[Boiler]

There was a good program a few years ago about a farmer recruiting local unemployed people for potato picking. Some of them were walking adverts for the old Miliband-Reeves compulsory jobs policy. Some others tried, but were too slow for the farmer to be able to pay them the (then much lower) minimum wage. I think there was only one bloke who was fast enough.

I heard a similar thing about soft fruit picking - in fact, it may have even been on Farming Today.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Here's an interesting counterpoint to what's happened this week.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/artic ... -pay-54506

Jeremy Corbyn has said Brexit will put a stop to firms “importing cheap labour” to undercut the wages of UK workers.

The Labour leader said the Government “cannot be held back” by EU membership from challenging the rules of the free market.

But his remarks drew criticism from SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon, who accused him of appropriating the language of former Ukip leader Nigel Farage.

Much as I'd like to shit on Corbyn though, I think that would be unfair. This is what he said.

We cannot be held back inside or outside the EU from taking the steps we need to develop and invest in cutting edge industries and local business stop the tide of privatisation and outsourcing, or from preventing employers being able to import cheap agency labour to undercut existing pay and conditions in the name of free market orthodoxy."

He's talking spefically about posted workers, where there had been some unhelpful ECJ rulings. You can query his vision of Britain opting out of rules and subsidizing its goods into the Single Market like that, but he's talking about something specifically here where he definitely has a point.

Can Starmer's remarks not be analyzed in the same spirit?

[Abernathy]

It might be worth pointing out that the proposals are, at this stage, only in the form of a white paper - a policy document setting out proposals for future legislation, and not a legislative bill going before parliament , so plenty of room for discussion and consultation before it does.

The actual proposals within the white paper are not in themselves especially draconian or controversial.
Read it here : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... aper.pdf.

The problem is entirely the ill-thought-out rhetoric that Starmer chose to use to introduce the paper.
I find it hard to credit that Starmer's team could not have foreseen the reaction that the rhetoric would elicit : the easy comparisons with Powell's infamous "Rivers of blood" speech, the easily misinterpreted assertion that inadequate immigration control has been "damaging" (interpreted as immigration in itself being damaging), the UKIP/Brexit/Reform - friendly language.

Surely there are questions being asked about this shambles ?

[Crabcakes]

I find it hard to credit that Starmer's team could not have foreseen the reaction that the rhetoric would elicit

*Exactly* this. Is it a bit shit that the speech has been misinterpreted/misrepresented/misquoted? Sure. 100% agree.

But, is it utterly fucking bewildering that a Labour leader, coming off the back off a Reform-heavy election laden with protest votes and anger at recent policy (or perception of policy) then goes out and makes a speech that can be very, very easily misquoted in this way - and further, that *no one* on his team seems to have gone “hey, maybe this is a bit of an issue” before he gave it? Also yes.

Comms needs sorting, and soon. It’s not terminal yet, but if this sort of shitshow isn’t dealt with before the narrative is unshakeable then Ed Davey will rightly be popping round to ask about where he can have his Deputy PM office before long.

[Tubby Isaacs]

The targeting of the Tories is actually bizarre too. Some fair points were made about the Tory period 2021-3- I was surprised that as much as half of the immigration wasn't Hong Kong and Ukraine, but purely a result of regular visa changes. But it's one thing to say "they were idiots", we're doing it better. Farage's reaction is presumably "Yeah, we know they're idiots, thanks for helping us replace them".

[Tubby Isaacs]

This one is above my pay grade, but Torsten Bell is a credible minister, so I like the sound of it.

Has a sort of Tony Benn ring to it of private pensions being directed into useful capital investment.

[The Weeping Angel]

Here's an interesting counterpoint to what's happened this week.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/artic ... -pay-54506

Jeremy Corbyn has said Brexit will put a stop to firms “importing cheap labour” to undercut the wages of UK workers.

The Labour leader said the Government “cannot be held back” by EU membership from challenging the rules of the free market.

But his remarks drew criticism from SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon, who accused him of appropriating the language of former Ukip leader Nigel Farage.

Much as I'd like to shit on Corbyn though, I think that would be unfair. This is what he said.

