Mailwatch(ed) Forum

The time for a "proper debate" on immigration was twenty years ago. That ship has long sailed and the general belief now is that we take more immigrants than any other country and they come here for the most generous benefits in the world. Debunking those myths is the only way the government has got any hope of a proper, humane and morally decent solution to the problem.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 10:04 pm Some interesting points about the care visas made here, by someone not at all happy about the overall language or policies.

Short version- the system inherited is terrible, and there were loads of people ripped off by rogue organisations who want to work in care and haven't been able to. The Government is actually getting them into care jobs.

Which again raises the question. How has Starmer managed to contrive overwhelming liberal-left opposition from all of this?

https://bsky.app/profile/lukepiper.bsky ... lovbb35fuc

Well, Starmer's speech didn't help matters. At the same time, I feel that with a segment of left-liberal opinion just won't accept anything less than immigration is good.

Well, I'd say that I'm part of that segment of left-liberal opinion, and I do take the view that inward immigration to the UK is overwhelmingly a very good thing. But I also recognise that in a 21st century in which movements of people from multiple locii to other more prosperous/safer/ cooler/ richer in water resources locii (of which the UK is one), some basic and robust controls on immigration levels is required.

It's just that the exploitation of that by right-wing , lying, racist grifters to win power via the votes of simpletons makes my skin crawl.

I’m a bit disappointed about the Russell Group obsession when it comes to Universities, then again I wonder if the lower universities they talk about are these ones set up on a whim when the Conservatives opened the market.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 12:37 pm Panic. Probably not just at Reform, but also at the Democrats and other Labour-type parties losing support over immigration to populist parties. It's often said that those various Labour-type parties all did it wrong by moving right on immigration, but I don't really see many examples of parties who didn't and then romped home in elections. The nearest anyone has in Sanchez is Spain, but last time I checked he was behind in the polls despite the economy doing well.

Ian Dunt's got a great idea just don't have any borders.

Dan Hodges's thinks Starmer's speech was politically insane.

Labour has gone full fascist. All to appeal to mythical white working class Red Wall voters. Even sympathetic commentators have had enough. MPs are in turmoil. They seem determined to make things worse for EVERYONE. The news media have bitten Starmer's hand, but will not let go. In 2029 Labour will be gone.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 1:58 am Dan Hodges's thinks Starmer's speech was politically insane.

That's a wise take. "Dingys, hotels, illegals" are the rabid runaway obsessions. No one has been hitting on Philippino carers.

NevTheSweeper wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 3:01 am Labour has gone full fascist. All to appeal to mythical white working class Red Wall voters. Even sympathetic commentators have had enough. MPs are in turmoil. They seem determined to make things worse for EVERYONE. The news media have bitten Starmer's hand, but will not let go. In 2029 Labour will be gone.

Labour have a presentation problem where reasonable policies come over as far worse than they are, and some policies could have done with longer in the oven. No denying that.

However, to say they ‘have gone fascist’ when you look over at what’s happening in the US is in very poor taste.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 7:11 am

NevTheSweeper wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 3:01 am Labour has gone full fascist. All to appeal to mythical white working class Red Wall voters. Even sympathetic commentators have had enough. MPs are in turmoil. They seem determined to make things worse for EVERYONE. The news media have bitten Starmer's hand, but will not let go. In 2029 Labour will be gone.

Labour have a presentation problem where reasonable policies come over as far worse than they are, and some policies could have done with longer in the oven. No denying that.

However, to say they ‘have gone fascist’ when you look over at what’s happening in the US is in very poor taste.

Fair point. The US is way ahead of us in that respect.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 7:11 am

NevTheSweeper wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 3:01 am Labour has gone full fascist. All to appeal to mythical white working class Red Wall voters. Even sympathetic commentators have had enough. MPs are in turmoil. They seem determined to make things worse for EVERYONE. The news media have bitten Starmer's hand, but will not let go. In 2029 Labour will be gone.

Labour have a presentation problem where reasonable policies come over as far worse than they are, and some policies could have done with longer in the oven. No denying that.

However, to say they ‘have gone fascist’ when you look over at what’s happening in the US is in very poor taste.

Fair point. The US is way ahead of us in that respect.

What bugs me about the recent policy announcements is that a better version - and one where Labour set the agenda - is very simple to see and with barely any changes to actual policy.

