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.

I agree my second point is a bad faith argument, I think most who use that point about caring for immigrants countries of origin are doing so in bad faith.

As for benefits for migration from those countries? You have the significant benefits to them brought by remittances. Remittances are more stable than both foriegn aid and FDI which fluctuate due to global economic conditions, and significantly improve standards of living for recipients in developing countries.

How on earth is FOM in the EU a “stupid policy” ?

Humans should be free to move to live and work. You can do it within the boundary of your town, your county, your region and your country. People migrate for work within these boundaries to seek new or better opportunities for themselves.

You absolutely should be able to do it within the boundary of something like the EU also.

I don't know if I'm left or right or centre. I kind of see myself as individual.

However regarding your question OP. Imo, especially without addressing the impact of mass immigration on less advantaged people and communities, mass immigration is a very right wing policy.

It's no different to the multiple threads we see on here when there's regional within-UK displaced 'blow ins'. People on those threads expressing concern about additional pressure on housing, jobs, and public services.

Regarding the argument about jobs needing filling. There's 916,000 job vacancies but over 1 million people on jobseekers benefits.

I've said it on other threads but I'll say it again. There is a minority of genuine bigots who 'don't like people not from here' (whether immigrant or regional within-UK 'blow-in'), however for most people it's legitimate concern about the impact especially on the less advantaged.

It isn't an easy subject to discuss as few want to encourage hate towards any particular group but the issues shouldn't be ignored. There should be adult and calm discussions and looking at solutions that are compassionate but also take into account the needs of people already here.

There's several options. Cutting immigration numbers, or more even spread across the country, or massive investment in social housing, public services, and job opportunities. Or a mix of those options. It's up to everyone to decide which they'd prefer.

Humans should be free to move to live and work. You can do it within the boundary of your town, your county, your region and your country.

You can't move region within the UK. At least not easily for people on lower incomes. Unless I'm wrong? I thought there were rules around needing to live or work in a particular region to be eligible for social housing?

I'm curious which boundaries you are actually in favour of.

Does your house have a boundary, for example?

Students and school leavers wouldn't probably be able to cope with the days work?

Lots wouldn't want it and certainly don't want to be away from home sleeping in dorms for weeks on end for 500 quid a week ( although I'd have given my right arm for 500 quid a week at one po

There is also the issue that farming has now become a fully year round operation needing many more staff, so it isn't just summer time till early autumn that they are needed, its either more like May till November, and many farms now have larger amounts of staff all year round.

But FOM between households and FOM between countries in the EU are two completely different things. We understand what FOM in the EU is, it’s not necessary to abstract it to a highly imperfect analogy. You can just go straight ahead and discuss FOM in the EU directly.

@hairbearbunches

Easy, they cost the country nothing to educate, as young people ( as EU people tended to be) they tend to be heathy and not use much healthcare, they are less likely to claim benefits, and pay taxes. Here's the kicker too, most EU migrants returned to their home nation/went elsewhere within 5 years of arriving in the UK. So they got here, paid taxes, didn't use public services or claim benefits, and left.

That's how they are net beneficiaries to the economy ( and yes even those from the A10 countries are, although at a lower rate than A8)

Oh and of those who did stay? From the A10 countries those migrants who were in unskilled labour on low pay initially, were in the majority, no longer in these jobs after 5 years, and were in higher paid skilled positions.

Yes they would sell the houses or flats to people who could afford to buy, who wouldn't be the same people as those needing to rent. It wouldn't be a forced sale it would be a business decision based on falling profitability making it not worth continuing, the properties would still have their value just no longer available for rent. And there is already a huge shortage of properties to rent.

I don't think there is a left and right wing anymore.

I think there's more like a horse shoe scale going on where the more extremes of each group have more in common with the middle.

For immigration? Its a difficult one, because whilst the country has had record migration in the last 3 years its been increased by unforeseen factors.

Also, immigration is blamed for much of the malaise of the country erroneously. Not really impacting healthcare, wages, housing costs as much ( or if at all) to the scale that certain people blame it on.

Look who's doing the blaming, what vested interest might they have?

