Starmer talking about immigration policy

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by Vorpal »

Psamathe wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 3:25pm
What concerns me about these "schemes" is that I feel entry should be according to capability (not over/under-priviledge). If your demonstrated abilities are in the top range for the available places (and above minimum threshold) you get a place.

Rather than introducing weird bias attempts at making up for e.g. poor schooling, fix the e.g. inadequate schooling rather than bodge bias into higher level entries.

Ian
The problem with that, though, is firstly that we aren't talking about folks who are performing poorly. Or receiving poor educations. We are talking about young people who start out way behind and still manage to catch up during their schooling, but catching up, even performing well, may not put them high enough into the top tier to get a place in medical school. We are talking about young people who were forced by circumstances to work or care for a disabled family member while going to school and still out-performed most of their classmates, but not quite well enough to get into medical school. We are talking about young people who, despite tumultuous or abusive home life that led to being taken into care, they succeeded against all the odds, but fell short by a grade of making it into their university of choice. We are talking about young people with ADHD or autism who worked much harder than many of their peers because they had to, but still fell a little short.

We are not talking about accepting a C student just because they are a member of an ethnic minority.

These aren't weird bias attempts. These are legitimately giving disadvantaged young people a chance for something better. It's more like creating a balanced scoring system for applicants that includes more than just grades.

Do you really think that it is better to select 10 kids who could get an A* with the help of private tutors? Or 8 kids who got A* with the help of private tutors and 2 kids who got mostly As and did that despite the kind of challenges I've described and despite a lack of private tutors? To be honest, I think the second is a better measure of success than the first.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Psamathe
Posts: 17647
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by Psamathe »

Vorpal wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 4:35pm
Psamathe wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 3:25pm
What concerns me about these "schemes" is that I feel entry should be according to capability (not over/under-priviledge). If your demonstrated abilities are in the top range for the available places (and above minimum threshold) you get a place.

Rather than introducing weird bias attempts at making up for e.g. poor schooling, fix the e.g. inadequate schooling rather than bodge bias into higher level entries.

Ian
The problem with that, though, is firstly that we aren't talking about folks who are performing poorly. Or receiving poor educations. We are talking about young people who start out way behind and still manage to catch up during their schooling, but catching up, even performing well, may not put them high enough into the top tier to get a place in medical school. We are talking about young people who were forced by circumstances to work or care for a disabled family member while going to school and still out-performed most of their classmates, but not quite well enough to get into medical school. We are talking about young people who, despite tumultuous or abusive home life that led to being taken into care, they succeeded against all the odds, but fell short by a grade of making it into their university of choice. We are talking about young people with ADHD or autism who worked much harder than many of their peers because they had to, but still fell a little short.

We are not talking about accepting a C student just because they are a member of an ethnic minority.

These aren't weird bias attempts. These are legitimately giving disadvantaged young people a chance for something better. It's more like creating a balanced scoring system for applicants that includes more than just grades.

Do you really think that it is better to select 10 kids who could get an A* with the help of private tutors? Or 8 kids who got A* with the help of private tutors and 2 kids who got mostly As and did that despite the kind of challenges I've described and despite a lack of private tutors? To be honest, I think the second is a better measure of success than the first.
My preferred solution would be to sort out the reasons for the imbalance rather than trying to patch over the results of those underlying problems e.g. provide proper case for somebody so a child does not have to become a carer and their education suffer, sort out abusive homes rather than failing to act over the abuse (causing the victim to endure both the abuse and the impact of their education),. etc.

We'll never get there 100% but as a society we seem to be tolerating far to many issues we should be addressing. Fixing those issues would mean we don't need to patch over a few places in further education as well as improving the lives for many without such aspirations.

Ian
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by mjr »

pwa wrote: 22 Nov 2022, 6:55am https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63707941

For me, he is starting to make the right noises. He is talking about a pragmatic policy on immigration, reducing the need for imported labour to fill jobs but, at the same time, recognising the need for some imported labour in certain sectors. The sort of policy that Labour used to strive for.

If he is saying what I think he is saying, he is coming round to my own view that, for example, we ought to be trying to get existing UK residents into nursing by giving them a career to look forward to, and by training them in the right numbers. But doing that will take time, so in the meantime we must fill the void with nurses from abroad, who will of course stay here permanently if they wish. Pragmatic but going in the right direction.

Any thoughts?
Starmer is being a stupid fool. He's still fighting for the Leave vote now that even a majority of Leave voters think it was a mistake, that Leave lied. Training British workers is fine, but even implying that, in exchange, they should be protected from competition from other countries is a Corn-Laws-size error. Doesn't he know protectionism doesn't work, or has he been listening to the hard-left on that?

We don't need a points-based migration system, whether Starmer's or Sunak's. We need access to bigger markets, for products and for workers. There's a very big one on our doorstep and, while rejoin is not likely any time soon, surely he should be expressing interest in a more lively and growing deal than Boris's dung-smothered oven-ready cold turkey?

And as for the illegal migration thing... well, isn't the glaringly obvious reason that the fully-legal migration routes have been effectively cut off? About 1 minute into this video of highlights from a Commons Select Committee, when asked by a Conservative MP, the Home Secretary says that the legal route is to cross the channel illegally:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvh6qDrOMw
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5814
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by roubaixtuesday »

mjr wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 5:24pm
Starmer is being a stupid fool. He's still fighting for the Leave vote now that even a majority of Leave voters think it was a mistake, that Leave lied. Training British workers is fine, but even implying that, in exchange, they should be protected from competition from other countries is a Corn-Laws-size error. Doesn't he know protectionism doesn't work, or has he been listening to the hard-left on that?

We don't need a points-based migration system, whether Starmer's or Sunak's. We need access to bigger markets, for products and for workers. There's a very big one on our doorstep and, while rejoin is not likely any time soon, surely he should be expressing interest in a more lively and growing deal than Boris's dung-smothered oven-ready cold turkey?

And as for the illegal migration thing... well, isn't the glaringly obvious reason that the fully-legal migration routes have been effectively cut off? About 1 minute into this video of highlights from a Commons Select Committee, when asked by a Conservative MP, the Home Secretary says that the legal route is to cross the channel illegally:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvh6qDrOMw
The UNHCR agree with the illegal migration point.
Capture.JPG
From their Twitter https://twitter.com/unhcruk/status/1595429467022925826
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by Stevek76 »

That jessop and co article is the usual nonsense. The sources and numbers might be accurate but the cherry picking is off the scale. This is obvious in the manner in which right from the start, a bar chart is presented that only shows changes between two specific quarters (and therefore is basically useless) for several countries, but when it comes to the trend over time graph we're suddenly down to just 4 countries, a baseline waaay back in 1973 (which if it shows anything at all going back that far it's how well the uk has done out of eu membership) and, oddly stops short in 2021 despite being from the same datasource as the previous graph that went to 2022.

The article continues in that fashion throughout, carefully picked years, graph types and countries to fit each argument in turn but without any consistency through the report. A classic sign of manipulative data use, or as we might call it, glittering a turd.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by Stevek76 »

mjr wrote: 24 Nov 2022, 5:24pm Starmer is being a stupid fool. He's still fighting for the Leave vote now that even a majority of Leave voters think it was a mistake, that Leave lied.
Starmer seems to be following views focus groups of 'swing voters', groups that inevitably get dominated by a couple of 'pub bores' (focus groups are an utterly useless method of gauging public opinion) when he should be leading.

The basic reality in the Westminster politics is that elections are lost by incumbents far more than they are won by challengers. When the incumbent is imploding as badly as this the challenger should be taking advantage and setting out their vision.

Even his chat about lords reform seems to be a shameless effort to avoid the far more important task of commons electoral reform.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Nearholmer
Posts: 3927
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by Nearholmer »

I must be part of the focus group then, because what he said made sense to me, not because I’m xenophobic, but because I’ve a long held worry (deep annoyance actually) about the quality and quantity of education and training that is practically available (meaning people can afford to pursue it) in this country.

Did anyone catch the report into the quality of apprenticeship schemes that was published a couple of days ago, which said in polite words what is obvious when you look: many of them are utter rubbish, causing a hugely high drop-out rate, and failing to equip apprentices with requisite skills and knowledge?
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by Vorpal »

Taking in and caring for refugees and providing good education to our youth (and refugees, if needed), no matter their background are both investments that pay off long term.

I don't know what more needs to be said about it.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by pwa »

Yesterday's startling net migration figures make this a very live topic at the moment, though when you break them down they begin to look like a blip produced by the after-effects of the epidemic (meaning fewer foreign students leaving at the end of their studies, and a backlog of foreign students wanting to begin their studies) and the war in Ukraine meaning that we (quite rightly) have a wave of refugees to accommodate.

Starmer has a tightrope to walk. If he appears liberal on migration he will be chewed up by the press and he won't be winning back former Labour heartland seats. But he doesn't want to fall into the trap of being reactionary and just focusing on border patrols and stuff like that. He needs a well thought through policy that allows for inward migration that makes sense, but which does not allow for an uncontrolled flow of migrants who, through no fault of their own, become an alternative to training and investment in our existing labour force. It is a balance, or a series of balances across sectors, changing over time.

Labour leaders always face a dilemma on this topic. If they don't address it, as Starmer is doing, they lose the trust of much of their traditional support. If they do address it, they are accused by others of being right wing, bigoted or even racist. He needs to formulate a plan that is overtly humane, that addresses serious labour shortages, but which doesn't produce an over-supply of labour that removes the incentive for employers to provide training and decent terms and conditions. And he needs to explain what he is doing, and why he is doing it.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by mjr »

Nearholmer wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 8:53am I must be part of the focus group then, because what he said made sense to me, not because I’m xenophobic, but because I’ve a long held worry (deep annoyance actually) about the quality and quantity of education and training that is practically available (meaning people can afford to pursue it) in this country.
As I wrote earlier, I have no problem with better training and definitely not better education, although that was not mentioned.

