't give two hoots either way about immigration, believing that there are more important problems to deal with. Furthermore, some of this "middle" group might be persuaded that anti-immigrationism isn't a good plan when we struggle to attract care workers, when the economy of university towns is adversely affected due to a lack of overseas students, when the NHS might be short of staff, etc.

You also talk of much of the population being conservatives, but remember many conservatives might just want things like low taxation, strict public spending limits, little red tape on business, and the like.
They either might not care about immigration, or actively support it due to their beliefs in the free market. Just because someone is a conservative doesn't mean they are anti-immigrationist. You only have to look at the governments of Major and Cameron to see that.

Either way it's deeply depressing to hear Starmer on the news going on about ending the "failed experiment", or some such, and seemingly showing delight in announcing a crackdown on legal migration. He is coming across like a right-wing social conservative. Starmer is no better than Sunak or Johnson, and arguably worse than Cameron and certainly Major. There is absolutely no point in actively supporting Labour; the only point in voting for them is tactically, to keep Reform out.

Starmer will probably reduce net immigration to near zero by the end of his parliament, the way he's going, and in doing so, damage certain sectors of the economy. He might be proud of that, but a lot of us will not be. And for what? Trying to attract Reform voters to vote for him, something which he will utterly fail to do. At best, the Reform voters will simply return to the Conservatives.

Labour just betray those on the liberal left time and time again. They did it in 2003 with the Iraq war, and they're doing it now with this. I think I've finally learnt that Labour are no better than the Tories. The current Labour Party has absolutely no principles and seemingly believes in nothing.

 

[Mrwerdna1]

So Labour seem to want to stop the recruitment of care workers abroad (...) A silly decision. The Labour Party seems to be only interested in Reform UK voters, and to hell with the rest of us. Don't they understand that people with hardline views on immigration will just vote for Reform or Badenoch's Tories, and no amount of trying to poach those votes will make them come to the Labour Party? Don't they understand that the local election results were more about Labour and the Tories losing rather than Reform "winning", in the sense that former Labour and Tory voters likely stayed at home out of disgust.

Yeah, that's First Past The Post in action for you. We mock and scoff at the American electoral system, particularly the preposterous aspect of swing states basically determining the outcome of any presidential election, but whilst not as terrible, FPTP in the UK creates a much similar dynamic in as much as that all parties, though particularly the main two, i.e. Labour and the Tories are beholden to a small number of voters in select target constituencies. It was like this in the run up to election and it is like this once again in the run up to the next one. That is not to say, every and all decision made by number 10 is just to please this handful of voters but suffice to say, they are much more prominent in the minds of political strategist and government pollsters than say, a Labour voter from London or Bristol, despite the fact that their opinions shouldn't matter more than those voters, but they do.

I don't want to start a long-winded discussion about proportional representation in this thread, but suffice to say, my opinion is that, setting aside party politics, we will not see a properly progressive government again in this country until proportional representation is introduced. And when I say progressive, I simply mean strongly centre-left, nothing far-left or ridiculous. Just centre-left, social democratic. Proper investment in housing, science, transport, health and education. Long-term commitments to combat poverty, strengthen workers' rights and invest in the economy through health, education and public infrastructure. All things Labour has promised to a degree, but not properly delivered in this parliament so far. And yes, I think many good policies have been introduced or proposed, but they're overshadowed by an overall lack of direction, terrible communication and a crack-down on the most vulnerable in society that should never have been allowed to go forward. This is a not-so-great-Labour government. And in a country dominated by a small c-conservative mindset and a rabid right-wing press, that is simply not good enough.

Though, ironically, illegal migration is in all likelihood (though it's hard to be sure) a small fraction of migration generally. We go back to my issue with everything frothing at the mouths about small boats and how disastrous it is for our migration figures. You knock out the number of small boat arrivals from the migration statistics and the overall net migration figure comes down by 20,000 odd. Which considering net migration is still in the hundreds of thousands doesn't make much difference.

The public might think that the majority of those who show up in the net migration figures are here illegally but they're really not. The vast majority of migrants are here because we gave them visas to come here. Now, you can easily reduce those numbers to zero or near enough but you have to accept the trade offs. Most migration is students and care/health workers.

We can cut the number of student visas but we have to then accept the collapse of a big chunk of higher education and many of the jobs lost will be in areas where the university is a big employer and one of the main sources of well paid roles alongside the loss of soft power as young adults go elsewhere so don't have fond memories of Britain when they get into more senior roles as they get on in their careers.