We cannot be held back inside or outside the EU from taking the steps we need to develop and invest in cutting edge industries and local business stop the tide of privatisation and outsourcing, or from preventing employers being able to import cheap agency labour to undercut existing pay and conditions in the name of free market orthodoxy."

He's talking spefically about posted workers, where there had been some unhelpful ECJ rulings. You can query his vision of Britain opting out of rules and subsidizing its goods into the Single Market like that, but he's talking about something specifically here where he definitely has a point.

Can Starmer's remarks not be analyzed in the same spirit?

Of course not. It's far better to accuse Starmer of re doing the rivers of blood.

[Youngian]

If Starmer or Corbyn think Farage's voters have or ever had any interest in opposing the Viking Line ferry ruling, Bolkenstein directive or any domestic labour market deregulation, they need their heads examined.

[Tubby Isaacs]

If Starmer or Corbyn think Farage's voters have or ever had any interest in opposing the Viking Line ferry ruling, Bolkenstein directive or any domestic labour market deregulation, they need their heads examined.

Corbyn was talking in the context of Brexit there though. Farage was irrelevant, it was about whether May could agree a deal and get it through. It was pretty much agreed we were going to be outside the Single Market (did EFTA members have to follow it anyway?) so it wasn't an unreasonable thing to mention as something that we'd keep clear of. I think it was a practical point that would have had lots of ex-Remain and Labour Leave support at the time.

[Tubby Isaacs]

UK-EU defence pact could be linked to Gibraltar deal – Spanish foreign minister

Anything in this? I'd think not- sorry, Ukraine, can you wait till we've sorted out Gibraltar. That would be the silliest thing since Philip Hammond's (brief) "give us a trade deal, or the defence alliance gets it".

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 27353.html

[Abernathy]

Have a look .

[Tubby Isaacs]

I put that on the Lib Dem thread. I'm not sure McSweeney or whoever should be doing a victory lap at that. Isn't it his job to get the language and substance so it doesn't put so many voters off.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

There's a lot of dishonest bollocks going on. This is the full transcript of Starmer's remarks:

Good morning.

Today, we publish a White Paper on immigration, a strategy that is absolutely central to my Plan for Change. This strategy will finally take back control of our borders and close the book on a squalid chapter for our politics, our economy, and our country.

“Take back control.” Everyone knows that slogan and what it meant for immigration, or at least that’s what people thought. Because what followed from the previous Government, starting with the people who used that slogan, was the complete opposite. Between 2019 and 2023, even as they were going around our country telling people, with a straight face, they would get immigration down, net migration quadrupled. Until in 2023, it reached nearly 1 million, which is about the population of Birmingham, our second largest city. That’s not control – it’s chaos.

And look, they must answer for themselves, but I don’t think you can do something like that by accident. It was a choice. A choice made even as they told you, told the country, they were doing the opposite. A one-nation experiment in open borders conducted on a country that voted for control. Well, no more. Today, this [political content redacted] Government is shutting down the lab. The experiment is over. We will deliver what you have asked for – time and again – and we will take back control of our borders.

And let me tell you why. Because I know, on a day like today, people who like politics will try to make this all about politics, about this or that strategy, targeting these voters, responding to that party. No. I am doing this because it is right, because it is fair, and because it is what I believe in.

Let me put it this way: Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they’re written down, often they’re not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to one another. Now, in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.

So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse, that encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you’re not championing growth, you’re not championing justice, or however else people defend the status quo. You’re actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.

So yes, I believe in this. I believe we need to reduce immigration significantly. That’s why some of the policies in this White Paper go back nearly three years, [political content redacted]. It’s about fairness.

Migration is part of Britain’s national story. We talked last week about the great rebuilding of this country after the war; migrants were part of that, and they make a massive contribution today. You will never hear me denigrate that. But when people come to our country, they should also commit to integration, to learning our language, and our system should actively distinguish between those that do and those that don’t. I think that’s fair.

