Utopia Talk / Politics / holy shit uk

Sam Adams Member	Mon May 12 21:41:15 Is this real? http://x.com/10DowningStreet/status/1921894529671545117 That cant be real can it? England... the land of sebs... throwing away his entire ideology and doing something right? Nope i dont believe it. Cant be real.
Seb Member	Tue May 13 01:18:26 Every govt since New Labour have said something like this. And then they wind up making a bunch of exceptions because an ageing population requires immigration. It'll go the same way. Govts need to be honest about tradeoffs, not appeal to stupid people like Sam by pretending they don't exist.
Seb Member	Tue May 13 02:36:09 Let's look at that twitter thread line by line and see how it will go. "For too long businesses were actively encouraged to bring in lower paid people rather than invest in our own people" This isn't actually true though. Successive govts have introduced policies designed to force improved training, but in any case the primary barrier is demand and low pay, largely in public sectors like social care where the labour price is effectively or directly set by govt which refuses to pay higher. The result is locals don't want to do the job. For some other sectors, such as medial work, the domestic labour supply is again predominantly set by govt in terms of the number of places available in training post degree. "We are raising the skills threshold to degree level" An interesting choice. The govt is also pledged to massively increase house building, but there's insufficient labour force to do so and not enough time to train one up (and also not a lot of young Brits interested in going into such jobs as there are higher paid jobs they can do). The Reform attack line here will be "so you want British kids to do shit, low skilled jobs while the globalist elite take the best ones?" "We are increasing the immigration skills charge" So, for social care where we have a shortage of 100,000 workers, the proposal is to not only cut the labour supply in the hope wages rise high enough to attract young Brits, but also simultaneously make extract a cut from social care firms making it harder to extract wages. At the same time budgets for social care will be pressured by local spending cuts. And their election manifesto was to fix social care. Hmm. I can see some small contradictions here. "And for the first time, adult dependents on those routes will also be required to have a basic understanding of English." Totemic. No real evidence that this is a major problem (other countries have mandatory language lessons for people after they arrive - this will just stop people making the UK a destination, which if you are prepared to ignore the economic consequences of trying to shut down visa based jobs, fine, I guess. "Care workers from overseas have made a huge contribution, but too many have been subject to abuse and exploitation. We’re moving away from our dependence on overseas workers" The social care firms will need to use other visa routes, so that really just adds friction without changing the outcome. Lovely to say "we are moving away from our dependence" but actually they have no such plans: * No new funding to raise wages * No plan to cut demand (put old people with senile dementia on the mountain to be taken by the wolves or winter?) * No plan to handle the bed-blocking issue (no social care to discharge very elderly acute patients to) * No clarity on where domestic labour supply will come from for this sector. I'm short, no, that aren't moving away from the dependency so they'll be faced with the inevitable dilemma: health and social care crisis driving a huge swing to reform or find a way around these new immigration policies to hire immigrants. "We’re rolling out Digital IDs and eVisas for all overseas citizens. Making it easier for Immigration Enforcement Officers to track down and take action against those who try to stay here illegally." Good idea, but will only work if rolled out to the whole citizenship (over stayers pretend they have citizenship - its proof of citizenship you need, not proof of having a visa, which you have already in the form of biometric permit - digitising this is trivial and won't change much). The bulk of net migration is still from people legally entering, not a lack of people who legally entered failing to leave. In short, a set of incoherent policies that predictably appeal to folks like Sam that sunny actually understand how the economy works. Net migration is set to shrink over the coming years anyway, so they may be able to claim some credit on that front; but the impact on social care and house building will be significant and likely cause the other govt objectives to fail. One way or another they drive disenchantment and people towards reform, who will suffer the same defeat. The choices are really quite simple: Higher public expenditure to pay for higher labour costs in health, social care; inflation from higher construction costs; or accept migration. Until someone has that conversation with the public rather than pretending the dilemma doesn't exist, you'll get this pattern of every incoming govt promising to crack down in migration then backing off.