We can cut the number of people coming here on care visas (and it appears that Labour are going to do so) but then we have to accept that it's going to be even harder to find people to do the heavy and demanding work that comes with providing care. Good luck finding enough Brits who are willing to do it at the sort of take home pay that's offered. So either the care system risks collapse or the costs are going to have to skyrocket.

We can cut the number of people who come here to work in the health service (either directly in the NHS or in GP surgeries and whatnot) but, again, I'm not sure that the NHS and GP surgeries are really swamped with qualified medical personnel at the moment...

All of these are perfectly legitimate ways of reducing migration and, indeed, are the main way of doing as they're main the source of migrants into the UK. But they all come with scary trade offs which is why the Tories kept promising they could bring migration down by being cruel to asylum seekers and whanging on about them at great length because they knew full well actually tackling the problem would come with all sorts of nasty consequences as they were the party of milk, honey and sunlit uplands. Presumably Labour think they've come up with a way of clamping down on care worker visas without crashing the care sector. We shall see I suppose!

Thank you. Yes, indeed. It is often touted online that facts don't care about your feelings. Well, that's true, but it cuts both ways. And whichever way you twist it, illegal immigration is a drop in the ocean concerning the total number of arrivals. Though as you say, reducing those numbers comes with considerable risks and downsides.

I don't think there is an easy fix. I think the example of Denmark (with the Danish Labour party led government) shows that a harsh crackdown on illegal migration and asylum applications can at least create the impression of things being "under control", so it may well be a good PR move, even if yes, the more levelheaded of us will no doubt realise it is not going to have a profound impact on society or the economy one way or the other. Wages aren't magically going to grow, housing is not magically going to get any cheaper, poverty is not going to go away etc. To the extent immigration has put pressure on those aspects of the economy, it's legal migration and as you say, limiting that can have nasty side-effects too.

But yes, from a PR perspective, perhaps go after illegal immigration, like the Danish Labour party did. But I would say, as in the case of Denmark, also double down on integration efforts too, as it is this aspect that is often overlooked in the UK.

And more importantly, though there seems to be a lack of political will regarding this, create the economic incentives for the right kind of legal immigration. Denmark has had climbing numbers of immigration, but mostly high-skilled and in expanding job sectors, which for a variety of reasons bothers the Danes less, also often due to the origin of these immigrants (Europe, the US & Canada, East Asia etc.). Though it must be mentioned that Denmark also has many more provisions ensuring adequate access to affordable housing and better working rights for their native population, which means that people there also feel less "threatened" by immigrants from an economic standpoint.

But the UK shot itself in the foot with Brexit, shutting out a lot of EU migrants and, ironically, creating the conditions for an influx of immigrants from non-western countries, which either do not stay long enough to contribute to the economy long-term, or struggle to integrate if they are from a cultural background which is a lot different than that of native Brits and additionally also sometimes work in sectors where Brits can feel threatened and/or at risk of their wages being undercut.

So in conclusion, I think the Labour party will have to acknowledge that reducing net-migration substantially will not be good for the economy. Net-migration numbers can be adjusted, also reduced, but it is largely creating the conditions for the right kind of legal migration that matters, which goes hand in hand with expanding worker rights and protections and creating the conditions for a strong domestic workforce. On the other hand, a crackdown on illegal migration is mostly a PR move, though that could still be a good one for the government to take, rather than going after students or care-workers, either of which are not the most common immigration "bogey-man" in the first place, last time I checked, anyway.

 

[nw1]

I don't think it is cynical at all. I'm sure that there are thousands of empty or semi derelict properties in towns, convenient for jobs and transport connections, which could be upgraded to allow habitation. However, it is probably more profitable / cheaper to build in green field sites at scale, far from employment opportunities or transport hubs.

Maybe if Labour want to do something useful they should give incentives to encourage development within, or on the edge of, large and/or economically important towns. To be fair this does seem to be going on in my area, most new development in recent years has been on the urban fringes, with little or nothing in open countryside.

 

[takno]

I'm not necessarily talking about those of us who are actively pro-immigration though. The "many of us" includes what I suspect are the majority - i.e. those that don't give two hoots either way about immigration, believing that there are more important problems to deal with. Furthermore, some of this "middle" group might be persuaded that anti-immigrationism isn't a good plan when we struggle to attract care workers, when the economy of university towns is adversely affected due to a lack of overseas students, when the NHS might be short of staff, etc.

You also talk of much of the population being conservatives, but remember many conservatives might just want things like low taxation, strict public spending limits, little red tape on business, and the like.
They either might not care about immigration, or actively support it due to their beliefs in the free market. Just because someone is a conservative doesn't mean they are anti-immigrationist. You only have to look at the governments of Major and Cameron to see that.

Either way it's deeply depressing to hear Starmer on the news going on about ending the "failed experiment", or some such, and seemingly showing delight in announcing a crackdown on legal migration. He is coming across like a right-wing social conservative. Starmer is no better than Sunak or Johnson, and arguably worse than Cameron and certainly Major. There is absolutely no point in actively supporting Labour; the only point in voting for them is tactically, to keep Reform out.

Starmer will probably reduce net immigration to near zero by the end of his parliament, the way he's going, and in doing so, damage certain sectors of the economy. He might be proud of that, but a lot of us will not be. And for what? Trying to attract Reform voters to vote for him, something which he will utterly fail to do.

Labour just betray those on the liberal left time and time again. They did it in 2003 with the Iraq war, and they're doing it now with this. I think I've finally learnt that Labour are no better than the Tories. The current Labour Party has absolutely no principles and seemingly believes in nothing.

There's quite a lot of assumptions in there. Immigration since Brexit has simply been too high to not give two hoots about. You can make a case that it's a positive change for the country, or you can be worried about it, but you can't not give two hoots about it. The population is increasing by more than 1% every single year, with many of those immigrants being less skilled and less easily integrated than the European wave. That's hugely impactful however you look at it.

As somebody who lives in an overheating university town, I'd have to gently suggest that the majority of the residents of such towns are more likely to be looking with a degree of relief at the universities being brought under control, and the possibility of rents becoming affordable again.

I've historically been completely supportive of immigration. I had no issue at all with things as they were before Brexit, and thought things like Theresa May's hostile environment were pathetic at best.

The change since Brexit is that we are allowing barely-controlled immigration of barely-skilled workers in order to prop up universities and business who have learned that just by threatening to go bust they can get exactly what they want. It isn't in the interests of the country, and it isn't in the interests of the immigrants. This white paper basically just rolls us back to where we should have been all along.

The Labour Party has historically stood on a platform of being a party of the left protecting workers and allowing them to benefit from the fruits of their Labour. The people the Labour party support and who traditionally support them frankly look a lot more like Reform voters than you seem to be assuming. Perhaps you were thinking of the Liberal Democrats?

 

[nw1]

As somebody who lives in an overheating university town, I'd have to gently suggest that the majority of the residents of such towns are more likely to be looking with a degree of relief at the universities being brought under control, and the possibility of rents becoming affordable again.

Even if that means there are less jobs available, as university towns encourage business to set up in the vicinity due to the ready availability of a skilled workforce in the form of graduates?
You can see that around Oxford and Cambridge for example, is it really a bad thing that science parks, etc, have developed round those two cities, providing skilled jobs?

We need these places to boom and provide growth and jobs, we don't want to be attacking them.

The Labour Party has historically stood on a platform of being a party of the left protecting workers and allowing them to benefit from the fruits of their Labour. The people the Labour party support and who traditionally support them frankly look a lot more like Reform voters than you seem to be assuming. Perhaps you were thinking of the Liberal Democrats?

You forget that Labour also traditionally attracted social liberals, or at least it used to. Without the social liberals, they will lose votes and are extremely unlikely to win the next election in any shape or form.

But I'd agree the Lib Dems is probably the go-to party now for those who are socially-liberal and broadly supportive of, or even neutral about, immigration. Put it this way, while I have always flip-flopped between the two, I would tend to agree that nowadays, the Lib Dem ideology is clearly the closest match to my own.

 

[brad465]

Here's what immigrants should be doing in order to "integrate":

1) Moan at literally everything, but most especially the weather
2) Slag off other immigrants
3) Get fat and drunk every weekend
4) Go to football matches and start a riot
5) Go to Magaluf and cause a riot
6) Walk down the street with your behind part visible.

More seriously, the whole argument that immigrants don't integrate falls apart when considering a) Most Brits cannot define what our culture is, and/or b) If they do try and define it, they mostly come up with the bad bits, which one would hope immigrants don't take on as habit.

 

[nw1]

Here's what immigrants should be doing in order in "integrate":

1) Moan at literally everything, but most especially the weather
2) Slag off other immigrants
3) Get fat and drunk every weekend
4) Go to football matches and start a riot
5) Go to Magaluf and cause a riot
6) Walk down the street with your behind part visible.

