Assuming for the sake of argument that this is actually true and not something someone's told you they read in the Brackley Gazette once,
Why?
Because the only metric that the plant measures itself by is cost of production. If you want to sell processed chicken to Asda, then you need to make sure every single cost is battened down, because price is the only thing that matters. Labour costs are perhaps one of the most expensive, if you off-load all the HR, pay related issues, recruitment etc etc to agencies you've saved money. Margins are so tight the agencies are cutting corners, it is easier to exploit workers that don't know their rights and have limited language abilities.
Side story: The plant built at the cost of some millions, a Co2 pool that knocked out chickens before killing them, this wasn't a welfare thing, it meant that they could increase the speed of the production line by a couple of seconds, because the chickens struggled less, and that lowers costs.
I didn't read this in the Banbury Cake (real name of a real local paper, don't ask), a former partner worked there as part of the production team.
Something I read not long ago that hit home was about how the poorest in a country, the ones most vulnerable to the divisive politics of blaming others who 'take from you', are those most likely to end up on the front line of a war that nationalism creates.
Immigration feeds division and fear of loss of what's yours, or replacement. It helps those who abuse power for their own ends to avoid scrutiny. The nationalism it creates ccauses conflict plus a population with a cause to fight for. Ultimately those who were against immigration, support nationalists and far right politics end up being those fighting the wars the power abusers start, and drag many imigration-tolerant people along with them.
Immigration is a difficult balance for a government, for sure. But the politics of Farage and his type is all for the benefit of those in power, the billionaire class etc. He's not trying to help anyone but those who pay him.
And another thing I thought was interesting was how you're statistically way more likely to become an imigrant in future than a billionaire. Particularly the way world politics is headed.
IMHO .. Global economy? Then we should have global migration. Full of problems oc. But it might help with some national and international co-operation overall.
The French people I dine with often open a second bottle of wine after they've finished the meal. I'm teetotal and so is Madame so it's not us influencing them. On the croissants front I've seen several French people at breakfast in hotels etc. cut a croissant in half and add butter and jam.
Some things I have learned:
wiping my plate with bread to eat up the sauce when I've finished and putting the knife and fork back on the table.
Always cutting a slice of cheese radially so you get some of the rich bit in the middle and the harder outside too. Cut the tasty point off and you'll get very black looks.
It's OK to order a coffee in a bar even if everyone else is drinking - I used to hate British round culture and piss taking if you don't drink.
And some of those classic French stereotype things are no longer a thing:
Horn blowing is now rare, though a neighbour still blows her horn every time she sees me
Nearly everyone stops at Zebra crossings and Stop signs, and most people are somewhere near the speed limit, and they no longer get confused at roundabouts which aren't priorité à droite.
Alcohol consumption has declined to the point it's below UK levels and you rarely see staggering drunks
Just to say some immigrants (me) do try to adapt to the culture they integrate.
IMHO .. Global economy? Then we should have global migration.
If the global economy resulted in a globally equitable distribution of wealth then global migration would be possible. Unfortunately for us liberal types we have a global economy where the vast majority of wealth is concentrated in the bank accounts of a tiny few oligarchs and corporations. If we want countries and populations to be open to people from other places we need to tackle the core problem of economic inequality first, and that I'm afraid means taking away most of the money currently hoarded by billionaires and corporations and giving it to those around the world who need it.
I'm afraid means taking away most of the money currently hoarded by billionaires and corporations and giving it to those around the world who need it.
Are you mad?! They’ll just go out and spend it on big tellies, Sky Sports subscriptions, Stella and B&H
Because the only metric that the plant measures itself by is cost of production.
...
Margins are so tight the agencies are cutting corners, it is easier to exploit workers that don't know their rights and have limited language abilities.
Right. So is the point of your "yes but people think foreigners are taking our jobs" narrative is in fact that agencies are breaking employment law and migrant workers need to be better protected from exploitation?
f we want countries and populations to be open to people from other places we need to tackle the core problem of economic inequality first, and that I'm afraid means taking away most of the money currently hoarded by billionaires and corporations and giving it to those around the world who need it.
