Crosswords0 min ago
How Is Red Ed Going To End Our "dependency" On Foriegn Labour?
22 Answers
http://
Personally I think the only way is to reduce benefits to such a level that our own WSC have to work but I don't suppose a labour governement will ever do that.
Personally I think the only way is to reduce benefits to such a level that our own WSC have to work but I don't suppose a labour governement will ever do that.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Its in the report.
// He proposes:
Increasing fines for firms that breach minimum wage legislation
Banning recruitment agencies from having a policy of hiring only foreign workers
Stopping the use of "tied housing", which allows agricultural firms to pay less to workers who get accommodation as part of their job //
If that does deter immigrants, are there still indigenous Brits willing to take their places for minimum wage?
Still, its a start.
// He proposes:
Increasing fines for firms that breach minimum wage legislation
Banning recruitment agencies from having a policy of hiring only foreign workers
Stopping the use of "tied housing", which allows agricultural firms to pay less to workers who get accommodation as part of their job //
If that does deter immigrants, are there still indigenous Brits willing to take their places for minimum wage?
Still, its a start.
yes I read that but it's a drop in the ocean wont make a difference. There are a couple of ways to do this: 1) Drop benefits to a level where our own WSC get off their ar5ses to work or 2) limit the immigrants so employers have to pay more to tempt our own off the rock and roll where they currently are better off not working. For what it's worth Ed is correct that we are too dependent on foriegn labour but Niether He nor any of the parties have the balls to do what is required.
a friend works in the food processing industry in east Anglia, nearly all her workers are Brazilians pretending to be Portuguese; they are supplied to the company via an agency which means they receive less than the minimum wage (a loophole in the agency worker regulations, apparently). so far, all so legally very grey; but if the company were to pay more (or use 100% legitimate workers), their product would have to be set at a price that their main customer (a well known supermarket) will not be prepared to pay.
"We have to change our country's chronic dependency on low-skill, low-wage labour. A dependency that is getting worse not better,"
Er.. why has Mr Ed suddenly realised this? I have been suggesting this every time the issue is raised. On most of those occasions my argument (that it is utter lunacy to import cheap labour to perform unskilled work whilst we are paying upwards of 2m people to sit at home) usually results in my being labelled a “Little Englander”. Is Mr Ed now to be tarnished with that same epithet?
Various bodies are being blamed by Mr Ed for this shambles. He blames employers, staff agencies, gang masters, UKIP and anyone else he can think of. But the blame lays squarely at the door of successive governments who firstly allowed free movement of people from abroad to be foisted upon the UK, then actively encouraged it and finally did nothing about it even when warned of the massive problems it would create. Even Mr Cameron (who I believe briefly held the post of Prime Minister for a few weeks in 2010) is now in favour of “managed migration”.
When will these people stop spouting drivel? There can be no “managed migration” whilst the UK remains a member of the EU. Free movement is a firm principle of the Federalists and it will not be restricted or abandoned. Some of the nations queuing up to join that absurd organisation make Bulgaria and Romania seem like oil rich Emirates by comparison and the UK can only look forward to tens of thousands more highly unskilled migrants flooding in to pick their cabbages and wash their cars.
Er.. why has Mr Ed suddenly realised this? I have been suggesting this every time the issue is raised. On most of those occasions my argument (that it is utter lunacy to import cheap labour to perform unskilled work whilst we are paying upwards of 2m people to sit at home) usually results in my being labelled a “Little Englander”. Is Mr Ed now to be tarnished with that same epithet?
Various bodies are being blamed by Mr Ed for this shambles. He blames employers, staff agencies, gang masters, UKIP and anyone else he can think of. But the blame lays squarely at the door of successive governments who firstly allowed free movement of people from abroad to be foisted upon the UK, then actively encouraged it and finally did nothing about it even when warned of the massive problems it would create. Even Mr Cameron (who I believe briefly held the post of Prime Minister for a few weeks in 2010) is now in favour of “managed migration”.
When will these people stop spouting drivel? There can be no “managed migration” whilst the UK remains a member of the EU. Free movement is a firm principle of the Federalists and it will not be restricted or abandoned. Some of the nations queuing up to join that absurd organisation make Bulgaria and Romania seem like oil rich Emirates by comparison and the UK can only look forward to tens of thousands more highly unskilled migrants flooding in to pick their cabbages and wash their cars.
Tora,
Single person benefit is £71 per week out of which they must pay some Council Tax. Plus pay their Gas, Electricity and Water bills. How low would you drop it to?
Foreign workers have a right to come here, just as our workers have a right to go abroad. We tend to lose clever people and import unskilled ones.
If you make the employers pay their workforce more to entice British workers, the product will be too expensive. The supermarkets will just import stuff from abroad if homegrown produce is not incredibly cheap.
Single person benefit is £71 per week out of which they must pay some Council Tax. Plus pay their Gas, Electricity and Water bills. How low would you drop it to?
Foreign workers have a right to come here, just as our workers have a right to go abroad. We tend to lose clever people and import unskilled ones.
If you make the employers pay their workforce more to entice British workers, the product will be too expensive. The supermarkets will just import stuff from abroad if homegrown produce is not incredibly cheap.