More seriously, the whole argument that immigrants don't integrate falls apart when considering a) Most Brits cannot define what our culture is, and/or b) If they do try and define it, they mostly come up with the bad bits, which one would hope immigrants don't take on as habit.

Post of the day.

Any concern about the behaviour of immigrants has to be countered with the less-than-impeccable behaviour of good ol' British boys and girls on many occasions. We don't have a particularly good reputation abroad when it comes to sporting events, as you imply.

 

[Yew]

The current Labour Party has absolutely no principles and seemingly believes in nothing.

The standard Labour-right reply would be "but at least we're in power", as if somehow the same tired old policies become more attractive with a different coloured rosette on them.

 

[The Ham]

Even if that means there are less jobs available, as university towns encourage business to set up there due to the ready availability of a skilled workforce?

Also I'd question just how much rents have increased due to University Students.

For starters, in the general population household sizes are on average 2.4, that would be quite small for the vast majority of student homes (4 to 6 probably being more typical) and that's those who aren't in halls (which generally is most first years and quite a few of the foreign students).

Also whilst the (UK) student population has increased, in the decade from 2011 to 2021 it grew by about 1.3% per year (so not much more than the general growth in the population).

 

[takno]

Even if that means there are less jobs available, as university towns encourage business to set up in the vicinity due to the ready availability of a skilled workforce in the form of graduates?
You can see that around Oxford and Cambridge for example, is it really a bad thing that science parks, etc, have developed round those two cities, providing skilled jobs?

I'm not sure how students who are on a limited visa with no real opportunity to stay afterwards represent a readily available workforce. Just to emphasise again, this is nothing like the situation up to 5 years ago with students coming to study, forming part of the community and staying on doing valuable jobs.

We do still get a small amount of that and it would be a shame to lose it, but then we have the third-placed university in the UK on world rankings. The vast majority of the foreign influx seems to be just universities transactionally milking foreign people, and reducing the internation reputation of British universities.

Also I'd question just how much rents have increased due to University Students.

For starters, in the general population household sizes are on average 2.4, that would be quite small for the vast majority of student homes (4 to 6 probably being more typical) and that's those who aren't in halls (which generally is most first years and quite a few of the foreign students).

Also whilst the (UK) student population has increased, in the decade from 2011 to 2021 it grew by about 1.3% per year (so not much more than the general growth in the population).

Four is a fairly big student home here, because of the housing stock we have in the area.

The decade from 2011 to 2021 covers 8 years before Brexit, and is almost entirely before the explosion in immigration numbers. It also covers a period when the rapid and substantial rise in domestic fees should have put some proportion of UK and European students off. The figures since then would be of more interest.

 

[MotCO]

Deleted

 

[Purple Train]

Here's what immigrants should be doing in order to "integrate":

1) Moan at literally everything, but most especially the weather
2) Slag off other immigrants
3) Get fat and drunk every weekend
4) Go to football matches and start a riot
5) Go to Magaluf and cause a riot
6) Walk down the street with your behind part visible.

More seriously, the whole argument that immigrants don't integrate falls apart when considering a) Most Brits cannot define what our culture is, and/or b) If they do try and define it, they mostly come up with the bad bits, which one would hope immigrants don't take on as habit.

I couldn't agree more. I recently attended my girlfriend's citizenship ceremony, and the Lord Mayor and other council personages made some speeches - and, don't get me wrong, they weren't bad speeches - about "what it means to be a British citizen", and they mostly defaulted back to "caring for the community". The cynic in me did wonder whether there wasn't much else to write home about regarding positive aspects of British culture* - and, besides that, it amused me that it should have been trumpeted at a citizenship ceremony, when by definition basically all of the people concerned will have been contributing positively to their communities for several years. I certainly can't put my finger on what our culture is, besides the examples you give, fish and chips, drinking tea, and venerating the monarch.

*I suppose you could argue that caring for the community is as much a made-up British value as "tolerance and mutual respect", but I'd disagree; it's far from uniquely British, but it's still there.

 

[The Ham]

Four is a fairly big student home here, because of the housing stock we have in the area.

From that I would assume that most houses were originally 2 bedrooms (as typically the lounge is used as another bedroom).

The decade from 2011 to 2021 covers 8 years before Brexit, and is almost entirely before the explosion in immigration numbers. It also covers a period when the rapid and substantial rise in domestic fees should have put some proportion of UK and European students off. The figures since then would be of more interest.

