Helping the jobs market

A BBC journalist remarked on how a pro Brexit entrepreneur is now lobbying for more work permits for people from the EU as if this is some contradiction or denial of Brexit. They still do not get it. Brexit was about taking back control. We voted for Brexit so a wide range of decisions including the decision of who we invited to work here is taken in future in the U.K. by Ministers and MPs who can be thrown out at the next election if they get things wrong. We did not vote to ban all economic migrants to the U.K., though many did vote to reduce the large flows we were experiencing under freedom of movement.It was the EU’s demand that all arriving EU citizens had access to benefits on arrival that David Cameron tried to change and failed, illustrating how little influence we had on EU policy.

The way the U.K. came to depend on hundreds of thousands of low paid workers from the EU in a number of sectors was not a good model for them or us. We need going forward to do more to raise productivity by investing in people and in machine and computer support to raise wages and reduce our need for cheap unskilled Labour. The so called cheap labour imposed strains on housing, welfare and public service budgets whilst not guaranteeing a good lifestyle to the migrants. We can do better by welcoming fewer economic migrants, attracting a higher proportion with skills, and doing more to promote higher productivity and wages.

There is also a regularly repeated need to have more control over illegal economic migrants. The government has promised new legislation to allow it to take tougher action against the scandal of people trafficking and the dangerous boat services across the Channel. I do not doubt the Home Secretary’s wish to end this Nasty trade. Given the decisions in the courts it will take a change of law to bring this under some control.

277 Comments

  1. No Longer Anonymous
    June 4, 2021

    What I voted against was not immigration but *uncontrolled* immigration.

    What don’t Remainers get about that ? They go straight for the ad hominem “You’re a racist !”

    Anyway. Uncontrolled immigration is the one thing the Tories have managed to save in this pandemic. And the BBC are not reporting on the highly newsworthy immigration crisis in the English Channel. As usual they are campaigning and manipulating the agenda.

    MiC says people aren’t interested in it… and so – with lack of awareness like that – the Labour party will never get in power again.

    Reply
    1. Ian Wragg
      June 4, 2021

      I despair, illegal immigrants taking us to court, MRS voting to increase aid budget when we’re drowning in debt and a border farce complicit in removing migrants from France.
      This isn’t going to end well.

      Reply
    2. Lifelogic
      June 4, 2021

      I voted for UK controlled and selective immigration, accept the good ones with good english, good health and skills that will benefit and not cost the country and reject those who are rather unlikely to benefit the country and will cost the tax payer. Surely this is fairly obvious? But is seems for government it is not.

      Some government funded study claims you can earn money by selling use of you EV car battery capacity to the grid. Well perhaps, but they seem to ignore the very substantial extra depreciation of the car batteries caused by these extra charge & recharge cycles. After grid connection costs and contracts it make little or no sense and you might well find your battery empty when you need it too – so best to have a petrol car with a full tank too as backup. These claims seem mainly to be a sales gimmick or con trick to push expensive and impractical electric cars (that do not even save significant or any CO2 anyway) – do not fall for them.

      Reply
    3. Narrow Shoulders
      June 4, 2021

      And now these people fleeing hardship are suing (and have won) over the hardships they have to face when they illegally arrive here. True asylum seekers would just be grateful.

      Just turn them round – there is no benefit to us in allowing them to land.

      Reply
    4. MiC
      June 4, 2021

      There you go with your infantile absolutes, where people are discussing, properly, relatives.

      A family, say, struggling to keep a roof over their heads whilst caring for their infirm elderly have matters of greater relative importance to them than a few hundred mostly clearly desperate people landing on these shores.

      On the other hand, some people are completely obsessed by the latter.

      So long as you cannot make this simple distinction you will be – as you evidently are – putty in the hands of your manipulators.

      In any case, many – many – times more unlawful immigration happens by people landing normally at airports on visas and then just melting into the crowd.

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        June 4, 2021

        Whatbouterry of politics here from you MiC.
        Both are serious problems that need working on and solving.

        Reply
      2. No Longer Anonymous
        June 4, 2021

        MiC

        Again you’re wrong.

        The item is at least newsworthy. And people are at least as interested in it as they are the Colston statue which was toppled just over a year ago – interest hasn’t motivated the BBC much there but agenda setting most definitely has.

        It is not merely about a few hundred, it is about the signal it sends out to others once successful voyagers message them and more importantly it reveals much about the true nature of our Government.

        Reply
        1. No Longer Anonymous
          June 4, 2021

          MiC

          The main Brexit and Tory pledge to bring back control of our borders is in tatters. Border Farce has even arranged to go into French waters to complete the Water Taxi Service.

          Now we all know.

          – with a majority of 80 seats

          – out of the EU

          – during a pandemic

          The UK Tory Party is addicted to uncontrolled immigration and it is they who were responsible all along.

          I just thought the BBC might be interested in reporting this… unless, perhaps, they are all in cahoots with the same aims.

          Reply
    5. Fedupsoutherner
      June 4, 2021

      Me too Anonymous. Uncontrolled immigration is a headache. They were saying on the BBC news last night that the goverment must find a solution to the housing of immigrants after the courts ruling on barracks. Well, there is one solution. Send them back just as Spain has. We cannot keep taking in at least 700 immigrants ever week and not expect problems especially as they are nearly all men. I really can’t imagine what things will be like in 5 years time if this problem isn’t sorted out. These numbers are those we know about. There are many more we are not aware of that sneak in and disappear into the ether.

