That Starmer fella...

Again - why are those sentences together and what is the word “but” meant to mean?

Probably relating the the sentence directly after the word but, where he says exploiting workers from abroad because they'll accept lower wages and worse conditions isn't the right way to do things.

Complete world salad FFS

Maybe it's in the source but I didn't see any of those points in the bit quoted.

I get the desire to give him the benefit of the doubt, but if you take him on his words it's skirting near some pretty ugly stuff. It's a mark of how Brexit has moved the Overton window in UK politics.

the days when low pay and cheap labour are part of the British way on growth must end.

That bit, right after the word but.
I think it's possible to be welcoming and open to immigrants of all kinds whilst still wanting to improve things for those already in the country so that there isn't a reliance on cheap, exploitative labour. Whether Keir is getting that across well I'm not so sure, the headlines certainly aren't, but maybe they're aimed at people who only read the headlines and care not for immigrants.

This is the analysis I was looking for earlier. Starmer knows he is talking bollocks.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/741926/Final_EEA_report.PDF

1 Attachment

Isn't this just the same shit we heard during the Brexit debate? That immigration is driving down wages. And wasn't it proven that overall this is not the case (except for unskilled labour) and that the actual solution to low pay is to raise the minimum wage and increase and support union membership. Clearly this was not something the Brexit supporting tories were going to listen to.

Why Starmer is jumping on their bandwagon I don't know.

except for unskilled labour

That's a hell of a caveat

It would be easy, on the basis of the main soundbites from Keir Starmer’s speech to the CBI conference on Tuesday, to conclude that Labour, in a cynical vote-chasing strategy, has decided to copy Tory crowd-pleasing lines on immigration and labour shortages. The UK must end its reliance on “immigration dependency” and companies must “start investing more in training workers who are already here”, said Starmer, as if embracing the popular sport of bashing business.

Dig a little into the speech and Labour’s emerging policy on immigration and it was possible to glimpse something more grown-up and nuanced: a pragmatic position that recognises some labour pressures are genuine, the current migration rules are too inflexible and that the UK economy is being held back as a result.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2022/nov/22/starmer-nuanced-approach-to-immigration-and-jobs-needs-detail

^ for what its worth I think some deliberate dog whistling to 2019 "immigration concerned" Tory voters is definitely going on, but the nuance and substance of what he is saying is far less problematic. Whoever helps him with his messaging continues to play a blinder imho.

Those on the left of the party who think he's a Tory in Labour clothing will never vote for him anyway so im not sure he's worried about those factions accusing him of being anti immigration.

Sure, but that's why we have a minimum wage. If he wants higher wages for all those fruit pickers and cleaners (immigrants or locals), just raise the minimum wage

That is already in thier proposals

So actually we don't need to cut immigration to 'wean business off cheap labour' then?

I honestly can't believe we are still having this argument about immigration 5 years on.

a pragmatic position that recognises some labour pressures are genuine

What are these "genuine labour pressures", though? I really don't see the economic evidence.

Isn’t the “but” quite important?

The Tory argument is “we need to stop immigration and will be nasty to immigrants, lower immigration will mean better jobs for UK residents (and hence more skills, investment in UK workers)”.

Isn’t he saying “we think migration is part of our national story and don’t agree with the vilification of immigrants. However we do still want more investment in UK workers so businesses should still plan to invest in workers skills and productivity”?

BTW I don’t think we’ll ever stop having discussions about immigration… it’s not 5 years on, it’s been an ongoing theme for over a century

Doesn’t the evidence suggest there is a negative effect of immigration on lower paid workers - albeit fairly minor (<1%) and probably in average no effect overall (as higher paid workers more likely to benefit)?

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/

“we think migration is part of our national story and don’t agree with the vilification of immigrants. However we do still want more investment in UK workers so businesses should still plan to invest in workers skills and productivity”

Thats the point Nick was making, why is he saying these things together? Its like saying "we dont agree with vilification of Mark Cavendish at Quickstep. However we want more investment in British Cycling via Shell" The two are not related.

I guess "immigration" is just a garnish to give red wall something.

I will vote labour but I am allowed to say that he is wrong. And he is wrong.

BTW I don’t think we’ll ever stop having discussions about immigration… it’s not 5 years on, it’s been an ongoing theme for over a century

Its not even 50/50 yet when Britain started the empire. It should be 200 years from when the last colony was liberated.

But if the things are linked because govt rhetoric is saying they are, then it’s reasonable to say “this is what they say - we disagree with (1) (we don’t think immigrants are bad) but (2) we do agree with the point that businesses need to invest anyway?”

because govt rhetoric is saying they are

exactly, he is trying to out-tory the tories

plus Farage is now stirring with backing him 😂

But isn’t he saying he rejects part of the government approach? That’s how I read it. Although obviously pretty horrified to see Farage is keen…

Thanks for the link. Perhaps I am going too far to say that there is no economic evidence, then.

I'm still not convinced by the argument that links investment in skills to migration. It also abdicates the State's responsibility to drive productivity growth from the supply-side.

I'm still not convinced by the argument that links investment in skills to migration.

Does there need to be this link for it to be a good idea to encourage business to invest in skills, training and pay and conditions as opposed to ship in agency workers from abroad?

Essentially what starmer is saying is "sure, lets continue to use international nurses but lets also start reducing our dependency on them by making it cheaper and better rewarded to become a nurse and so we can help a few of those 1.5m people get back to work".

as opposed to

We are going round in circles. Funding training is good. Immigration is good. The two are not in conflict with each other. I do not care for Starmer's strategy to make it seem like they are.

I'm still not convinced by the argument that links investment in skills to migration.

I don't know if there is evidence on this or not - it doesn't seem to me to be the same point as whether immigration can affect wages (where from my reading of the studies I'd summarise the effects as being mixed, overall probably neutral or very slightly positive, with some winners and losers within that but all quite small effects).

But isn't part of the point that, rhetorically, govt makes the link between migration and skills / UK workforce. Starmer therefore needs to address both parts if he's talking about one - if he disagrees with anything on migration, he needs to be clear to say "but that doesn't mean I don't want workers to be trained + more invested in them". As otherwise he just gets attacked for not supporting training of UK workers

the government makes the link between migration and skills / UK workforce

It does, and Starmer doesn't refute the point. He could have said something like "the gov't is wrong to blame immigrants for the failure of UK companies to invest in their staff and of government to provide opportunities for people to develop skills" but he quite deliberately didn't.