Seb Member	Tue May 13 02:36:12 Let's look at that twitter thread line by line and see how it will go. "For too long businesses were actively encouraged to bring in lower paid people rather than invest in our own people" This isn't actually true though. Successive govts have introduced policies designed to force improved training, but in any case the primary barrier is demand and low pay, largely in public sectors like social care where the labour price is effectively or directly set by govt which refuses to pay higher. The result is locals don't want to do the job. For some other sectors, such as medial work, the domestic labour supply is again predominantly set by govt in terms of the number of places available in training post degree. "We are raising the skills threshold to degree level" An interesting choice. The govt is also pledged to massively increase house building, but there's insufficient labour force to do so and not enough time to train one up (and also not a lot of young Brits interested in going into such jobs as there are higher paid jobs they can do). The Reform attack line here will be "so you want British kids to do shit, low skilled jobs while the globalist elite take the best ones?" "We are increasing the immigration skills charge" So, for social care where we have a shortage of 100,000 workers, the proposal is to not only cut the labour supply in the hope wages rise high enough to attract young Brits, but also simultaneously make extract a cut from social care firms making it harder to extract wages. At the same time budgets for social care will be pressured by local spending cuts. And their election manifesto was to fix social care. Hmm. I can see some small contradictions here. "And for the first time, adult dependents on those routes will also be required to have a basic understanding of English." Totemic. No real evidence that this is a major problem (other countries have mandatory language lessons for people after they arrive - this will just stop people making the UK a destination, which if you are prepared to ignore the economic consequences of trying to shut down visa based jobs, fine, I guess. "Care workers from overseas have made a huge contribution, but too many have been subject to abuse and exploitation. We’re moving away from our dependence on overseas workers" The social care firms will need to use other visa routes, so that really just adds friction without changing the outcome. Lovely to say "we are moving away from our dependence" but actually they have no such plans: * No new funding to raise wages * No plan to cut demand (put old people with senile dementia on the mountain to be taken by the wolves or winter?) * No plan to handle the bed-blocking issue (no social care to discharge very elderly acute patients to) * No clarity on where domestic labour supply will come from for this sector. I'm short, no, that aren't moving away from the dependency so they'll be faced with the inevitable dilemma: health and social care crisis driving a huge swing to reform or find a way around these new immigration policies to hire immigrants. "We’re rolling out Digital IDs and eVisas for all overseas citizens. Making it easier for Immigration Enforcement Officers to track down and take action against those who try to stay here illegally." Good idea, but will only work if rolled out to the whole citizenship (over stayers pretend they have citizenship - its proof of citizenship you need, not proof of having a visa, which you have already in the form of biometric permit - digitising this is trivial and won't change much). The bulk of net migration is still from people legally entering, not a lack of people who legally entered failing to leave. In short, a set of incoherent policies that predictably appeal to folks like Sam that sunny actually understand how the economy works. Net migration is set to shrink over the coming years anyway, so they may be able to claim some credit on that front; but the impact on social care and house building will be significant and likely cause the other govt objectives to fail. One way or another they drive disenchantment and people towards reform, who will suffer the same defeat. The choices are really quite simple: Higher public expenditure to pay for higher labour costs in health, social care; inflation from higher construction costs; or accept migration. Until someone has that conversation with the public rather than pretending the dilemma doesn't exist, you'll get this pattern of every incoming govt promising to crack down in migration then backing off.
jergul large member	Tue May 13 03:38:09 The UK is following the same plan as the US. Make the country less attractive to immigrants by sucking and blowing more.
Seb Member	Tue May 13 04:21:06 Pretty much. They did actually try that explicitly for a while. So you had the DCMS promoting the UK as a tourist destination in the same countries where the Home office was also running publicity campaigns about how shit the UK was for migrants. Sam is basically the same intellectual calibre and sensibilities of Home office top staff.
Sam Adams Member	Tue May 13 12:16:11 So the leftist UK government is starting to wake up(along with much of europe?) but seb is still far left dead set on crazed migration hordes. Hmmmm. Whats your plan. Import enough votes where the indigenous no longer matter?
Seb Member	Tue May 13 12:38:51 Sam: Immigrants don't vote muppet. Like I said, every govt since New Labour has made a speech like this. Every govt has failed. Because the central dilemma remains: Who is going to do all the jobs that need doing, particularly the shit paid ones like social care worker, junior nurses, warehouse, delivery and construction work? UK unemployment isn't that high, there's no huge stock of untapped labour. These jobs go unfilled by Brits because they can get better ones. So what's the plan exactly? Who is going to pay the higher wages? Or are we just going to put all the people over 70 on the slopes of Snowden and let nature take its course?