      Reply
      1. Dennis
        June 5, 2021

        Let’s say 100 million people were on their way here and everyone of them had the calibre of Einstein, Botticelli, Holbein, Feynman, Shakespeare, Newton etc., etc., etc. (Bezos, Musk?) Now I don’t think the 100 million would be allowed in so what is the acceptable size of the UK population? I think it should be around 20 million – what say you?

        Reply
    6. Ed M
      June 4, 2021

      Basically people on the left are WET and wrong when they accuse people of being racist when it comes to wanting controlled immigration. Bit like a married couple who have sex without regard to the consequences of their actions regarding pregnancy. People need to plan for pregnancy ie through family planning. Similar for immigration.
      There are racists on the right. But then you get nutters in every area of life.

      Reply
    7. X-Tory
      June 4, 2021

      Precisely right.

      If the EU had granted Cameron the changes he had asked for – instead of spitting in his face – the referendum result would probably have gone the other way. ‘It was the EU wot won it for Brexit’, you could say!

      The point is that I genuinely have no problem with migrants, IF Britain is the beneficiary. Migrants must benefit Britain, not receive benefits *from* Britain. Foreigners should not be entitled to ANY benefits of ANY kind – either financial or services (NHS, schools, etc). Migrants who come here, work hard, obey the law, pay their taxes and improve our country are welcome – but those who don’t, are not.

      As for the illegal migrants and bogus refugees flooding across the Channel, I’m afraid I have ZERO confidence in the government’s genuine desire to stop this. Of course the law needs changing – and the first thing we need to do is resile from the ECHR. But the government has said they won’t do this. So what are they going to do? And when? Denmark has already changed the law so that all those claiming asylum will be sent to a holding and processing centre abroad – probably in Africa. Why don’t we do the same? All we get are hints that Priti Useless is *thinking* about this or that, but NEVER ANY ACTION.

      I do not trust this government. They do not intend to take ANY effective action.

      Reply
  2. Peter Wood
    June 4, 2021

    Good Morning,
    Your point on higher skilled work and hence, increasing the average wage, is far more important than is given ministerial time when you look at our nation’s demographic and ageing population. Simply put, if we don’t have higher average pay, and therefore increased tax take soon, we won’t be able to pay for the benefits we currently enjoy and expect.

    Reply
    1. Lifelogic
      June 4, 2021

      What benefits are these? The dire half shut NHS, police who have given up on most crimes, a second rate education system, red tape strangling almost everyone, very poor roads, GPs you cannot even get to see, an insane energy policy …

      They are however quite efficient at cash cow car cameras and increasing taxes at every turn I suppose.

      Reply
  3. Mark B
    June 4, 2021

    Good morning.

    Brexit was about taking back control.

    Except in Northern Ireland.

    . . . raise wages and reduce our need for cheap unskilled Labour.

    The minimum wage in the UK already makes the UK the number one destination for many poor EU member countries. Plus. EU migration was not the issue, it was MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION full stop !!! Whilst still a member, the UK imported more people from outside the EU (which we could control) that from the EU. The UK government, along with big business, has always favoured MASS IMMIGRATION as a way to control inflation. To hell if the infrastructure cannot cope. Now we are supposedly out, we are importing still more people – why ??

    The government has promised new legislation to allow it to take tougher action against the scandal of people trafficking and the dangerous boat services across the Channel.

    The crime is being committed on French soil by French NGO’s. How are you going to prosecute them ?? You can’t !!

    Once the illegal migrants are safely ferried by the RN and RNLI to a English port, they are not arrested, tried, prosecuted and detained at HM pleasure, they are treated to 4 Star hotels or, if we are to believe the media, a nice family home. We’re being taken for mugs !

    If you want to stop this trade simply do what the Australians did. Put them on a remote island. When people see that they will not gain from their illegal activities then they will cease.

    Simple as.

    Reply
  4. Grey Friar
    June 4, 2021

    It’s you who does not get it. All research shows clearly that the main reason for people voting to Leave in 2016 was not abstract ideas about who takes decisions but instead cutting immigration. Mr Martin’s demand that his pubs be filled with low-wage immigrant workers is total hypocrisy, and laughs in the face of Leave voters. The truth about Brexit is emerging, and once people realise they were fooled they are going to get very angry with the people who fooled them

    Reply
    1. Denis Cooper
      June 4, 2021

      Do catch up, and stop peddling fake news.

      https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/tim-martin-european-union-daily-telegraph-brexit-jd-wetherspoon-b938413.html

      “Mr Martin stressed that he still supports an “Australia-style immigration points system” with the potential for preferential visas for countries in close proximity to the UK.

      “I was trying to be helpful to the journalist by providing up-to-date anecdotal information on staffing, which clearly demonstrated a very positive situation for Wetherspoon,” he said.

      “However, my comments were misreported.

      “The false story, expressed in the headline ‘Wetherspoons boss calls for more EU migration as bars and restaurants tackle staff shortage’ and expressed or implied elsewhere in the article, was that Wetherspoon was suffering staff shortages, which clearly isn’t true, and that I had subsequently been moved to change my stance on immigration, which, as my evidence to the parliament clearly shows, isn’t true either.”

      Reply
    2. dixie
      June 4, 2021

      The very first published poll of both Conservative and Labour voters after the referendum had “The principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK” as the number 1 reason why leave voters voted leave.
      So please provide your proof that all research showed otherwise.

      Reply
    3. Peter2
      June 4, 2021

      A quick internet search says you are wrong GF
      Sovereignty 46% came top of eight possible answers asked by You Gov pollsters aggregated over several polls with control of immigration in at 26%

      Full report is in ukandeu.ac.uk by Dr Noah Carl

      Reply
    4. MiC
      June 4, 2021

      Well, he could always pay his staff £25K+ and then they’d meet that oh-so-essential points-based criterion.

      What’s keeping you, Tim?

      At least he keeps us laughing.

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        June 4, 2021

        I assume you would be happy to pay £5 for a pint in spoons MiC?

        Reply
      2. MiC
        June 5, 2021

        I’m content to pay £5 a pint for very good beer in a very good pub.

        If a Spoons supplied that, and was one, then I might be.

        However…

        Reply
        1. Peter2
          June 5, 2021

          So no is your answer MiC
          You demand Wetherspoons pay a minimum wage of £25,000 but wouldn’t support that business with your custom if it did.

          Reply
    5. MiC
      June 4, 2021

      PS, I don’t think that too many of them were fooled, actually GF.

      Their true reasons for voting Leave were probably petty, niggardly and silly, or shameful, so they felt more respectable parroting the nobler myths spouted by the likes of Tim Martin – even though they knew that they were twaddle.

      Reply
      1. Fred.H
        June 4, 2021

        garbage as usual.

        Reply
        1. MiC
          June 5, 2021

          Oh, so you WERE fooled then?

          Reply
      2. Peter2
        June 4, 2021

        You old mind reader MiC
        How clever to know why everyone voted the way they did.
        Send your CV to You Gov

        Reply
      3. dixie
        June 5, 2021

        @MiC
        If you remainiacs were so clever as to determine every leavers motivation, why did you not concoct more believable and convincing counter-arguments before the referendum vote to prevent the actual outcome.
        Why did you not bother to listen to people’s concerns over the EU in the decades before.
        Why instead did you arrogantly choose to ignore those concerns and those people?
        You do realise it is your fault that Brexit occurred, don’t you.

        Reply
    6. Fedupsoutherner
      June 4, 2021

      What? Fooled into thinking we had actually left? We know it’s a stitch up and mostly because of the problems cased by remainers.

      Reply
      1. John C.
        June 4, 2021

        Fed Up, Absolutely right. We are neither in nor out, and we are “governed” by politicians the majority of whom would rejoin tomorrow if they thought they could get away with it.

        Reply
        1. glen cullen
          June 4, 2021

          Spot On

          Reply
        2. MiC
          June 4, 2021

          See how you get on the queue for European Union citizens in airports on the Continent, and then decide whether the UK is in or out, eh?

          Reply
          1. Peter2
            June 4, 2021

            Whats happened to the queues you and young andy were once predicting every day pre brexit?

          2. dixie
            June 5, 2021

            @MiC
            I haven’t experienced any queues for the simple reason I don’t go there. I have never felt particularly welcome, though my money and business have.
            I much prefer Asia-Pacific and North America.

  5. agricola
    June 4, 2021

    Yes in food production specifically we need temporary EU labour. They are the choice of employers due largely to their work ethic. Qualities many indigenous unemployed do not by choice have, prefering government support. Flexibility in housing does not encourage them either.
    Illegal though the boat people are, their actions write pages on the desirability of seeking assylum or an economic future in the EU. To which I would add that it must take a lot of guts to paddle across the Channel at any time of the year. To re-apply that same resolution to a working life in the UK can only be of benefit to us. It is sheer numbers that make it impractical for numerous reasons long term. Those that prey on them deserve all the law can throw at them, plus ultimate deportation if appropriate.

    Reply
    1. Denis Cooper
      June 4, 2021

      It is a pity that JR chose not to publish a comment about the use of robots on farms that I submitted on a previous thread. If it would help I could resubmit the comment without a link to the website of one of the suppliers, although he could have removed that. Obviously robots require capital investment but they have many advantages over immigrant workers, and not just for the farmers but for wider society, and it may be worthwhile to offer our farmers some form of financial incentive to adopt them more widely.

      Reply
    2. Fred.H
      June 4, 2021

      You don’t know they seek a working life. Could it be that UK is known worldwide as a rich country that pays people a wage to do nothing?

      Reply
      1. glen cullen
        June 4, 2021

        In Hanoi Vietnam 10 years ago I saw posters everywhere saying free trips to London can be arranged and upon arrival you’d get a free house, health care and money (can’t remember the amount)…politicians knew what was going on and turned a blind eye

        Reply
  6. jerry
    June 4, 2021

    “[the BBC] They still do not get it. “

    Yawn. But nor do ITV, Ch4/5, Sky, plus much of the print MSM, why do you keep always singling out the BBC, are they are new bogeyman for all the UK’s ills, like you and other Brexiteers made the EU.

    Reply Because we all have to pay a tax for them and they have a privileged national position

    Reply
    1. jerry
      June 4, 2021

      @:JR reply; There is no law that says we have to watch TV, non! Yet we have no choice about funding commercial adverts that are broadcast on TV.

      “they have a privileged national position”

      Are we still talking about the BBC or the subscription broadcaster who have bought up the rights to first broadcast films and so much live sport, for example the majority of the live Footy, live test Match Cricket, live F1 etc?

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        June 4, 2021

        There is no law that says we have to drive a car or go to work or have access to the Internet or have somewhere to live or eat food or drink water either.

        There are millions of products available to you that are not ever advertised on TV
        You have plenty of choice

        Your arguments have to be the most ridiculous we read on here Jerry

        Reply
        1. jerry
          June 4, 2021

          @Peter2; You appear to be agreeing with me in your first paragraph! If I do not connect my TV to an aerial, no not use it to receive broadcast TV, I do not need to pay the TVL fee -fact, in the same way as if I choose to SORN by car (and keep it off the public road) I do not have to pay VED (never mind fuel duty).

          Without paying the TVL fee I can still listen to my radio, I can still use my TV to watch DVDs, I can access much via the internet and use my TV as a big screen. Without paying VED I can still use public transport, taxis, I can used a bicycle, even one of those E-scooters!

          As for your comment regarding TV adverts, OK so brand A is not advertised on TV, unlike brand B, so not wanting to fund TV bias can I buy in concordance as you suggest, no, because both products are owned by the same manufacture and thus profit from the sale of A funds could well be paying to promote product B. Then of course, how do I avoid TV advertised supermarket chain A when they are the only supermarket in town, and their parent company owns the corner shop supply chain?

          Reply
          1. a-tracy
            June 5, 2021

            Jerry, what if a viewer wants to watch itv and let their advertisers pay and just ignore the adverts, go the loo, put the kettle on, have a chat through them, they’ve not got that much money left over each month to pay for the fripperies anyway. You can’t watch if you don’t pay a BBC licence you know this. Why should a person have to be switched off freeview because they don’t want to pay an annual licence for the BBC?

            I say this as someone that would pay the BBC licence. I like some BBC programs to be honest I prefer Netflix and Amazon now but I still have to pay the licence to watch them.

          2. jerry
            June 5, 2021

            @a-tracy; I agree, it is a conundrum, but choices have to be made, a bit like how people have to make a choice about funding so much they do not want to watch on Sky and their subnet of channels or not, do they take out that basic subscription, so they can then take out an additional subscription to access the sport they do want, or do they simple choose to do without all?

            The entire method of funding TV in the UK needs to be reviewed, the problem is not just the BBC and/or the TVL fee, my argument against commercial TV is the fact that there is little or no true escape from such a funding method [1], my objection to subscription TV is the way people are so often forced to fund content they do not want and do not watch. PPV is to complex, and has direct privacy issues, but it should be to difficult find a method to allow people to pay only for channels they do want to watch/fund.

            [1] even for those without any use for a TV set, who do not pay the TVL fee nor subscribe to either Sky or BT

          3. Peter2
            June 5, 2021

            No Jerry
            If you have a TV and want to watch Sky or Virgin or any TV channels other than the BBC then you are forced to pay for the BBC even though you do not want to watch their offerings.

            I repeat there are millions of products drinks and foodstuffs that are not advertised on TV.
            Just choose some of those.

            You seem to think every company that advertises on TV then just adds all that cost onto the pre existing price.
            This is a myth.
            For example, I worked for a company that decided to have a radio advertising campaign, for the first time.
            The prices didn’t alter. The prices were in a catalogue.
            The result of the campaign was greatly increased sales and bigger profits.
            In the next years catalogue some key product prices were reduced.
            There was no burden of cost caused by the campaign.
            It was a financially virtuous circle.

          4. jerry
            June 5, 2021

            @Peter2; Yet more whataboutery from you. I really am left wondering if you really, truly, do not understand how taxation and adversing works or if you are just on your (t)roll again…

            If I do not like how HMT top-slices the VED to fund non DfT expenditure and do not wish to fund it I have two choices, I either pay the full fat VED (and accept my money might well be used to pay for DEFRA ‘wokeness’ say) or I do not pay my VED, thus have to make a SORN declaration and stop using my car, keeping if off the public roads. The same applied to watching over the air broadcast TV (along with certain simulcast IP streaming).

            How does one know which products do not fund TV adversing? After all just one well known UK based multinational company has over 400 brands, I bet many of those product lines are never advertised on TV but the profits from any one of them can end in the TV adversing departments budget. Then of course there are the own-label brands, possibly packaged by this company, for which they make a profit from, so buying an own-label product from that never seen on TV supermarket chain can still fund TV channels/programmes.

            The issue is not about price (no one has mentioned price, until you just did, nice attempt at whataboutism…), it is about funding political bias, via paid for advertising or, in the case of those who object to the BBC, the TVL fee.

        2. Peter2
          June 5, 2021

          I do understand Jerry and shouting troll isnt an intelligent response.

          You seem unable to understand why companies spend money on advertising and how it produces positive results.

          Look up economies of scale.

          Good marketing pays for itself with greatly increased sales.

          You think every penny spent on a TV advert is added to the existing price and paid by customers and that is why you foolishly think people who buy TV advertised products always pay a fee to watch commercial TV.

          It isn’t and I know that due to decades of management experience in businesses who spent money on adverts.

          Reply
          1. jerry
            June 6, 2021

            @Peter2; You say you understands, but then launch into anotyhe5rt paragraph or two of ut6ter whataboutery.

            Tell me Peter, do those companies and services who advertising in the Morning Star news paper fund hard left socialist activism or not?

    2. Sir Joe Soap
      June 4, 2021

      1 There is actually no need to import more immigrant workers. We all know people in the 16-25 age group who are perfectly capable of doing these jobs but don’t want to.

      2 A stark juxtaposition between reporting of the perils of taking trans-channel dinghies and trans-channel ferries. It seems that even vaccinated folk are risking the health of the general population by travelling by ferry, but by dinghy it seems ok even if you’re not vaccinated.

      Reply
    3. Lifelogic
      June 4, 2021

      Because we have to pay for the BBC to drip us in their left wing, big state, remaoner, climate alarmism lunacy of course. They are unfair competition for others, as other broadcaster have to advertise to fund thenselves. Though the BBC does in fact do lots of “BBC product” advertising within and between programmes. Surprising they do not have BBC washing powders, cosmetics and life insurance products to sell yet.

      Reply
      1. graham1946
        June 4, 2021

        They do much more than that and constantly advertise commercial products. They have a programme on every night which is nothing but an advert for films, books, stage shows etc., all in the name of ‘culture’ of course. Then there are the daily programmes playing records for which they actually pay to air, rather than charge the people who are promoting them.

        Reply
    4. jerry
      June 4, 2021

      @JR reply; But surely the issue here is about the truth, not from were the lies come from, by allowing other media companies to get away with lying undermines your arguments – no?

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        June 4, 2021

        No

        Reply
        1. jerry
          June 5, 2021

          @Peter2; Thank you for admitting that you are not interested in the truth, nor stopping bias, only castrating those media outlets who do not publish your preferred editorial line…

          I do not want any political bias published by the MSM, left, right or centre, it undermines democracy. But I suspect you quite like the thought of that, after all it is likely the only way you will ever gain the extreme right wing autocracy you so desire -of course that is just the biased opinion of the extreme left, who have similar but polar opposite intent. Be very careful of what you wish for, there is no predicting what group will gain the upper hand when it comes to bare faced lying.

          Reply
          1. Peter2
            June 5, 2021

            There are lots of ifferent media outlets titles publications magazines books and TV stations for you to choose from Jerry.
            Just choose ones you like and ones you agree with.

            So are you telling us you are uniquely devoid of bias?
            It strikes me you have many firm and strong opinions on a wide range of topics where you think you are right. as we read many times every day.
            Yet you portray yourself as Mr Independently Minded.
            PS
            I don’t want “extreme right wing autocracy”
            You are being very silly and insulting.
            I support the Conservatives and have done for decades.

          2. jerry
            June 5, 2021

            @Peter2; Thanks for admitting you love political bias, just so long as it fits your ideology of course.

            What do you not understand, (ideally) I do not want to fund any version of political bias, so no I will not be content to choose one and then shut up, waiting for an autocrat to come along and do to that media outlet what you and others want done with the BBC (and, by the looks of it, also Ch4).

            That route leads to tyranny, a MSM unable or unwilling to question, expose political wrong doings.

          3. Peter2
            June 5, 2021

            No, that isn’t what I said.
            Admit you are biased.
            It will make it easier for you to keep calm.

          4. jerry
            June 6, 2021

            @Peter2; But that is what you said, you suggested I should simply choose which ever “media outlets titles publications magazines books and TV stations” best fits my politics, except I have no defined politics.

            Admit you are biased.

            ROFLMAO! I’m probably the least biased person on this site, how many times do I have to say it, imply it… I do not want to see nor fund any political bias, I detest bias where ever it is from the right, left and centre – unlike you Peter, who appears to positively love bias, you do not appear to care if you fund it or not, unless of course it is not to your -perceived- liking, hence why you demand, in the best autocratic way, the BBC is defunded, not even just simply better regulated.

          5. Peter2
            June 6, 2021

            Very strange reply Jerry
            A bit of self reflection may be required if you see yourself as the least biased person here
            lol

    5. JayGee
      June 4, 2021

      Reply to Reply –
      JR, are you not paying for non-BBC broadcasting every time you buy a box of cornflakes, a bag of crisps, a bar of chocolate, a pair of trainers etc etc etc – whether or not you watch the commercially funded-by-advertising broadcaster’s output? Or is your hatred only aimed at the BBC? How do your constituents feel about it all? Have you surveyed them?

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        June 4, 2021

        JG
        Millions of products are not advertised on TV
        You can choose some of those instead.

        Reply
        1. jerry
          June 5, 2021

          @Peter2; Yes and millions of those products, the profits from their sale, go on to fund the adversing of other products, even more so when many products from essentials to Luxuries are made by a few multinational and/or conglomerate companies.

          Reply
          1. Peter2
            June 5, 2021

            Not correct Jerry
            See my post above.
            There are millions of products,services, foodstuffs, drinks etc that never advertise on TV and radio.
            From large companies right through to farmers markets.
            And your assumption that any advertising campaign means adding extra costs onto the selling price is a myth.
            Such campaigns often develop extra sales and profits which mean the advertising either pays for itself or generates a surplus.

          2. jerry
            June 5, 2021

            @Peter2; No one but you has mentioned shelf price, it is not the issue and you know it is not, just more whataboutism from you.

            The vast majority of the products made or imported by the very large, West Smithfield based, company my father worked for were never advertised on TV, but they were sold by the case load in many national and local supermarkets, and the profits from those sales most certainly did fund the advertising of the few products that were ‘as seen on TV’, along with the TV adverts for their own supermarket chain. Non of the products another relation did the development work on, at another company, were ever advertised (period, not even in print to my knowledge), but as ‘own-label’ products in many of the well known supermarkets their sales made profits for the supermarkets and still do today. Are you seriously suggesting profits are so sub-divided within the accounts depts that (say) only sales of soap can fund soap adversing? Unlike you Peter, I do have a first clue how the industry works…

          3. Peter2
            June 5, 2021

            Price is important Jerry.
            It is at the centre of your silly argument that people pay for commercial TV everytime the buy anything advertised on TV.

            As I have shown millions of products are available that are not advertised on TV nor are they made by companies that have other products they advertise on TV.

            Price is important because I can give you examples where companies I worked for never increased their prices to pay for the adverts.
            In fact the increased sales actually enabled a reduction in price.

            Economies of scale.

          4. jerry
            June 6, 2021

            @peter2; Pricing is irrelevant to this argument, funding of political bias, it matters not one jot if something costs £1 or £100 £100k £1m, £1tn.

            “As I have shown millions of products are available that are not advertised on TV nor are they made by companies that have other products they advertise on TV.”

            An unprovable assertion, even if there were, the fact that one is buying from a supermarket (or whoever) that advertises on TV is highly indicative that the profits from such sales could be buying TV airtime. You really do not have a first clue.

            “Economies of scale.”

            Wibble, wobble, wibble, more irrelevant whataboutism, the issue is the funding of political bias on television, NOT factory gate price, NOT shelf price, NOT the cost of buying airtime or anything else.

          5. Peter2
            June 6, 2021

            Only a few companies advertise on TV
            If you don’t believe it look it up on the Internet Jerry.
            Try and keep calm Jerry
            You like debate
            As you keep telling us.

          6. jerry
            June 7, 2021

            @Pere2; “If you don’t believe it look it up on the Internet Jerry.”

            Except when I do check my facts you either call them lies via unprovable assertions or just totally ignore them, preferring to repeat your own assertions or try to veer off on an irrelevant tangent. Take your own advice!

            /over and out.

          7. Peter2
            June 7, 2021

            Making stuff up again Jerry.
            I’ve never called your facts “lies”

            But as usual you resort to personal attack when your arguments are challenged.
            Try to keep your bias in check and remain calm.

      2. IanT
        June 4, 2021

        At least two of Sir John’s constituents agree with him on this matter…so there’s mini survey for you! 🙂

        Reply
      3. agricola
        June 4, 2021

        JayGee
        I am one of his colleagues constituents. It is illegal in the UK to operate a radio and TV irrespective of who you may be tuned to unless you pay the BBC their mandatory fee. With this they finance all they do and run a few nice little earners on the side
        In terms of news and current affairs they are expected to run an opinion less, unbiased, information service on happenings in the UK and the rest of the World. Theirs is to disseminate not to express opinions. In CAs they are tasked to present all sides of the debate. For many years they have failed to attain impartiality. Even worse in many instances they only ever put forward their own story line. In short they are a disgrace to the charter they operate under. They are a verbal and visual extension of the Guardian.

        I contend that they cannot continue as a tax collecting body. News and Current Affaires should be sold off to the commercial world, and a contrite remainder, on a much reduced annual fee be allowed to continue. The fee should be disconnected from permission to watch alternative broadcasters.

        The rest are irrelevant in the argument. They only have to please their sponsors. The general public only contribute if they choose to. Your argument is spurious, every time we buy almost anything we contribute to the company chairman’s life style and that of the shareholders, the workforce, plus of course our Chancellor to do all that he does whether we like it or not. I think we can at least demand impartiallity from our national broadcaster as we pay the bill directly. If they refuse, then bye bye BBC.

        Reply
        1. jerry
          June 4, 2021

          @agricola; “It is illegal in the UK to operate a radio and TV irrespective of who you may be tuned to unless you pay the BBC their mandatory fee”<

          Oh for pity sake. do some basic research… 🙄
          No one has had to pay a radio receiver licence in the UK since 1971, and the TVL Agency is quite clear, no license is required to receive digital radio via a TV -granted, of course the problem there is proving that is all you do.

          “In terms of news and current affairs [the BBC] are expected to run an opinion less, unbiased, information service on happenings in the UK and the rest of the World.”

          In the same way as all Ofcom regulated broadcasters are meant to…

          “For many years they have failed to attain impartiality. Even worse in many instances they only ever put forward their own story line.”

          Are we still talking about the BBC, your comments could equality apply to Sky News, never mind Ch4/ITN News.

          “News and Current Affaires should be sold off to the commercial world”

          Not at all, are you seriously suggesting Fox News in the USA, Sky News Australia or Ch4 here in the UK are not biased?! All ee just need better regulation, of both the commercial (subscription) and PSM sectors when it comes to news and CA.

          Your final paragraph misses the point, most people are fully aware that purchasing a product or service funds the lifestyles of employees and owners, and some people choose not to buy from certain companies for that very reason [1], the problem with TV advertising is not knowing the whys and wherefores of how the advertising funds are sourced so to make such decisions.