Equally, Britain must compete for the best talent in the world in science, in technology, in healthcare. You cannot simply pull up a drawbridge, let nobody in, and think that is an economy that would work. That would hurt the pay packets of working people – without question. But at the same time, we do have to ask why parts of our economy seem almost addicted to importing cheap labour rather than investing in the skills of people who are here and want a good job in their community. Sectors like engineering, where visas have rocketed while apprenticeships have plummeted. Is that fair to Britain? Is it fair to young people weighing up their future to miss out on those apprenticeships, to see colleges in their community almost entirely dedicated to one-year courses for overseas students? No, I don’t think it is. And truth be told, I don’t think anyone does. And yet that is the Britain this broken system has created.

So, as this White Paper sets out, every area of the immigration system – work, family, and study – will be tightened up so we have more control. Skill requirements raised to degree level. English language requirements across all routes – including for dependents. The time it takes to acquire settled status extended from five years to ten. And enforcement tougher than ever because fair rules must be followed.

Now, make no mistake – this plan means migration will fall. That’s a promise. But I want to be very clear on this. If we do need to take further steps, if we do need to do more to release pressure on housing and our public services, then mark my words – we will. But it’s not just about numbers. Because the chaos of the previous government also changed the nature of immigration in this country. Fewer people who make a strong economic contribution, more who work in parts of our economy that put downward pressure on wages. So perhaps the biggest shift in this White Paper is that we will finally honour what “take back control” meant and begin to choose who comes here so that migration works for our national interest.

You know, this is where the whole debate is skewed, as if some people think controlling immigration is reigning in a sort of natural freedom rather than a basic and reasonable responsibility of government to make choices that work for a nation’s economy. For years, this seems to have muddled our thinking, but let me be clear – it ends now. We will create a migration system that is controlled, selective, and fair. A clean break with the past that links access to visas directly to investment in homegrown skills so that if a business wants to bring people in from abroad, they must first invest in Britain. But also, so settlement becomes a privilege that is earned, not a right, easier if you make a contribution, if you work, pay in, and help rebuild our country.

Now, some people may even be against that, but I think for the vast majority of people in this country, that is what they have long wanted to see. An immigration system that is fair, that works for our national interest, and that restores common sense and control to our borders. That is what this White Paper will deliver: lower net migration, higher skills, backing British workers, the start of repairing our social contract, which the chaos and cynicism of the last government did so much to undermine.

Thank you.

Published 12 May 2025

The part that evry Corbyn fluffer is claiming channels Enoch Powell

Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they’re written down, often they’re not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to one another. Now, in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.

That doesn't seem too bad for me, I've had the same concerns myself.
This section seems pretty obvious, too:

So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse, that encourages some businesses to bring in lower-paid workers rather than invest in our young people, or simply one that is sold by politicians to the British people on an entirely false premise, then you’re not championing growth, you’re not championing justice, or however else people defend the status quo. You’re actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.

[Youngian]

Equally, Britain must compete for the best talent in the world in science, in technology, in healthcare. You cannot simply pull up a drawbridge, let nobody in, and think that is an economy that would work. That would hurt the pay packets of working people – without question. But at the same time, we do have to ask why parts of our economy seem almost addicted to importing cheap labour rather than investing in the skills of people who are here and want a good job in their community. Sectors like engineering, where visas have rocketed while apprenticeships have plummeted.

Why do we have to import clever foreign boffins to be scientists and technicians while engineers can be trained up local grease monkeys?
I understand from the opposition (Jenrick or Philp) any old thicko can be trained up to be a carer in a few hours. Do they know what its like to clean up their own mother's piss?

This is an insightful dispassionate take on the migrant debate. Some stuff you'll already know and some points you may not that are obvious none the less. Like very little migration is from poor countries but aspirant people in developing countries.
Global competition for skilled migrants will intensify and may not be the get out jail free card that the West thinks it is to manage population decline. Then what?

How Migration Really Works
by Hein de Haas
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/455478/ ... 0241998779

[The Weeping Angel]

[Malcolm Armsteen]

[The Weeping Angel]

I see the jobs apocalypse hasn't happened.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Philip Inman in The Guardian thought there was some effect, but not much, He’s generally fair.

[Youngian]

I see the jobs apocalypse hasn't happened.

That's a pity, having less jobs is a perfect opportunity to cut migrant demand.

[Youngian]

No return to freedom of movement

As if it would make much difference. Apart from Romanians and Bulgarians, most EU workers would now be making a loss taking up jobs in the UK outside London.