Maybe addressing it as part of a whole situation rather than one first then the other / 2 separate issues is the way to go. But I agree. It would be good to see and I recognise that I'd be less well off as I'd probably have a fair share to pay - if we rebalance wealth many of use wouldn't have quite as much as we do (not just 'billionaires' that I lump in together in a them/us way that isn't a lot different to divisive migration politics). How much do we really need? Not a lot. Anyway, maybe a topic divergance I should take to the Your!Party! thread..
Are you mad?! They’ll just go out and spend it on big tellies, Sky Sports subscriptions, Stella and B&H
Comedian Steve Hughes:
"You shouldn't give money to the homeless, they'll only spend it on drugs and alcohol." - "Pff, what do you think I was going to spend it on?"
So is the point of your "yes but people think foreigners are taking our jobs" narrative is
When 30-40 years ago economic progress demanded that parts of south Wales and northern England be closed, we (as a society) did nothing meaningful to assist the people that lived there. The demographic facts are now stark, those folks have lower educational achievement, shorter lives, more disease, and greater levels of mental health illness. Now, in addition to these factors which makes it harder to get and keep a job, we've essentially put that vulnerable group in direct competition on price for the limited jobs available with another extremely vulnerable and deserving group that we place in their communities in disused or otherwise abandoned hotels without giving either of them a choice, or say in the matter.
And we wonder why there's rioting.
And we wonder why there's rioting.
'We' wonder?
I don't.
And, whilst I accept your arguments up to a point, they are also invalidated when many of the rioters are nothing to do with the local area - or even an area of comparable socio-economic disadvantage.
there are lots of ways to exploit vulnerable people. I get your point, that their complaints often miss the target, but the resolution to their situation - better housing, sound paying work, investment into communities, resolves most of not all of the issues they face, and makes them less exploitable to off-stage political voices that are content to use them as willing patsies.
And we wonder why there's rioting.
Well, I'm not wondering, I'm reasonably confident that there's rioting because of racism.
Your population with "lower educational achievement... and greater levels of mental health illness" are being fed the narrative that it's all the fault of foreigners. When you continually tell a bunch of people who are shit thick (by your own definitions, not mine) that all their ills are someone else's fault then the conclusion is depressingly predictable, inevitable even.
Whilst I think I understand your increasingly non sequitur arguments - I grew up in a former cotton town in one of the areas you cite whose economy imploded after all the mills closed, so I can relate first-hand - nothing you've posted thus far is convincing me that my confidence is misplaced.
Also, you didn't answer my question which was the other half of the sentence you quoted. Come to think of it, you seem to have missed several.
When 30-40 years ago economic progress demanded that parts of south Wales and northern England be closed
Closed? When did this happen?
I expressed my opinions on this difficult subject years ago in another thread. It's a very emotionally charged topic that is almost impossible to have an adult conversation about anymore! I predicted we would see protesters and counter protesters screaming **** you, no you **** in each others faces just like Americans about 9-10 years ago on this forum.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the Australian government produce projected figures each year for the amount of immigrant labour required to make up for shortfalls in the labour market, by sector and individual profession. IMO this would be a useful metric for public consumption and would aid transparency. It could be part of at least looking like there is a proper plan for allowed immigration, with anything outside those parameters subject to an increased level of vetting. The illegal side of it is more difficult to manage fairly. Countries such as our near neighbours France appear more than happy for illegal immigrants to be pushed out to their borders and becoming a UK problem instead of theirs.
a bunch of people who are shit thick
lower educational achievement =/= shit thick. It's not the same thing at all, and it's not what I said.
What I'm talking about are the qualifications that employers are increasing looking for in order to do even basic admin jobs. If you've only got a handful of GCSCs because the school you attended wrote you off, employers aren't going to let you in the door, let alone invite you to interview.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the Australian government produce projected figures each year for the amount of immigrant labour required to make up for shortfalls in the labour market, by sector and individual profession. IMO this would be a useful metric for public consumption and would aid transparency. It could be part of at least looking like there is a proper plan for allowed immigration, with anything outside those parameters subject to an increased level of vetting. The illegal side of it is more difficult to manage fairly. Countries such as our near neighbours France appear more than happy for illegal immigrants to be pushed out to their borders and becoming a UK problem instead of theirs.
I agree. It would be a good step forward. As for France happy to send the illegals our way that’s hardly a surprise. They are about as keen as having them as most of the uk is, enlightened stw posters excepted. The question can never get a proper answer to is why come to the uk and not stay in France. I spend as much of my time as I can getting out of the uk to France. Perhaps if we understood why the uk is seen as preferable we could then change our policies to make it less attractive. Those in genuine fear will accept the tougher conditions if they are safe and the economic illegals will think again
France take in two and a half times as many asylum seekers as the UK.
They are about as keen as having them as most of the uk is, enlightened stw posters excepted
The question can never get a proper answer to is why come to the uk and not stay in France.
The second sentence helps to explain the first sentence.
When you repeatedly and deliberately distort facts to create a false impression then it should come as no great surprise that it might have an effect on public opinion.
In 2023, France received approximately 167,000 asylum claims, while the UK received around 67,000
Bigots and demagogues like Adolf Hitler, Nigel Farage, and Donald Trump, rely on distortions and lies to mould public opinion. The secret is to repeat the lie so often that eventually it is assumed that it must be true.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the Australian government produce projected figures each year for the amount of immigrant labour required to make up for shortfalls in the labour market, by sector and individual profession. IMO this would be a useful metric for public consumption and would aid transparency.
I don't know whether you're correct about Australia or not, but I agree with you. The problem we have here though is, who controls the narrative?
What I'm talking about are the qualifications that employers are increasing looking for in order to do even basic admin jobs. If you've only got a handful of GCSCs because the school you attended wrote you off, employers aren't going to let you in the door, let alone invite you to interview.
Qualifications which are presumably held by all these immigrants who are forcing them out of jobs?
The question can never get a proper answer to is why come to the uk and not stay in France
I always assumed this was a result of English being the lingua franca. If the northern hemisphere suddenly erupted into flames and you and your family had to take refuge in the southern hemisphere, would you rather head for e.g. Borneo (I'm assuming you don't speak Malay, Indonesian, Murut, Bajau, etc.) or Australia/New Zealand?
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4911197/
Previous literature has shown that both fluency in the language of the destination country and the ability to learn it quickly play a key role in the transfer of existing human capital to foreign countries and generally boost immigrant’s success in destination countries’ labor markets,
The question can never get a proper answer to is why come to the uk and not stay in France
I think it’s because we’re the least racist country in Europe. I’ve seen some proper racist shit happen to migrants on the European mainland that would never be tolerated here. Including letting migrants launch themselves into the sea. The French have got a lot to answer for.
Which is surprising given the appalling wave of England flag shagging that’s currently masquerading as patriotism but as everyone knows is a racist anti brown people campaign led by the proto fascists of the far right.
Disappointed to see people I know celebrating the Epping council decision yesterday.
I gather there's a march/event in London on 13th Feb? Not clear if it's for or against the far right
Well, I'm not wondering, I'm reasonably confident that there's rioting because of racism.
Yep, this.
And this again a hundred times over.
Bigots and demagogues like Adolf Hitler, Nigel Farage, and Donald Trump, rely on distortions and lies to mould public opinion. The secret is to repeat the lie so often that eventually it is assumed that it must be true.
I assume everything they say is a lie until proven otherwise. I agree that the media distort to distract from the real problem which is the concentration of global assets into a smaller and smaller group of people, many of whom own media outlets to control the narrative. That doesn’t mean illegal immigration’s isn’t a problem in the uk. It is. It’s expensive and shows no sign of processing claimants quickly so those with genuine need can be helped and those who aren’t deported.
And racism and racist rioting has just been rewarded. I wonder what will happen now in other places... 🤔
That doesn’t mean illegal immigration’s isn’t a problem in the uk. It is. It’s expensive and shows no sign of processing claimants quickly so those with genuine need can be helped and those who aren’t deported
I totally agree. It is the perspective and how it is offered by the media and the likes of Kemi Badenoch, Nigel Farage, and now Sir Keir Starmer, that I challenge.
Plus the fact that this unnecessary fear-mongering stokes up hatred and violence whilst deliberately distracting attention away from the failures of government.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the Australian government produce projected figures each year for the amount of immigrant labour required to make up for shortfalls in the labour market, by sector and individual profession. IMO this would be a useful metric for public consumption and would aid transparency. It could be part of at least looking like there is a proper plan for allowed immigration, with anything outside those parameters subject to an increased level of vetting.
That would be a very good move and is in line with the point I was making about whether we need migrants.
Does the country need people to do specific jobs - clearly.
Does it need people to migrate to the country, never bother to learn language or make any effort to align with the country they have chosen to move to and not provide any benefit to the country they have moved to - not at all.
If the latter is 0.1% of migration then make that very clear and people may not be so against immigration.
And racism and racist rioting has just been rewarded.
IMHO the court has probably made the right decision with regards land use/planning permission, the problem of course is that it appears to do precisely that - reward racism and racist rioting.
However the alternative would have been to make the wrong decision simply not to reward racism and rioting, which isn't really acceptable either. It's a proper shit situation imo.
The other thing which shines through in this unfortunate situation is the hypocrisy of Tory-controlled Epping Council who apparently had no problem when exactly the same policy was being implemented by a Tory government.
and is in line with the point I was making about whether we need migrants.
You also made the point that we don't need asylum seekers and therefore, according to you, asylum applications should be rejected.
Obviously no country "needs" asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are accepted in line with international obligations and basic humanitarian principles. Objections to those commitments are grounded in racism, a point which you denied.
or make any effort to align with the country they have chosen to move to
What does that mean? They don't pass Norman Tebbit's "cricket test"?
What does that mean? They don't pass Norman Tebbit's "cricket test"?
I think you know exactly what it means and you're hoping anyone who answers does so leaving the tiniest thread of ambiguity that can be picked at, presumably so it can be suggested in a roundabout way that they're racist.
I think you know exactly what it means
Well you are wrong then.
I don't know what to "make any effort to align with the country they have chosen to move to" means.
It sounds to me that the patriotism of those concerned is being questioned, in much the same way as Norman Tebbit did with his "cricket test".
If you believe it means something different then how about sharing it?
And btw I don't tend to feel the need to suggest in "a roundabout way" that someone is racist. If I think they are racist I will say it in a direct straightforward way. Why on earth would there be a need to say it in a roundabout way?
Presumably in the case of Epping Council they've argued successfully that the hotel (building) has effectively changed use from class C1 (basically a hotel) to C2a (secure residential institution), but without the necessary approval?
If this is the case, and given that C2a has as examples prisons, young offenders' institutions, detention centres, secure training centres etc, then I think this poses two major questions (one immediate and procedural, one conceptual and political):
1. How many other hotels that are being used for this purpose have the change approved? My guess would be not very many as making a fast buck seems to be the main motivation over doing things properly.
2. Does this mean that this is effectively criminalising asylum seekers if their accommodation is classed along with prisons and young offenders' institutions. To be fair, this is not a product of the Epping situation specifically. Presumably these hotels are not detention centres as such(?)
Does anyone really know about this now? Obviously Farage and his ilk will stir the pot whatever, though.
I don't know what to "make any effort to align with the country they have chosen to move to" means.
You honestly can't parse that sentence and come up with a single possible interpretation? Really?
Given your voluminous and forthright posting in social issue threads I would have thought you'd be giving the simple questions at least a bit of consideration: the more you know about the opposing viewpoint the more informed your input will be.
You also conveniently snipped off the end of the full sentence: "and not provide any benefit to the country they have moved to". Why was that? Looks like an attempt at framing the debate so that anyone who answers might leave the tiniest thread of ambiguity that can be picked at, presumably so it can be suggested in a roundabout direct and straightforward way that they're racist.
The question can never get a proper answer to is why come to the uk and not stay in France.