The total increase from 2021 to 2024 is about 1.4%, as university student numbers reduced in the last year of data.

Also the increase from 2017 to 2021 was 22%, so that's when the majority of the growth happened, however that entirely covers the period in which the Conservatives were in power - so arguably off topic from this thread.

 

[Harpo]

Here's what immigrants should be doing in order to "integrate":

1) Moan at literally everything, but most especially the weather
2) Slag off other immigrants
3) Get fat and drunk every weekend
4) Go to football matches and start a riot
5) Go to Magaluf and cause a riot
6) Walk down the street with your behind part visible.

More seriously, the whole argument that immigrants don't integrate falls apart when considering a) Most Brits cannot define what our culture is, and/or b) If they do try and define it, they mostly come up with the bad bits, which one would hope immigrants don't take on as habit.

Excellent!

Yes, 'our culture' is cheering on teams of non-English footballers funded by oligarchs, despots and other non-English investors followed by a proper English curry washed down by lots of proper English lager. Good job our replica football shirts all come from Lancashire's cotton mills!

 

[DarloRich]

Here's what immigrants should be doing in order to "integrate":

1) Moan at literally everything, but most especially the weather
2) Slag off other immigrants
3) Get fat and drunk every weekend
4) Go to football matches and start a riot
5) Go to Magaluf and cause a riot
6) Walk down the street with your behind part visible.

While I know you are joking and without going all Farage that isn't what is meant by "integration" in this arena - it is clear what is meant. We all know what it means. I am not going to go into the details as I will just start an unhelpful and distasteful whopper session but we all know what that word means.

More seriously, the whole argument that immigrants don't integrate falls apart when considering a) Most Brits cannot define what our culture is,

Really? we all know the words we would ( or at least HOPE) to use to define "British culture": tolerance, fairness, openness, respect, politeness, democracy, stoicism, historical appreciation etc etc

The trick is explaining what they mean in the real world. I bet, again, we all know what they mean and how to display them but not how to explain them!

Any concern about the behaviour of immigrants has to be countered with the less-than-impeccable behaviour of good ol' British boys and girls on many occasions.

I don't disagree and that problem also needs to be dealt with.

 

[oldman]

Liberal intellectuals often struggle with the idea of national identity, partly because it is basically irrational.

But many people do identify with a national identity, even if they can't define it, and rather than sneering at it with lager and curry gags, it would be a good idea to try and shape it in a positive and inclusive way. Otherwise you leave national identity to be used and abused by the right.

 

[DarloRich]

There's quite a lot of assumptions in there. Immigration since Brexit has simply been too high to not give two hoots about. You can make a case that it's a positive change for the country, or you can be worried about it, but you can't not give two hoots about it. The population is increasing by more than 1% every single year, with many of those immigrants being less skilled and less easily integrated than the European wave. That's hugely impactful however you look at it.

Agreed - it is VERY hard to discuss immigration in this country though but I can see why Labour have to be seen to do something. Immigration ( or at least the FEAR of immigration) IS a big issue in the country. We can all complain that it has been whipped up by whoppers but the issue IS a real one in the minds of many people.

It comes up all the time where my mum lives in the north east yet they have a c.95% white population. By comparison where I live is 72% white.

 

[Yew]

While I know you are joking and without going all Farage that isn't what is meant by "integration" in this arena - it is clear what is meant. We all know what it means. I am not going to go into the details as I will just start an unhelpful and distasteful whopper session but we all know what that word means.

I'd suggest that the likes of Farrage don't want to clearly pin down what they mean, as it makes it harder to move the goalposts (further to the right) later.

 

[High Dyke]

People keep going on about immigration and Brexit. This is one of the main points that Reform seem to push. It was people like Farage that encouraged Britain to leave the EU, on the basis it would be better. Yet, it hasn't lived up to the expectations he, and his business colleagues (I won't call them a party) had. They are seemingly now bitter about the very situation that they helped create.

Mainstream media is slowly catching on, but fails to properly explain or ask the right questions - probably don't want to lose their bias. Migration has occurred for thousands of years and will continue to happen. If it wasn't for bona-fide migration in the past, then we wouldn't necessarily have the diverse and multicultural society we have these days.

As for Labour. Many people voted them into power because this country needed change. However, the changes we have seen so far are not what people need or want. It's as if Labour have taken two steps forward and one backwards. Until Labour realises their mistakes and listens to the electorate they risk alienating themselves in the political arena and providing Reform with a bigger platform.

Yes, illegal migration needs dealing with, but so does social care, the situation with Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP), and a number of other issues they have failed to address that would ensure popularity.

