EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

But public opinion isn't the same thing as what the country actually needs.

Johnson wants an infrastructure boom, there will have to be a sectoral exemption for migrant construction workers in order to achieve this. Many other sectors will also make their case for an exemption.

The UK needs migrant workers, so pandering to public opinion is either going to negatively impact the economy, or the "points based system" (itself an unsubtle dog-whistle) will be shot through of exemptions within the first few months of operation.

That doesn't strike you as hypocritical at all?

It’s not hypocritical to have benefited historically from policies you had no part in forming. It’s sensible to acknowledge and understand that you benefitted … yep. She is denying this for future generations. Tbf I think she does in that clip.

(you made me defend Patel ffs)

^ I think the point with Patel is to ask her - why is a system that wouldn't have let your parents in better than one that would? I agree she has the right to support any system she likes but it's fair enough to ask about specifics too; in this case her very own experience. It's not about gratitude, it's why she thinks her parent's successful immigration here should no longer be replicated. And the same question, why is this system better, should be asked of all the Tories. It's just more piquant when they are the child of immigrants.

That's not the point though, it's not about gratitude, it's about her first hand experience. They're saying that her parents have made a worthwhile contribution to Britain despite not qualifying (on paper) to come here. You would hope that Priti could recognise her own parents' contribution to the country but here she is arguing that immigration by people like them is detrimental.

It would be like someone calling for abolition of the NHS when their partner had brain surgery last year that they could never have afforded privately - you should have anecdotal experience of why this system is a good one.

I suppose lizards don't really do family though, so maybe she never met her parents when she hatched out of her egg

Not that it matters, we already know the non-answers we would get.

There are clear signs that floodgates are slightly open for non-EU migration, which is mostly high skill (Tier 2, post study work).

But am not OK with all the news articles where the "her parents wouldn't have gotten in under her proposed system" is presented as a kind of "gotcha!

I don't think its intended as a gotcha, its trying to get her to have some sympathy and understanding of the consequences of the changes that she's figureheading

There are clear signs that floodgates are slightly open for non-EU migration, which is mostly high skill (Tier 2, post study work).

Is this also a sign that the direction of travel for the UK is to rely on other countries to educate their populace to a higher level than we intend, and lend us their workers for the productive part of their lives then fuck them off back home before they retire, allowing the UK to keep a pool of voters which is, in the main, uneducated and kept informed by a media landscape (once the BBC is gone) owned and delivered by Murdoch?

In my experience, the right wing counter argument in retort is that the difference is time, overall population levels, etc.

I.e. there was a time when we did just need people (or could absorb people) but things are different now.

I'm not convinced by it but its not entirely illogical

In my experience, the right wing counter argument in retort is that the difference is time, overall population levels, etc.

I.e. there was a time when we did just need people (or could absorb people) but things are different now.

I'm not convinced by it but its not entirely illogical

We've seen variations of this for years now, it is vital that two contradictory things are held to be true:

• GB is a global Titan, we don't need anyone else as we are so strong and our culture is puissant and virile
  
• Our culture is so weak that hearing Spanish in Sainsbury will destroy it utterly
  

Maybe, although that's solely the cultural argument.

The other is purely logistical - pressure on services, need for housing etc.

They then have to acknowledge that we either can't or won't build the services needed to make this go smoothly (assuming they accept the fact that immigrants are net higher contributors to public funds).

Actually makes most sense in a nimby perspective - we could deal with more people but we don't want to build more and change things.

...whereas this can be contrasted with quite unique mid-20th C context of needing to rebuild workforce etc. after loss of live in the wars.

So, person implementing anti-immigration laws being child of immigrants who would not be allowed into the country under the scheme she's implementing is not a point for discussion?

That doesn't strike you as hypocritical at all?

If I was in her position - god forbid - and asked to discuss or comment on this I would state that then is not now.

The other is purely logistical - pressure on services, need for housing etc.

Net immigration accounts for like 0.2% population growth year on year, it's basically a rounding error. It's clearly not the cause of those issues.

The issue with housing is we haven't been building any houses. Population is bigger than ever but in the last decade housebuilding reached its lowest level for 100 years or something (ignoring WWII). That's insane.

The issue with services is lack of funding. Increasing the number of users from 1000 to 1002 isn't going to be the straw that breaks the GP's back.

Edit: recognise that I'm shooting the messenger slightly

I do agree - as I said in my first post, I don't agree with the anto immigration argument.

Difficulty is persuading people who "feel" the impact of immigration (which I completely agree is to a great extent a story of underfunding of services) that they're wrong.

Considering her track record on differentiating between opposites, I think considering multiple tenses is a step too far.

If I was in her position - god forbid - and asked to discuss or comment on this I would state that then is not now.

Another rebuttal, one that makes more sense to me, is that a single case does not disprove the general position.

Yes her parents did well, but at the expense of letting in thousands of other work shy, job stealing (hmmmm?), benefit scrounging (hmmmmm?), gobbldey-gook babbling proto-terrorists.

We all believe in the fallacy of anecdotal data, don't we? So who cares about her parents?

The country/govt would surely be better if the reasonable and intelligent people of LFGSS were in charge. Why are our leaders such ideologically motivated fucking imbeciles?

Quick question:
NJS only on a Tarck bike?

Only if said tarck bike is Japanesey

Oh shit, I fell into a trap there didn't I?

Yeah. We should definitely run the country.

A brown person is no more responsible for her parents actions than anyone else.

It's an argument thrown at any anti-immigration politician who is the child of immigrants, for obvious reasons. That clown Daniel Kawczynski gets it, Michael Howard was on the receiving end when he had her job.

she doesn't owe the past system any debt of gratitude.

If she or her family benefited from it and she wants to deny that benefit to others, why not? Fer family did. The Commons is currently awash with privileged chumps whose family got a significant leg up because of the support their families got from the post-war welfare state. As they continue with the systematic dismantling of those systems, should we not be able to accuse them of selfishness and hypocrisy? Blair and Blunkett were skewered for that when they abolished maintenance grants and introduced tuition fees and student loans. Sounded like a fair point to me.

So, I'm already reading that care home jobs "only" require a 20k income threshold.

I'm wondering if this will end in:

Innovative entrepreneurs from mainland EU skip the UK cos why?
"Low skilled" UK workers get no help from immigrant workers as the visa is now tied to your employer and it's not likely to be bought over, so they put up and shut up.
Wages in "crappy" jobs won't go up, though they should (logically all care home workers get to 20K in time, but exploitation can also increase)
UK gets even more of an "avoid" image for mainland Europe / USA / etc.

And 10 years on the car industry is mostly gone and towns with big influxes but no housing / abuse of worker rights are no further...

So, I'm already reading that care home jobs "only" require a 20k income threshold.

Is that based on the new 'points system' that is floating about? Or was that a separate communication?