Seb Member	Tue May 13 12:42:11 Basically, you need to give people the clear choice and make them choose, not pretend there's no downside to trying to limit migration and starve the labour market. Because otherwise you - as govt - own the downside, and that will force you as a govt to not crack down on net migration. And so it goes.
Seb Member	Tue May 13 12:42:13 Basically, you need to give people the clear choice and make them choose, not pretend there's no downside to trying to limit migration and starve the labour market. Because otherwise you - as govt - own the downside, and that will force you as a govt to not crack down on net migration. And so it goes.
Sam Adams Member	Tue May 13 12:57:17 "Immigrants don't vote muppet." What a slimy politician thing to say. Of course immigrants vote. It just doesnt happen instantly. "the higher wages" What an odd thing to complain about. Oh no higher domestic wages how terrible.
Seb Member	Wed May 14 05:56:28 Sam: It happens for those that apply for citizenship which is 5 years going to 10, provided they entered on the right kind of visa. Most leave before then, of those that don't, and are eligible, many don't bother and opt for Indefinite Leave to Remain which doesn't confer voting rights.
Seb Member	Wed May 14 06:01:39 Sam: "What an odd thing to complain about. Oh no higher domestic wages how terrible." Obviously you don't want to pay a social care worker as much as a graduate. It's not higher wages, it's higher cost. And it's not really domestic in the sense you would use it: these jobs are currently largely filled by immigrants. So you'd be paying locals roughly what they could earn in another sector to go into this field instead. They need to compensate by raising their wages, passing the cost to consumers. What you are describing really is a wage-price inflationary spiral and yes Sam, that's generally understood to be a bad thing.
Sam Adams Member	Wed May 14 11:41:59 Ah so you admit immigrants do vote. "as a graduate." A graduate in what? "a wage-price inflationary spiral" A little, sure. But then you also have higher transfers of funds from the retiree class to the working class, good thing it seems in the UK. Then you also have reduced inflation from all those government handouts to immigrants getting canceled, not to mention the lower crime. People will see government working for them, morale will improve, everyone benefits.
Seb Member	Wed May 14 14:40:38 Sam: An insignificant number, 5-10 years, after passing a citizen test. Bit like claiming children vote because they do when they grow up. "A little, sure." Ah yes, "a little". Because this time will be different. You are literally talking about creating a huge labour shortage that there aren't enough people in the country to make up so basically prices will rise until the industry that makes least profit goes under. It will be big not small. "But then you also have higher transfers of funds from the retiree class to the working class" Nope. Social care largely falls on the state because not enough retirees have enough income to pay, and forcing them to sell be their houses and assets is wildly unpopular. And you were all aghast at the recent increases in inheritance tax. "Then you also have reduced inflation from all those government handouts to immigrants getting canceled" Immigrants are "no recourse to public funds", three only handouts are the wages, and you just increased the wages. Inflation doesn't care who is bidding up prices, just that their being bid up. So uh, no, you've definitely just increased inflation. "not to mention the lower crime." There's no real evidence of that at all - indeed most of the people you attribute that increased crime to are not in fact immigrants, they are citizens. Just not white. "People will see government working for them," They absolutely won't. They'll see the social care system with massive vaccines because there's literally no amount of money you can pay to get enough Brits to do that work given other options. So what you see very quickly: Big staff shortages in social care - forcing people to look after their elderly relatives as they wait for spots in homes etc, impacting their employment. This makes me them really mad. The hospital system cloggs up with elderly patients who can't be discharged quickly. This tends to make them more frail and more sick and hastens their death. The govt gets blamed. Even though they can't hire enough staff, wages for existing staff go up: they can quit and shop around - so even as service levels go down, costs go up, putting pressure on council budgets. Eventually the govt is forced to consider higher taxes, putting more costs onto the care recipient... this goes down like a cup of cold sick "the death tax". Very quickly, it looks like the govt is failing on health, on social care and on taxes. Guess what? That looses way more votes than net migration levels. And none of this is speculation: this cycle happened under Brown, under Cameron, under May, under Johnson/Sunak. The only reason it didn't happen under Truss is because she managed to blow up the economy following Sam policies in less time than it took for a lettuce to go moldy. Now it is Starmer's turn to believe this time it will be different from him. The fundamental issue we have in the UK is that our politicians think statecraft is listening to idiots like you that don't understand how anything works, and believing the reason it failed last time was because the last guys were dumb, rather than the idea being dumb. Just like how you think the problem with Trump is that he's dumb. No. The problem is you are dumb, your ideas are dumb. There's no clever person to come along and implement your dumb ideas in a clever way, because clever people would never try such an obviously stupid idea. The problem is the idea, and the stupid people who don't understand why it's stupid.