          [1] for example there were some people who refused to buy the Daily Express due to its then owners previous business interests

          Reply
      4. Narrow Shoulders
        June 4, 2021

        One can choose not to buy goods advertised on TV or from shops that advertise on TV. One can not choose not to pay the TV licence.

        I prefer the licence model for the BBC but do think it should be a subscription rather than a licence (opt out rather than opt in).

        Reply
    6. Ed M
      June 4, 2021

      A lot of critics are right about the BBC but go to far in wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
      Let us prune away the commercial froth and political poison in the BBC (political bias / commercial activity that commercial broadcasters can do just as well) but leave stuff that commercial broadcasters can’t do nearly so well because of commercial pressures so leave stuff like: cultural and arts programmes, film (like Pride & Prejudice 1995), comedy, children’s programmes, wildlife. Stuff that celebrates the SOUL and ARTS and IMAGINATION and SPIRIT of this great country, that inspires PATRIOTISM + PUBLIC DUTY.
      So a smaller, pruned-down BBC at less cost to the tax payer.

      Reply
      1. Ed M
        June 4, 2021

        Also, soulful / quality / original TV actually helps feed and nourish the commercial sector. They are not mutually exclusive. So get rid of BBC, and commercial sector will suffer too.

        Reply
      2. jerry
        June 4, 2021

        @Ed M; +1 but that will not get rid of the bias that many dislike, or is it just PERCEIVED left wing bias they dislike, meaning once they have castrated the BBC they will then go after Ch4, as indeed the recent Queens speech appear to indicate…

        Reply
        1. Peter2
          June 4, 2021

          Channel 4 can do what it likes.
          I don’t pay a fee to them.

          Reply
          1. jerry
            June 5, 2021

            @Peter2; No CH4 can not do as they like, any more than the BBC can, and you do pay a (disguised) fee, every time to shop. Stop being so blind to how the media industry works, with regards regulation and funding.

          2. Ed M
            June 5, 2021

            There is so much mind-boggling dumbed-down TV on Channel 4 and commercial TV in general that you need a national broadcaster to inspire (problem with BBC is that a past government tried – and succeeded – in turning the BBC into a commercially-minded org with lots of commercially-minded careerists – under Lord Birt). I blame both the left and right (and liberals) for current state of BBC. But problem can be fixed for the benefit of our great country and its people and at reduced cost to license-fee payers.

          3. jerry
            June 6, 2021

            @Ed M; +1, but not the left, Blairism…

        2. Peter2
          June 5, 2021

          Jerry
          I cannot write a full essay that covers every morsel you require every time I post.
          You know what I meant by my post.
          Non BBC TV companies stand and fall by the advertising revenues they receive.
          PS
          If I buy things from businesses that never advertise on TV or radio plainly I am not “paying a fee” every time I buy something.
          And you assume when they always add the advert cost onto the product price.
          I can tell you after decades in such companies that isn’t the case.

          Reply
        3. Ed M
          June 5, 2021

          @Jerry, critics of BBC here are right to a degree. There is political bias and loads of pedestrian, fluffy TV on BBC that commercial org could do just as well.
          BUT let’s not throw baby out with water. There are some people on the right who are thinking like blockheads, blind to how the BBC has produced great TV and could do so more in the future. TV that is original, innovative and has SOUL (like BBC’s brilliant Pride & Prejudice production 1995). Arts + Cultural Docs. Comedy. Children’s Programmes. Wildlife. Programmes that also nurture PATRIOTISM and that also feed into the commercial sector. Let’s say NO to some left-winger, acting like wetties, who want to preserve the BBC as it is and NO to some right-winger acting like blockheads who can’t see further than their noses in how completely getting rid of the BBC would be bad for the soul, sense of patriotism and commercial media sector in this great country of ours.

          Reply
          1. jerry
            June 5, 2021

            @Ed M; I totally agree, but I have never said there are no problems at the BBC, I merely point out that there are similar problems (with regards political bias) throughout the MSM, and get attacked for it – why, unless some want to protect their partisan favoured bias.

            If the TVL fee is to be revisited then so to should both commercial and subscription TV funding, if the TVL fee is wrong because it makes people pay for content they do not want nor watch then surely it is also wrong that people have to pay for “Sky one” when they only want SkySports F1 or what ever, and should any subscription channel be ‘poaching’ paid-for TV adversing from the commercial broadcasters. The BBC is legally prevented from carrying adverts, because ITV (and now Ch4/5) have little or no other revenue stream, perhaps the paywall subscription channels also need to banned too?

          2. Ed M
            June 6, 2021

            @Jerry,
            You’re adding a layer of confusion.
            BBC shouldn’t be compared to commercial TV.
            Deal firstly with BBC (get rid of its political output and content that commercial sector can do – so pruning down so that quality can flourish and much cheaper for licence-fee payer.
            And then deal with the commercial sector to maintain standards (we don’t want to pollute our kids with nasty TV) – and kids are vulnerable, kids up to 18 who need government protection) but with separate plan essentially.

          3. jerry
            June 6, 2021

            @Ed M; Getting British TV broadcasting reform right will be complex, there are no simple fixes. Before the BBC can be reformed we need to know what the nominally PSB commercial TV broadcasters can and are prepared to do. Reform the BBC first and you really do risk accidentally throwing not just the baby out with the bathwater but the tin bath too!