But does imposing "new conditions for business" on immigration, to force them to hire the British not the best, really make sense to you? That is the bonkers bit, pushing the Leave lie that we can have both protectionism and prosperity long-term, while trying to ignore the inevitable tit for tat responses from other countries that preventing workers coming in will also trap Brits here and allow employers to keep exploiting a captive supply to pay less than the real living wage.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
pwa
Posts: 17366
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by pwa »

mjr wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 10:49am
Nearholmer wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 8:53am I must be part of the focus group then, because what he said made sense to me, not because I’m xenophobic, but because I’ve a long held worry (deep annoyance actually) about the quality and quantity of education and training that is practically available (meaning people can afford to pursue it) in this country.
As I wrote earlier, I have no problem with better training and definitely not better education, although that was not mentioned.

But does imposing "new conditions for business" on immigration, to force them to hire the British not the best, really make sense to you? That is the bonkers bit, pushing the Leave lie that we can have both protectionism and prosperity long-term, while trying to ignore the inevitable tit for tat responses from other countries that preventing workers coming in will also trap Brits here and allow employers to keep exploiting a captive supply to pay less than the real living wage.
The question we need to ask is, why would an employer splash out on potentially expensive training for homegrown talent if they can get trained talent straight off the shelf from abroad? Why would they spend money making career paths that attract local recruits if they can bring in foreign recruits who expect less? I do get the flip side of this that you present, but there is a balance to be struck if we want to get the best out of the situation.
User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 11537
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Think Cheddar and Cider
Contact:

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by al_yrpal »

Mr Starmer has made several clear policy statements in the last few days. Its good to hear that Labour actually have some sensible policies. Up until now I have constantly wondered what their policies are?

Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by mjr »

pwa wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 11:02am
mjr wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 10:49am
Nearholmer wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 8:53am I must be part of the focus group then, because what he said made sense to me, not because I’m xenophobic, but because I’ve a long held worry (deep annoyance actually) about the quality and quantity of education and training that is practically available (meaning people can afford to pursue it) in this country.
As I wrote earlier, I have no problem with better training and definitely not better education, although that was not mentioned.

But does imposing "new conditions for business" on immigration, to force them to hire the British not the best, really make sense to you? That is the bonkers bit, pushing the Leave lie that we can have both protectionism and prosperity long-term, while trying to ignore the inevitable tit for tat responses from other countries that preventing workers coming in will also trap Brits here and allow employers to keep exploiting a captive supply to pay less than the real living wage.
The question we need to ask is, why would an employer splash out on potentially expensive training for homegrown talent if they can get trained talent straight off the shelf from abroad? Why would they spend money making career paths that attract local recruits if they can bring in foreign recruits who expect less? I do get the flip side of this that you present, but there is a balance to be struck if we want to get the best out of the situation.
That balance is the taxation system. Why will business pay to train locals? Because they are required to, as a fixed cost of doing business here. They can provide the training and count it as a tax deduction if they prefer, but we don't give them the choice not to pay to train locals one way or the other. We also shouldn't allow them to hire anyone, local or migrant, and then underpay them. This does not require trapping workers here or hamstringing businesses with nationality hiring red tape. Do you see any other way that doesn't?

The flip side is why would they spend money making career paths that attract local recruits if the local recruits can't go elsewhere for work and are effectively trapped in the local market by restrictions on labour movement and a below-cost-of-living jobseeker's allowance? In a protectionist job market, they only need offer better than sitting on benefits, not "decent work for decent pay", which is what Labour used to call for, even under early Blair.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5814
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by roubaixtuesday »

A few wider perspectives.

Firstly, since the Industrial Revolution, the UK has *always* been dependent on immigrant labour. Part of my own family comes from the South Wales coalfields; included in our heritage from there are Norwegian herring fishers, Dutch merchant seamen and Italian icecream parlour owners. There's a Norwegian church still in Cardiff docks, I believe, and the Welsh folk museum includes a historic Italian icecream parlour. Our Italian connections apparently walked to Wales after the first world war.

Who do you think built our canals and railways? Who manned the blast furnaces on Teesside? Who has been running London Transport and the NHS for the past 70 years?

So immigration is nothing new.

Secondly, fear of immigrants is also not new. "No Irish, no ...." etc

Thirdly, there are genuine concerns over total numbers, and perhaps to a lesser extent, impact on British culture.

Fourthly, these issues will remain for the forseeable. This is not a "problem" that can be "solved". Whatever we do will bring difficulties of one sort or anther. Our population is aging.

Fifthly, Brexit has, as predicted, made little or no difference to numbers overall (because we need the people!) but makes it more likely immigrants will be from non-EU origins. So more likely to want to stay long term (bigger economic incentive generally) and more likely to have a more different cultural background. The exact opposite of what most Brexit voters probably wanted.

Finally, tempting as it is to jump on these figures they're obviously not directly relevant to future trends, given all the special circumstances.
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Starmer talking about immigration policy

Post by Stevek76 »

Re concerns on immigration:
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status ... 4958123008

Image

roubaixtuesday wrote: 25 Nov 2022, 11:45am Firstly, since the Industrial Revolution, the UK has *always* been dependent on immigrant labour.
Formal immigration controls are of course a relatively novel concept historically. The UK had none at all until the early 1900s
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Post Reply