Seb Member	Wed May 14 14:41:42 *Massive vacancies
Sam Adams Member	Fri May 16 01:25:45 All the data, and we have reviewed it many times, show immigrants have higher crime rates and more welfare. At least the kindof immigrants you tend to get. Like you dont have enough(or really any) high tech modern companies with good jobs to rate high caste indians the way we do. If you need cheap labor, build robots. And funilly enough that would open up high tech jobs for good quality immigrants. But you wont do that. So maybe instead you can put all those whiney activists to real work.
williamthebastard Member	Fri May 16 01:53:31 Yes, you had higher crime among Italian immigrants, Irish immigrants etc to the USA. Now, did this have to do with their skin colour or the social circumstances, KKK boi?
williamthebastard Member	Fri May 16 01:54:54 When you ignore social pressure, you ignore one of the most fundamental rules of evolution, science hater.
williamthebastard Member	Fri May 16 01:59:26 Lets hear your explanation for why Italian and Irish immigrant populations, 150 years later considered backbones of contemporary American culture, had higher rates of crime than at the time already established populations in the USA. 3,2, 1, go.
williamthebastard Member	Fri May 16 02:07:41 Actually, dont bother. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt it will just be illogical white supremacy fantasies that go against all science.
williamthebastard Member	Fri May 16 03:54:22 Oh, look at that lol..."soshul fackters hav nuthin to do wid it its all about there jeanes" And yet, crime spiked when this population of pure Germanic descent from East Germany and Russia were allowed to move to West Germany. "In contrast to these studies, we document a strong overall effect of immigration on total crime. The group of immigrants we consider in this study are ethnic Germans, descendants of German colonists who had migrated to Russia and other East European countries in the 18th and 19th century. Between the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and 2005, more than 3 million ethnic Germans immigrated, increasing Germany's population by about 5%. Due to their German ancestry, ethnic German immigrants were granted German citizenship immediately after immigration." http://www...icle/abs/pii/S0014292116302252
williamthebastard Member	Fri May 16 03:56:00 "For the United States, Butcher and Piehl, 1998, Butcher and Piehl, 2007 find no significant relationship between immigration and crime at the state level" Lol@ American white supremacist whiners
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri May 16 04:31:42 It is fascinating that wtb actually agrees with sam adams. “Immigration increases crime”. Sam Adams even has a more nuances viewed, welcoming educated indians (with brown skin), while wtb has a psychotic nazi melt down about criminality being embedded in melanin.
Seb Member	Fri May 16 05:28:16 Sam: "All the data, and we have reviewed it many times, show immigrants have higher crime rates and more welfare" No they don't. Firstly, immigrants are not eligible for welfare in the UK. That's what no recourse to public funds means. Secondly, on crime, adjusted for socioeconomic factors there's no evidence they commit more crimes and your idea is this to put citizens into the same economic conditions with predictable results. Not that we will achieve that because long before that shift can happen the govt will be forced to reverse course due to the impact on health and social care. "If you need cheap labor, build robots." There's not yet any cost effective robot that can get an elderly person out of bed, changed, arse wiped and fed. Or insert an IV line etc. And to be honest the idea that the best way to handle the elderly and infirm is to replace all human interaction with machines is pretty dystopian.
Seb Member	Fri May 16 05:36:18 And if you tell the predominantly older, powerful, conservative voting demographic that are the ones that hate immigrants that they will be cared for by robots in giant cost effective warehouses while they lose their marbles, again they aren't going to vote for that. Which means it's politically stupid for a govt to advance such options without linking the issues. You just end up trying to smuggle a "popular" position that *you* prefer (cut down immigration) while hiding the massively unpopular consequences. In the end, you are going to have to face the public: either fuck over the same cohort that support your immigration in far more tangible and immediate ways, instantly losing their votes (cf. May's death tax) or piss them off by promising to slash immigration. Pretending there's a magic technology that doesn't exist, that it will not require additional expenditure (taxes or fees on the elderly), and that will provide a preferable experience - that only delays the inevitable.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: