If you consider yourself to be left wing

[MaryMaryVeryContrary]

Do you believe there should be limits on migration (as a net figure) and benefits (as total % of GDP/cap per household), or do you think there should be no limits at all?

I’m a centrist, but whenever these topics are discussed I notice people claiming to be left wing become a bit uncomfortable, and usually make aspersions on the person talking about it before trying to move the conversation on. It’s like they know deep down we can’t just allow them to spiral but equally they’re at loathe to actually say it out loud because of how it looks.

"Is your claim that immigration doesn'tbringpeople of different cultures?"

No that despite being from significantly different cultures, both sets of men in this situation had the same cultural attitudes towards the women. Not so different eh?

I think you are just turning yourself in circles now though/

Turning myself in circles in the sense that I think I've laid out a few times why I think it's important to be able to consider all plausible causes. Still puzzled why you think it's immoral to though.

We can leave the conversation there if you think we're not getting anywhere.

Otherwise, I'd still be interested to know if you think all cultures are equally misogynistic, everywhere and always.

And if not, why it wouldn't be moral to take into account that fact (after which, if it doesn't stand up, then can reject it, sure. But wanting to making it verboten to consider is the weird thing I'm not understanding in your position).

This started out with you telling another poster they had lost the moral high ground because they suggested a potential link between misogynistic abuse and immigration from an area with measurably high levels of misogynistic beliefs and action.

Is it a not-all-police-are-like-that so we shouldn't question them, but for imported cultures?

" Still puzzled why you think it's immoral to though."

This is a false proposition though, I said something about the moral high ground a few pages back and you are turning it into this, there's a difference.

"because they suggested a potential link between misogynistic abuse and immigration from an area with measurably high levels of misogynistic beliefs and action."

No they were trying to use Rotherham as an example of how immigration had damaged an area, its just such a poor point that it shouldn't even have caused such a lot of words to be spilled.

Anyway.

Done.

The link you provide confirms that nearly 50% of London social housing is headed by someone who is foreign born. Yes, others in the household might hold a UK passport (sometimes obtained through citizenship gained after emigrating here) but it's impossible to deny the impact of large numbers of new arrivals on people on lower incomes. Impact on both immigrants and British born.

More on the impact of mass immigration (not just in the UK) here

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-mass-immigration-is-worsening-the-housing-crisis/

That issue is equally relevant when discussing other parts of the country with the impact of large numbers of displaced regional British 'blow-ins'.

I'm not necessarily arguing against mass immigration. Likewise regional movement of British 'blow-ins'.

As I said, there's more options than to simply opt for dramatically reducing numbers or restricting internal movement. What is necessary however is not ignoring and dismissing the impacts, especially on the less advantaged, and the need to address this.

Options alternative to reducing numbers are, either more equal distribution across the country and within regions. Or massive investment in social housing, jobs with wage protection, and public services. Tbh the latter option is needed regardless of whether mass immigration continues.

And obviously any discussions need to be done without encouraging hostility towards any group.

Yes, but the point is that there is housing and transportation laid on. If you are local, you have to have a car and find a place to stay temporarily.

You just described exactly where I am politically too.

Ethnicity is not the same as culture. An ethnicity doesn't make anyone do anything, but a culture can transfer a whole belief system. That's what it's for.

And not all belief systems believe the same things. Some believe things that don't fit well within British society.

As far as knife crime being economically connected rather than racially connected, that's very likely true, although very often activists like to play fast and loose with how they decide which is really important in a given setting.

It's not however necessarily true - it could be a cultural thing in some cases. Or, there could be crime groups organized along racial or ethnic grounds - this is quite common, most criminal gangs are racially homogeneous.

One reason I engage on this issue is that in real life when I try to make the case for immigration, one of the most common objections is "you're going to call me a racist". It's not even a reaction to the message, but to how the debate so often runs.

That rhetoric has alienated a massive section of the public, who are often not particularly hostile to immigration, or who have sensible concerns, or just different preferences.

The other reason is that I do actually want an immigration system that delivers the huge benefits that I believe migration can bring, with as few problems as possible, with benefits spread as widely as possible.

That means engaging and thinking though the challenges and trade offs and policy solutions.

It means, for example, taking housing costs seriously, and funding of public services, and tax effects and cultural issues, and job market effects and trying to figure out good solutions.

As we are a democracy, that's the right way to build support and legitimacy.

Slightly terrified to dip my toe into this thread, but I’m interested to know what everyone’s perception of left wing and right wing actually are.

A few posts on here have had replies saying “that’s actually not a left wing belief as you seem to think; it’s right wing”.

The dictionary definitions seem to be simply a starting point and everyone has their own ideas. Some appear to think in very black and white terms (we’re the goodies and they’re the baddies, no room for nuance thankyouverymuch).