Flag shagging "Patriots" do seem to love:
- "Britannia ruled the waves",
- "I miss the Empire, when 'we' controlled a significant part of the world"
- "We gave India the railways"
- English the international language, and the language of the sea
- Americans speak English, and are by far and away the biggest influencers in the modern world, not just in politics, but Media, hollywood, music, etc etc. All in English.
blah blah blah,
But then totally fail to see that historic influence has any bearing on global peoples views of the UK.
you cant have it both ways.
Highly reccomend listening to the Empire podcast, for some fascinating history perspectives
https://open.spotify.com/show/0sBh58hSTReUQiK4axYUVx
I'm probably going to get shouted down for sounding too right wing and using too many stereotypes, but I'm aware of the generalisations I'm using to make a point.
Ultimately it comes down to numbers. The population of what is a very small country is expanding rapidly, certainly faster than our infrastructure, house building and public services for example can keep up with. And because immigrants tend to like to live near people like them they can make particular areas feel overwhelmed. I'm from Lincolnshire originally and the sheer numbers of eastern European farm workers is staggering, I genuinely do feel like I'm in a minority in places like Boston for instance, despite having been born and bred twenty miles away. With the population of the UK growing by 5-600,000 per year, largely fuelled by immigration I can see that this area will not be alone, that number is simply unsustainable.
However, what I do object to is the sheer effort successive governments have put into keeping out particular groups who we absolutely should be welcoming with open arms, or even seeking out to offer them the right to live here. Remember the fuss about the ghurkas? There was only about 1,500 of them and if anyone has 'earned' the right to live here it's them. Why was it a problem giving them the right to come here? Likewise with the Afghans who worked for the British in Afghanistan, we owe them and should have people on the ground there finding them and helping to bring them to the UK, especially now the Taliban know who they are because of a **** up by a civil servant but instead the government seems to be doing all it can to keep the numbers of these people to the bare minimum
Someone needs to make the decision of who is allowed in and who isn't, and at the moment I think we've got it back to front. We've got a load of Polish builders and Romanian plumbers who have left perfectly good countries whilst we appear to be trying to keep out Iraqis and Syrians who are running away from something terrifying.
Basically anyone coming legally probably doesn't 'have' to come, they have just chosen to live somewhere else. Anyone coming illegally has probably been forced out of their home by conflict and really needs our help. The former, much bigger group, gets the help and latter, smaller group who actually need it, don't. That's mad.
Also, I'm an Englishman living in Scotland, does that make me a hypocrite?
And a related question, why were so many people keen to take in Ukrainian refugees, into their own homes, but so few seem keen to take in Sudanese? Both equally deserving IMO, but I do think the media played a big role there
I have to agree with Ernie, on such matters you need to be specific. Does it mean that you shouldn't speak anything but English with your family and friends? Or just that you should be able to speak to your local shop keepers in English? Does it mean you have to stop enjoying films and music made by people from "your culture"? Or just that you should try and enjoy some music made for English/American audiences? Does it mean you should take your kids to McDonalds for a treat, rather than a curry house? Does it mean you should follow the English football teams with passionate interest? What if you'd rather watch the TdF as it goes around France (and its neighbours)? What is the alignment needed? SOME intergration should absolutely be encouraged, and expected... but when using such language, you need to be clear. For some people, a willingness to learn some English and get involved in some local groups is what they mean... for others it's dressing like a character from a Merchant Ivory film and taking up bell ringing that would prove "alignment".
You honestly can't parse that sentence and come up with a single possible interpretation?
To be clear, I can think of countless interpretations, and I'm sure others can as well. What do YOU mean by it?
And a related question, why were so many people keen to take in Ukrainian refugees, into their own homes, but so few seem keen to take in Sudanese?
Skin colour.
Skin colour is part of that one, understanding the conflict is another. Civil wars, and their impacts, are harder for the public to understand (and more importantly empathise about) than an invasion by a country that is also aggressive towards the UK.
France take in two and a half times as many asylum seekers as the UK.
They receive more applications but actually end up taking in less people because their rejection rate is far higher.
Also, I'm an Englishman living in Scotland, does that make me a hypocrite?
Of course it does, you've whinged about feeling foreign in Lincolnshire but you've done the same thing.