It's all hot air. As for his promise to increase fines for firms paying below the minimum wage:
"In the last two years, there has not been a single prosecution for breach of the national minimum wage, even though 13% of those working in care homes in this country are on less than the national minimum wage. Is it not time the Government sorted that out, so that fewer people choose to come here?"
http://
"In the last two years, there has not been a single prosecution for breach of the national minimum wage, even though 13% of those working in care homes in this country are on less than the national minimum wage. Is it not time the Government sorted that out, so that fewer people choose to come here?"
http://
//If you make the employers pay their workforce more to entice British workers, the product will be too expensive.//
Like coal in the 1970s.
Coal was expensive to produce, but I don't think it was because the employers were paying the workforce too much. We had mined most of the easy coal over the previous two centuries, what was left was harder and more expensive to extract. New coalfields abroad did not have that problem.
Like coal in the 1970s.
Coal was expensive to produce, but I don't think it was because the employers were paying the workforce too much. We had mined most of the easy coal over the previous two centuries, what was left was harder and more expensive to extract. New coalfields abroad did not have that problem.
To be fair, I think it was both Gromit. From a .org website:
Over time, the UK coal industry has become uncompetitive on a global scale. With higher wages and unit costs of production, coal is cheaper to import from abroad. For example, UK power stations import considerable amounts of coal from Argentina.
http://
Over time, the UK coal industry has become uncompetitive on a global scale. With higher wages and unit costs of production, coal is cheaper to import from abroad. For example, UK power stations import considerable amounts of coal from Argentina.
http://
Tora
// I'm thinking of the baby factories that have kids as a form of income to support the parents. We need another approach, to discourage this sort of thing. //
You are probably right, we do. But the immigrants aren't doing the jobs of people you call baby factories. British people will not work for unscrupulous employers even if they are broke. If they are offered jobs at below the minimum wage, they will not take it. Foreign applcants will. Which is why Ed is trying to enforce the law.
// I'm thinking of the baby factories that have kids as a form of income to support the parents. We need another approach, to discourage this sort of thing. //
You are probably right, we do. But the immigrants aren't doing the jobs of people you call baby factories. British people will not work for unscrupulous employers even if they are broke. If they are offered jobs at below the minimum wage, they will not take it. Foreign applcants will. Which is why Ed is trying to enforce the law.
// For example, UK power stations import considerable amounts of coal from Argentina. //
I once posted the same fact, except it was pointed out to me that it is completely false. It appears to be a fabrication put about by leftwingers to discredit Thatcher.
Our coal imports and country of origin can be seen in this link
http://
I once posted the same fact, except it was pointed out to me that it is completely false. It appears to be a fabrication put about by leftwingers to discredit Thatcher.
Our coal imports and country of origin can be seen in this link
http://
"We tend to lose clever people and import unskilled ones. "
Precisely, Gromit. You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Because of the dishonest nature of “net” migration figures the true tragedy of this appalling “population swap” is being deliberately masked. People leaving the UK are largely skilled/professional people or self-sufficient pensioners (all fed up with being over taxed and castigated for being successful whilst having to pay twice for such things as education and healthcare). Their places are taken by mainly unskilled (albeit hard working) people who can do work that virtually anybody can do. Their low wages mean they have virtually no chance of making a net contribution to the UK’s coffers and much of their cash is sent back “home” thus not providing any benefit to the UK economy whatsoever.
That is how matters will progress without radical change. It’s no use politicians such as Mr Ed making vague promises about regulating wages and staff agencies (which are unlikely to be fulfilled anyway). The appalling State education system seems unable to prepare many young people for useful work (even though bestowing them with fifteen 'A' Levels each) and employers needing skilled workers are struggling, meaning those leaving are not being replaced.
Precisely, Gromit. You have hit the nail squarely on the head. Because of the dishonest nature of “net” migration figures the true tragedy of this appalling “population swap” is being deliberately masked. People leaving the UK are largely skilled/professional people or self-sufficient pensioners (all fed up with being over taxed and castigated for being successful whilst having to pay twice for such things as education and healthcare). Their places are taken by mainly unskilled (albeit hard working) people who can do work that virtually anybody can do. Their low wages mean they have virtually no chance of making a net contribution to the UK’s coffers and much of their cash is sent back “home” thus not providing any benefit to the UK economy whatsoever.
That is how matters will progress without radical change. It’s no use politicians such as Mr Ed making vague promises about regulating wages and staff agencies (which are unlikely to be fulfilled anyway). The appalling State education system seems unable to prepare many young people for useful work (even though bestowing them with fifteen 'A' Levels each) and employers needing skilled workers are struggling, meaning those leaving are not being replaced.
// The appalling State education system seems unable to prepare many young people for useful work //
I don't agree that the state education system is that bad, or that those coming out are not useful.
The problem is an obsession with targets and league tables. The students who are not acedemic, would have in the past been trained in manual skills, metal work, woodwork, farming etc. Now, they will be steered to some useless subject just to keep the school's rating up. The students who should be prepared for manual work come out with a bunch of worthless qualifications, and the expectation they will get a great job. When they are offered £2.68 per hour for picking turnips, they feel letdown.
State schools produce plenty of very good workers with the ability to be an asset to our economy.
I don't agree that the state education system is that bad, or that those coming out are not useful.
The problem is an obsession with targets and league tables. The students who are not acedemic, would have in the past been trained in manual skills, metal work, woodwork, farming etc. Now, they will be steered to some useless subject just to keep the school's rating up. The students who should be prepared for manual work come out with a bunch of worthless qualifications, and the expectation they will get a great job. When they are offered £2.68 per hour for picking turnips, they feel letdown.
State schools produce plenty of very good workers with the ability to be an asset to our economy.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.