People on the left can't answer your question because you are presenting them with a false dichotomy. Left wing ideology seeks to achiever social equality. It has little to do with capping or uncapping numbers of migrants or total benefits.
I was born under socialism, the "bad" kind that everyone is afraid of. Unemployment was illegal under the regime and people were "allocated" jobs. If they refused them, they were sent to prison. There were no "uncapped" benefits. Not sure how many people actually realise that.
Benefits in themselves are not an issue. The issue is lack of equitable access to healthcare, employment support, housing. Tories pretty much scrapped all the initiatives which provided education, skills and practical support for people willing and able to return to work and replaced them with punitive sanctions. As a result, there is inequitable access to the job market and a higher benefits bill. The left wing approach is not to pay people more, it's to put systems in place that support social mobility which will remove the need for life-long benefits for the large proportion of the population.
As far as migration, yes, it is clear that there will be a tipping point at some stage but, currently, we are still seeing net economic benefits of migration so we are nowhere near this point.

My STEM PhD and the PhDs of my colleagues are in an intensely maths adjacent subject. Our politics skew centre/left, and it is hardly because ‘logic is just a nuisance’.

We tend to align with a number of left-ish Nobel laureates in Economics from recent years - another group who who do are not put off by thinking about numbers

@hairbearbunches

If you have a low skilled, low waged Brit not adding to the pot by dint of not earning enough, how the hell can an immigrant be a net contributor if they're doing the same job and earning the same pay? It's nuts.

Could it be because an immigrant worker enters the country at an age where they contribute tax from day 1 (not requiring 18 years of education and child healthcare)? And then most often go back to their home country before reaching pensionable age?

(I don’t know where the claims you refer to (and reject) about migrants being net contributors come from, but seems like this might be one difference between the nominal migrant worker and Brit worker you mention).

Are they different? How so?

@Aladdinzane Also, immigration is blamed for much of the malaise of the country erroneously. Not really impacting healthcare, wages, housing costs as much ( or if at all) to the scale that certain people blame it on.

It's supply and demand. You cannot add millions to a population and it not have an impact. We're short of housing. Does adding more numbers make that worse or easier?

Where the fuck have all these Reform wannabes popped up from? Did someone recharge the dickhead generator and then just leave it to run unchecked?

😄

We do not and never have supported ‘hundreds of thousands of new arrival[s] every year’. According to gov.uk, the number of irregular new arrivals in the 12 months to June 2023 was 50,530.

Just my warm, fuzzy leftie thinking

Individuals should have a private space to afford them peace, dignity and privacy. That isn’t remotely comparable to administrative boundaries which divide humans.

In general I believe that removing the boundaries which prevent movement of people is progressive, and erecting them is regressive.

The Berlin wall was bad. Demolishing it was good.

Trump’s wall was bad. The fact he failed to build it was good.

EU freedom of movement is good. Removing it for British people was bad.

A personal boundary for individual privacy is essential. Wider administrative boundaries which act as a filter and discriminate which humans may pass them and which subset of rights those humans have are in my opinion bad.

Not if the objective is for state/taxpayer/public money to end up in private hands.

Other way round.We desperately need migrants.

Just a clue, when we were in the EU and had freedom of movement within the EU, we also had front doors ;)

@Waterloooo

I walked down the Main Street yesterday evening and there were cars parked up with Reggae music blasting out. I felt like a stranger in the town I grew up in.

Reggae? Omg are you ok, that must have been awful

Seriously though, why did that specifically cause such a reaction from you? Would Motown have been OK?

Immigrants are not the problem, this government just wants you to think they are, just like they want us to blame people on benefits for the countries woes. The NHS isn’t failing because of immigrants, there isn’t shit in the water because of immigrants, public transport isn’t woeful because of immigrants, the cost of living crisis isn’t because of immigrants.

@PrimaDoner Could it be because an immigrant worker enters the country at an age where they contribute tax from day 1 (not requiring 18 years of education and child healthcare)? And then most often go back to their home country before reaching pensionable age?

But that's like comparing apples and pears. Making out that a low skilled low waged immigrant is a net contributor because the low skilled low waged Brit doing the same job accessed education and was likely born in a hospital is just disingenuous. When we talk about net contributors we generally talk about people putting in more than they take out, not historically but in the here and now. It's a bullshit argument and is used by people with an agenda for increasing inward migration.