Dear, Oh Dear, so sad for you, Both, Honestly. 
No need to feel sad for us, just get that bump on the head seen to.
I’d rather you hugged your wife or a tree, they’d appreciate it more.
1 Like
Oh Tim 
I find it ironic that a country so defined by waves of immigration over the last two millennia, both welcome and not so, should be so xenophobic.
Powell, of course wanted a White Britain for Whites only - his views were straightforwardly racist, were distasteful at the time and remain so today.
As it happens I agree with your assertion that it would be better to train those left jobless than to simply import workers. However the unemployment figures tell a perhaps interesting story.
The highest peak in recent history is in the 1980’s when unemployment rose to 3 million, or 12.5% of the workforce, in January 1982. There were many reasons: a global recession, high inflation, the closure of “traditional” industries - especially mining after the 1984 strike as well as closure of iron and steel works, shipyards etc. It is all well documented but immigration was not especially important - in any event immigration from the EU certainly did not figure.
Through the 1980’s employment rose and unemployment was at about 7% of the workforce by the end of the Thatcher years - it rose through the Major government back to 11% or so by the mid 90’s falling to low levels (about 5% of a much larger workforce) just befor the 2007 crash. It rose sharply after 2008 but is now back to 4.2% or so.
It is unfortunate that there was a significant increase in EU migration to the UK in the early part of this century but I would argue that this was not the prime driver of unemployment - the global recession was. This is supported by the fact that we now have low unemployment so people are finding work in the UK economy currently it is about 1.4 million out of a workforce around 34 million so if 4 million did loose their jobs in the steelyards, shipyards and mines then it appears they mostly found work. Remember that although migration is down there is still a net positive movement into the UK.
Certainly the added pressure around 2007-2008 probably made things worse but, here, we can look askance to the Blair government which failed to realise that if everyone else opted to limit numbers we would be a natural destination for citizens of the A8 nations.
Finally this brings me to one of my personal issues with the Leave campaign - if there was failure to re-train people who lost jobs in traditional heavy industries it was the UK government’s fault, not the EU’s; if there was failure to limit migration to the UK following the A8 ascension it is our government’s fault, not the EU’s. Why, then, did we insist on blaming the EU for migration to the UK and the failure of our own government to manage the jobs market and skill set of our workers?
2 Likes
Well put Paul, re. training, even in Brittany technicians are in huge demand, but not readily available, happily for Her, Babeths daughter is studying electricity (She’s on a ‘stage’ in a foundry at the moment) and has a favourable prospect of secure work when She finishes Her studies.
I completed an apprenticeship in the nuclear industry and was never jobless, as the ‘old feller’ said, “You need to have something to sell lad”. 
A prosperous society needs a skilled workforce.
A factor which seems to be being sadly neglected!
2 Likes
There is not a hint of xenophobia in my post. During my IT career I lived and worked in many countries around the world and got on with everyone. Apart from the plouc in Sophia Antipolis.
We now know, through their own admission, that a previous Socialist government (Tony Blair) encouraged mass immigration purely for reasons of social engineering. To ‘stick one up’ the Tory toffs in Ascot and Reigate. We now have 69 million people residing on a small island. We are talking about having to construct a major new city every 20 years. Look at the difference in population density between UK and France. This is not the fault of immigrants. It is poor planning. The US, Australia, Canada and elsewhere have immigration controls. Why can’t we?
Hungary and Italy, to mention two European countries, are in constitutional crisis due to immigration and the costs of housing, feeding, schooling, hospitals, etc. OK if this were planned and forecasted but it’s not. The problem of refuges and immigrants is entirely wrong ( topic for another thread?).
The problem with the EU is that we were fed a pack of lies to enter the EU in 1973 and now we’re fed another pack of lies to get out. What contempt the politicians have for their people! We thought we were joining a common market (good idea) not some perverse gravy train that migrates from Brussels to Strasbourg every month (bad idea). The EU is a job creation scheme for civil servants who have to keep creating legislation simply to justify their jobs. Anyone for straight cucumbers? We don’t need this overhead.