For example, “overseas care home staff ban” makes it about immigration, is in appearance pursuing Reform voters after local elections where Reform did well, and makes it look like their issues and talking points are genuine rather than simple anti-immigrant rhetoric. It’s daft as they will never get those votes anyway, and they will never satisfy Reform because they will just shift the goalposts - when all immigrants have gone it will be the fault of some other minority group, and when they’re all gone it will be the fault of ‘traitors’, and so on.

Instead, it could have been “Labour unveil massive training and upskilling programme to fill care staff gaps with homegrown talent and reduce reliance on agency staff and needing overseas recruitment to plug gaps”. The focus is on creating jobs, giving people skills, saving money, investing in our economy and our NHS and - as an aside that doesn’t even mention immigration - lowering the need for people to come in from overseas.

That’s the agenda that a government with a big majority should be setting, and I’m bewildered that they’re not when the goals are wide open.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 10:25 am “Labour unveil massive training and upskilling programme to fill care staff gaps with homegrown talent and reduce reliance on agency staff and needing overseas recruitment to plug gaps”.

Yeahbbut what about the small boats and the rape gangs?

There's two things going on. Firstly, people feel that the economy is stagnant and any small gains are not coming their way. The only way this feeling will pass is if the economy grows and tax changes make it clear that the richest are not creaming off all the gains. This is not a short term project, and the risk is that external factors may see it not happen until after the next general election. If that happens, Labour are fucked.
Secondly, social media has radically changed the way that people get news and information. If you thought the lies and partial truths of the Sun, the Mail and the Express were a danger to democracy, you should see some of the outrageous shit that is shared, largely behind the backs of people like you and me, on Facebook and YouTube, let alone the hardcore cesspit sites. This is normal people like your next door neighbours that have been sucked into a world where all politicians have caused the problems we have through either lack of common sense or outright criminal activity and the only solution is therefore to get rid of an entire political class.
No mere policy announcement is going to get around these massive factors influencing public opinion. An economic turnaround might distract the electorate from populist fantasy, but it is going to have to start soon.

I think care workers are probably the hardest area. The wage rates you hear quoted are pretty much what you get paid at any stage of your career. There is virtually nothing in the way of career progression. There aren't really "supervisor" roles to get promoted to, like there would be even in something unprestigious and poorly paid like a supermarket job. Obviously wages should be improved for care workers, but living wage as all you'll ever earn is not that attractive. So I think it's always going to be something with high staff turnover. Training more care assistants doesn't solve that.

For other things, I think Labour does have a point about training more domestic workers (who, it should be said, aren't all white). Antonia Bance gives the example of welders who she is convinced could be recruited locally (in Tipton and Wednesbury), and that stick is needed for employers to do that. There would be fairly widespread support for this. Sure there's always a bonehead left element who will represent it as being basically the same as Atilla the Hun, but there's enough of a consensus to build the policy on. That ought to have been the subject of the speech.

Has anyone on here heard the experience of a care home CEO?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002c2bx - 1:09:04 in.

It seems the Brits don't want the jobs. I will be interested to see the TV programme fronted by former Eastenders actress Natalie Cassidy where she trains to be a carer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2025/ ... ng-bbc-one

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.

Some interesting stuff in this long thread from Dan Neidle.

Tax the rich like the 70s? We actually do tax them more now, despite the headline rates having come down, because there were so many really easy ways to avoid being liable for tax back then (actually from the mid 70s on, the government does start shutting some of the really easy stuff down, but even so the system overall was lax, even if it was stricter than the 60s.

You'd barely need a clever accountant for most of this stuff. I finally understand why "luncheon vouchers" were a thing. Literally as much restaurant food as you could eat on the company. Plus a free Rolls Royce. Even free trip to your holiday home in Spain, which you could buy with an interest free loan.

I'm getting really pissed off with people comparing what Starmer said to rivers of blood.

I agree. As Sunder Katwala says, this isn't actually a particularly well known quote from the speech, and the context is clearly different. He seems to have some contacts in No 10, and says that the reaction wasn't something they planned, unlike Enoch Powell who was telling people in advance his speech was going to "up like a rocket".

To some extent, Starmer brings this on himself by trying to sound tough and alienating people who would stick up for him. But there's also a self-reinforcing circle of news here, whereby Starmer's deeemed to have said something he didn't, followed by "backlash against Starmer" and now "Yvette Cooper denies Starmer was blah blah".

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 12:30 pm I'm getting really pissed off with people comparing what Starmer said to rivers of blood.

They've not read/heard what he actually said and are being gaslit by those whose only aim is get Labour out.