I do agree that our modern political parties probably aren’t a simple left/right divide anymore.

So… what does being left wing and right wing mean to you?

…Go!

runs for cover

I'm leftwing.

The problem with these sort of questions is that they ask for an answer whilst bound by concepts such as nation states and GDP which make leftwing solutions impossible.

I think it's an interesting question @poppymango

To a large extent, I'd say understanding of what constitutes left or right, is down to individual interpretation.

Just as one example because it's been discussed on this thread. With mass immigration (I emphasis 'mass'). That is sometimes a very right wing policy. However, it depends on how it's implemented and how any impacts, especially on the less advantaged, are addressed.

For example, a policy of mass immigration but failing to protect wages, provide enough social housing, and properly fund public services, is very right wing. As is unequal distribution of new arrivals across regions, so there's a situation where some regions (and areas within regions), often the poorer ones, have higher numbers of low income immigrants than others.

Same issues apply to regional 'blow-ins'.

But, that's not the only way to do it. An alternative, and fairer, not far right, option would be to have more equal distribution of people across the country, more social housing, wage and job protection, and investment in public services. Ensuring the needs of both newcomers (immigrant or regional 'blow-in) and people already in an area are catered for.

There is a really significant difference between migration within a nation state - at least within a western democracy - and international migration.

One of the major hallmarks of western democratic forms is freedom of movement for citizens within the nation state.

That does not mean that it never causes problems, socially or economically. It can as we know.

But the differences are these. The nation state is the basic mechanism through which democratic principles can be exercised. The people within a nation state are in a position to negotiate among themselves, and through their political institutions, what kinds of policies there will be. They also are the ones who fund, and pass on a culture that safeguards these institutions and freedoms.

It's also within a state that the government has the power to mitigate the problems migration can cause in various ways. It can transfer wealth to some extent, it can have things like housing and industrial policy, it can take actions through it's banks to shape economic policy. Internationally, those things aren't possible to anything like the same degree.

One of the major hallmarks of western democratic forms is freedom of movement for citizens within the nation state.

In the UK that's not so much the case anymore for the less advantaged. I understand there's regional eligibility rules for social housing? So in theory there's domestic freedom of movement but in reality it's often only for those with the money to do it.

It's the less advantaged who are most impacted by both mass immigration and displaced regional 'blow-ins'. More social housing (together with more provision of well-funded public services and job opportunities) in every area of the UK would go a long way towards addressing this.

Whether there also needs to be more limits on immigration numbers is another question.

The issues that concern a lot of people especially the less advantaged would be addressed to a large extent with more social housing, job opportunities, and public services provision, plus more support for integration.

Whether immigration numbers need to be reduced as well is a discussion that does need to be had. Even if it's decided, after (calm) discussion, that they don't need to be reduced and other ways to address the impact on the less advantaged are found.

Main thing is, whatever is decided, any discussions are had without hate or hostility towards any groups.

Quite simply, absolute limits are silly. The limits need to change to respond to the state of the economy at the time.

Right now we are short of care workers, seasonal workers in the agricultural sector (and possibly others) so we should be letting these people in and helping them find work.

If a given sector is at a good level of employment and our own training systems are producing enough people to fill the demand of that sector, then we shouldn't be letting those people in.

We should also set a maximum spending level (as a % of GDP) that is earmarked to provide for foreign asylum seekers / refugees. Once we have hit that level of spend then no more in until others either leave, or train in a sector that has a skills shortage, find work and start contributing to the public purse, freeing up some money to support the next one.

@Againname

No one takes anything that is linked to the spectator seriously.

And yes, you skewed the statistics on the impact of immigration on social housing, and the data shows a different thing. Did you read the rest of the analysis?

"hat issue is equally relevant when discussing other parts of the country with the impact of large numbers of displaced regional British 'blow-ins'."

I've asked you for evidence of this effect and that it is concentrated enough in certain local areas to have the impact you state. You haven't provided any.

What connects most criminal gangs though? They just happen in nice middle class suburbs right?

The ethnicity of the grooming gangs is always mentioned though, and it's not discussed as a cultural issue, mainly because the same cultural issues prevented the police from investigating it.

"Some believe things that don't fit well within British society."

People can believe what they like, it doesn't make their opinions, or the reasons for them valid. Nor does it mean the government should change policies to suit those beliefs.

"As far as knife crime being economically connected rather than racially connected, that's very likely true, although very often activists like to play fast and loose with how they decide which is really important in a given setting."

It is connected to economics, rather than race, as is virtually all of the issues that impact some black communities. People like to pretend its not because it suits their prejudices. The same things happen in poor white communities, especially in cities.

@Aladdinzane

I googled about the regional eligibility for social housing rules. Presumably there's a concern about lots of newcomers impacting on affordable housing so they put those rules in place. It says
Why do we have local connection requirements?Demand for affordable housing is greater than ever, and local governments will often put provisions in place to ensure that local constituents have access to affordable rental and shared ownership properties near them.

So perhaps you're right that regional 'blow-ins' don't massively impact on the less advantaged, but those rules do mean that the less advantaged in areas of higher immigration numbers are even worse off. Because they have to compete with immigrants for affordable housing but at the same time can't apply elsewhere because they're 'not from here'.

Regarding the Spectator article. They're not making figures up. They're quoting from statistics. Including research from the University of Oxford.

Like I've said previously on this thread, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm arguing against mass immigration. Perhaps the numbers do need to be reduced but that's a discussion for everybody to have (without hate or hostility) and then decide the best way to address the impact.

One option is reducing the numbers but there are alternative options. A more even distribution across the country (and within regions), or more social housing, job opportunities, and well-funded public services. Like I also said the latter option is needed regardless of immigration.

What's definitely the case is that the discussion about the impact needs to be had. And answers, whichever option is chosen, need to be implemented. It's absolutely not ok to simply ignore or dismiss the issues, that impact on the less advantaged more than others.

There seems to be to an extent a cognitive dissonance in that the impact of newcomers on a regional level is acknowledged and addressed with this local connection thing, but the same impact when it's immigration is denied.

As the Spectator article concludes
It’s not irresponsible or inflammatory to point this out: it’s just common sense.
I'd add it's a moral obligation. Because it's impacting most heavily on the less advantaged (including immigrants).

@Againname

Its in the spectator, so they could/are most likely, being selective.

The facts they're writing about are indisputable. More people means more competition for what's currently limited resources, including but not only affordable housing. And although it has a knock on effect on society in general, it's the less advantaged who are most harmed.

I don't understand why you feel it's such a Bad Thing to acknowledge and discuss. It's not as if I'm saying mass immigration has to stop. Reducing the numbers is one option, yes, but it's not the only solution. It's up to everyone to discuss it calmly and then decide which solution they'd prefer.

What does need to happen is ending the denial of the impact especially on the less advantaged. And action taken to address the impact (whichever option is decided on).

That shouldn't be seen as Bad or controversial. It's the moral thing to do.

"More people means more competition for what's currently limited resources, including but not only affordable housing."

Malthusian nonsense, and a major oversimplification. The housing crisis is not caused by immigration.

What I'm saying is that these aren't honest points and the presentation of them isn't honest.

Go and identify the real reasons housing is in crisis in the UK, you'll find its nothing to do with immigration.

Same with health, education etc etc.

How can regional 'blow-ins' increase housing pressure but immigration not?

If more people moving somewhere doesn't increase housing pressure, why is there that local connection thing?

Obviously more people means more housing pressure.

That's impossible to deny and I don't understand why anyone would want to deny it. It affects both people already in a region or country and newcomers. So it does nobody, established local or newly arrived, any favours by denying it. All are impacted. Especially the less advantaged.

The real debate is how to address it. There's more than one option. Can reduce immigration numbers, yes. Or choose an alternative solution, for example more even distribution across the country (and within regions so not concentrated in poorer areas of any particular region), and/or massive social housing build, plus investment in jobs and public services.

Why deny the impact? Why not do the more constructive thing of acknowledging it and looking at how best to address it? Ignoring or denying it is exactly what causes increased hostility and hate towards different groups. Few people want that, so far better to calmly acknowledge, discuss, and find solutions.

"How can regional 'blow-ins' increase housing pressure but immigration not?"

You still haven't evidenced this claim.

"Obviously more people means more housing pressure."

Depends doesn't it, the type of housing used by immigrants, the density at which they are prepared to live etc all may minimise any aspects.

But as said, go and research the reasons for the UK housing crisis, it starts way before any increasing levels of net migration.

The thing about economics vs race is that modern antiracism depends on people interpreting disparities racially. Once people are trained to do that, you won't see them snap out of that kind of lens just because some correlations would show a group in a negative light. That's why old fashioned race essentialists love antiracism, it creates young people primed to interpret things through a racial lens.

On the other hand, I think you need to be more careful about making too many assumptions about criminal gangs, the low level members are often from poor backgrounds, but that isn't always the case for these kinds of crime organizations at the top. And the ethnic element is really important in understanding how the groups operate, and also inter-gang relationships, and who is responsible for certain types of organized crime. Ethnic identification is really important to the people in many of these organizations and many also retain ties to their country or origin, including criminal ties.

I'm not really sure what your larger point is here, you do understand that people's personal belief system, especially when you have larger communities forming within British society, can impact the surrounding communities in various ways? This is especially true where they don't integrate generationally.

It's not a specific thing to the UK, it's true wherever groups like that form. Americans who go work in places like China, for example, and form expat communities, are watched very carefully for good reason.

What a word salad for very little meaning.