 

[Yew]

Agreed - it is VERY hard to discuss immigration in this country though but I can see why Labour have to be seen to do something. Immigration ( or at least the FEAR of immigration) IS a big issue in the country. We can all complain that it has been whipped up by whoppers but the issue IS a real one in the minds of many people.

It comes up all the time where my mum lives in the north east yet they have a c.95% white population. By comparison where I live is 72% white.

My concern is that a lot of blame for economic issues gets misappropriated to immigration, and it feels like Labour are addressing symptoms, not the root cause of the issue.

In lots of reform-y areas, the issue is not predominantly that "immigrants are taking our jobs", but instead actually "the Tories closed down all our local industries and entrusted the recovery of our town to the supposed 'wisdom' of the free market, which didn't work and now there aren't many jobs". Yes, immigration hasn't helped, but even if the immigrants went away, a lot of the remaining jobs in these towns would be low paid, with minimal chance of technical progression.

 

[nw1]

Agreed - it is VERY hard to discuss immigration in this country though but I can see why Labour have to be seen to do something. Immigration ( or at least the FEAR of immigration) IS a big issue in the country. We can all complain that it has been whipped up by whoppers but the issue IS a real one in the minds of many people.

It comes up all the time where my mum lives in the north east yet they have a c.95% white population. By comparison where I live is 72% white.

Which is ironic as I live in a block of flats with mostly immigrants (from various places: Asia, Africa, the continent, the USA), and I don't give two hoots. I do give two hoots about anti-immigrationism though.

Is the problem really immigration or is it that recent governments haven't really cared too much about giving people opportunities in life? Perhaps if it was easier for people, particularly mature adults of 30+, to get into education and training and give them skills to make their life better, and the government supported them financially and morally to do this, the country might be in a better state. Perhaps if the government didn't constantly go after people on benefits and looked after them and gently helped them into work rather than treating them as demons, the country might be a more compassionate one.

There are all kinds of things a left-of-centre government could do to improve people's lot, which are completely unrelated to immigration.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes, immigration hasn't helped, but even if the immigrants went away, a lot of the remaining jobs in these towns would be low paid, with minimal chance of technical progression.

that is always my argument to Reformers: Imagine you are successful and all the forigns is gone. Then what?

Which is ironic as I live in a block of flats with mostly immigrants (from various places: Asia, Africa, the continent, the USA), and I don't give two hoots. I do give two hoots about anti-immigrationism though.

ok - are you able to acknowledge that your position is not the common one in the wider electorate? Many people (rightly or wrongly, manufactured or otherwise) ARE worried about immigration and want to see it managed better.

 

[nw1]

ok - are you able to acknowledge that your position is not the common one in the wider electorate? Many people (rightly or wrongly, manufactured or otherwise) ARE worried about immigration and want to see it managed better.

What I am trying to say is, their "worries" about immigration are perhaps a product of ignorance. The fact that they don't live in close proximity to immigrants means they don't have a positive opinion of them. In cities, many people I suspect encounter immigrants all the time. Where they live, at work, and in the street.

Do we really want to foster anti-immigrationist attitudes in any case? To me it scarcely seems in the spirit of tolerance. Don't we instead want to educate people to be more tolerant of people different to themselves, whether it be nationality, race, religion, sexuality or gender identity - not less?

 

[Harpo]

rather than sneering at it with lager and curry gags

Is it sneering? It only makes the point that what is seen as ‘Britishness’, has a huge range of international and multi-cultural origins.

 

[nw1]

Really? we all know the words we would ( or at least HOPE) to use to define "British culture": tolerance, fairness, openness, respect, politeness, democracy, stoicism, historical appreciation etc etc

They're not British values, they're what I'd call liberal democratic values.

 

[DarloRich]

What I am trying to say is, their "worries" about immigration are perhaps a product of ignorance. The fact that they don't live in close proximity to immigrants means they don't have a positive opinion of them. In cities, many people I suspect encounter immigrants all the time. Where they live, at work, and in the street.

Where I live is 72% white ( dropped nearly 10% in a decade). It cant ALL be based on ignorance

Honestly, I am not sure what I think. The demography of the area I live in has changed a great deal in the 15/16 years I have been here. I get why many, especially older, residents are getting twitchy about the changes. The houses are not being bought by people like them and to some ( my neighbours over the road being an example) they see this as a threat.

They're not British values, they're what I'd call liberal democratic values.

one and the same perhaps?