I am all for European integration provided that everyone speaks English and drives on the left, but I don’t want to keep time-wasters in cushy jobs at my expense. We have enough of those in the two houses of Parliament.
Mrs Thatcher is definitely another thread…
1 Like
With you re. politicians but back on thread, what about the occupants of Buck House and the rest of the potentially roomy accommodation for those homeless folk in the tiny Island, or get them opened up to attract tourists, as in France, that would maybe pull in a ‘bit’ to build some high rise hovels for the under privileged Socialist Immigrant Voters
1 Like
The amount of difference that would make to the housing stock is minimal, it would be a symbolic gesture.
Some folks would say we don’t have a housing problem, we have a population problem. If we could figure out a way to reduce the population we wouldn’t need so many houses n’est-il pas?
Many of the homeless did not land here from the planet Zumzee. They must have previously lived somewhere. Why can they not go back there. I know I know there are real problems with broken-down families, drugs, unemployment etc etc and I’m not trivialising that but we get to grip on the wider picture. I am pretty disgusted that our leadership hasn’t made this a major priority.
For me, it’s an issue of closing the dragon’s cave instead of slaying dragons as they come over the hill. Instead of concreting-over our green and pleasant land to provide housing, we should address why we have a problem (and fix it).
AH!!! Ok Ian ZZZZZZZ
Immigrants who came to the Lancashire cotton towns were from our Commonwealth countries and came before we even joined the EU.
Am I to think that they should have been sent back once their jobs had gone?
They had the right to live in UK because we colonised their countries. They fought with us during the Second World War.
Please do not refer to them as coming from Fallujah when they very obviously did not.
3 Likes
I think you meant to direct this comment to Ian, not to me - I might agree with one or two things that Ian has said such as the need to offer training to those left jobless by the collapse of heavy industry in the UK - indeed to improve training generally; hauliers complain that they can’t get enough trained drivers in the UK and “have” to recruit from the EU which suggests that there is a problem training HGV drivers here.
However I don’t think I agree with Ian’s basic point of view very much at all.
I was pondering whether and how to reply to this comment (and the rest of that post, most of which I will leave for now) but since Jane has referred to it.
Sadly, “observational” comments such as the one you made are rarely just that - no matter how much protestation accompanies them. I, for one, perceive them as essentially racist - it sounds like Jane does as well.
The one other point which does deserve comment is “we were fed a pack of lies to enter the EU in 1973 … We thought we were joining a common market”
The claim that voters (in the 1975 referendum) were mislead that the European Community (as it was then) was just a “Common Market” not a political project involving free movement, harmonised taxation, social and labour provisions is bunkum - all of those things were in the 1957 Treaty of Rome and widely discussed at the time.
1 Like
And the costs continue to spiral. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5797811/Police-chief-begs-cash-protect-Harry-Meghans-new-home.html
1 Like
He is 3rd in line to the throne - it today’s world that certainly makes him a target.
In any case, if we had an elected head of state, would security costs for the president and their close family be any less?
2 Likes
I think he’s sixth in line actually Paul. It’s Charles, then William, then George, then Charlotte, then Louis and then Harry. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Doesn’t change your argument though. Well said.
2 Likes
Oops, yes - forgot William’s kids come ahead of Harry.
1 Like
And there is the magic word ‘elected’. So when ordinary mortals are at risk because of shortage of police it’s OK to spend millions guarding often empty properties including Camilla’s country pile? Our values obviously differ.
What would an elected head of state do Poppy? Would they be a figurehead like our current Queen or political?
A head of State whatever their role would be elected and if the country weren’t happy with them they could be voted out and we wouldn’t be supporting their whole family one way or another. Obviously anyone who lives in France must be happy living in a Republic to the extent so many say they prefer it and never want to go back to the UK that has it’s monarchy.