            Why should the BBC have to get rid of their political programming, much of it is non commercially viable, hence why ITV no longer makes World in Action, This week etc, even Ch4 seems to have difficulty with some of their political/CA programming, just who will be providing it, please do not suggest Sky or GB News, both are constrained by commercial considerations, probably more than ITV and Ch4 are.

            Yes there is a perceived issue with bias, one problem for those on the right who keep screaming bias at the BBC all the time is, the BBC has an easy official complaints procedure, how do those posting to this site explain that whilst they are complaining about bias against the right others are complaining that the BBC is biased against the left, both groups complaining about the same programme!

          4. Peter2
            June 6, 2021

            Gosh Jerry you are wound up.
            Everyone has bias.
            Except you.

          5. Ed M
            June 7, 2021

            @Jerry
            I don’t think people really trust BBC after Bashir (not just Bashir but BBC’s response to him). How can you demonstrate that BBC’s Complaints Dept is actually fair and effective in dealing with complaints of political bias?!
            I don’t know what the solution to politics in TV is. Personally, I find politics boring in this great country of ours (as do 90% of the country no doubt – sure people watch politics but how many actually really love it / inspired by it?) So much of it (on TV or otherwise) is about bashing the opposition and/or careerism (NOT saying there are not good politicians, there are – but overall, it’s uninspiring – it’s pedestrian / predictable) . Where’s the leader with a really positive vision for our great country, regarding not just the economy but also in terms of culture / civilisation? And uniting our great country? Where is the politician who comes even close in terms of vision and energy and nobility of character as a great leader such as Cyrus the Great (a hero of mine!).
            I’m much more focused on pruning BBC down to size and to get it to produce great TV in Arts / Culture that it can do and has done in the past but is now too focused on commercial-style TV in general. Best.

          6. Ed M
            June 7, 2021

            ‘Cyrus’

            – Also, let’s please reintroduce National Service for 3 to 6 months. So many young men are lost. They don’t know how to be a proper man. They fall into relying on the state (instead of themselves / family) and/or being ponces or wimps or posers or depressed or whatever – lost. They don’t know how to treat women properly or be husbands and provide for their families etc and be patriotic to this GREAT country of ours.
            I am not condemning but I am just being realistic and to encourage and just want to see the next generation of British men being REAL, masculine men, and our British women, REAL, feminine women. Equal but different. So that we are happy as individuals, married couples, families, neighbourhoods, and as a nation.

            God bless our great, beautiful country.

  7. turboterrier
    June 4, 2021

    Perception is all there is in the real scheme of things and whatever the wishes of the Home Secretary are about “this nasty trade” the perception is they are not working and the burden on the tax payer just increases daily. Until parliament back the HS and give the the powers to turn people around and send them straight back, it is akin to pissing into the wind. If politicians cannot grasp the nettle and address this situation by laws to end it , then resign and stand aside for those that will. This situation as is will haunt this country for years to come.

    Reply
    1. Peter
      June 4, 2021

      turboterrier,

      Agreed. The Home Secretary talks tough but nothing happens. The same applies to Lord Frost and Brexit talks.

      There is no chance of anyone in government ever resigning for failing to do the job though.

      Reply
      1. dixie
        June 4, 2021

        Politicians resign all the time, signifying nothing at all since they sooner or later are allowed back into the fold.
        I want to see the civil servants being held to account, being fired without golden parachutes.

        Reply
    2. glen cullen
      June 4, 2021

      ”This situation as is will haunt this country for years to come”
      Just look at knife culture and the current wave of knife attacks

      Reply
    3. a-tracy
      June 4, 2021

      Turboterrier, there are lots of supporters in the UK for asylum seekers, I noticed all the people in Glasgow protesting about allowing people to stay and there are lots of support from the high paid people who make money out of processing their claims and working on their appeals, it takes on average six months we are told (common library) to process each applicant, then I read but I can’t remember the source to check they probably appeal and get to stay a year without requiring them to do minimum wage jobs to pay for their rooms and benefits. If they are truly fleeing trouble they won’t be bothered about working on a farm in farm digs or in a meat processing plant somewhere that is required in the Country, they seem to be mainly fit young men. I’d like someone to explain to me what the problem is of them doing minimum wage jobs for the hours required to pay for their keep during the processing of their claim?

      A comment was made by the Chambers of Commerce that people are enjoying sitting on furlough too much to return to bar jobs and similar. But the newspapers didn’t challenge them to explain that comment, because it is in the bosses hands whether to continue furlough or bring people back (they can even do half and half should they need to) so if they won’t come back to work they effectively resign. Or are these Seiss workers?

      Reply
  8. J Bush
    June 4, 2021

    The pro Brexit entrepreneur all the anti-brexit media keep wittering on about, are referring to a comment made, which was then deliberately taken out of context. The entrepreneur has denied he said he wanted more EU workers, but sadly that won’t be as widely reported, as it doesn’t fit the narrative.

    Similar to all those medical professionals who have been discredited and disenfranchised, because they disagreed with the SAGE totalitarian narrative, this man must also have his reputation ruined.

    Reply
    1. MiC
      June 4, 2021

      What “reputation”?

      Reply
    2. hefner
      June 4, 2021

      JB, isn’t it time that Leave-voting Brits (especially older ones) step up and go and work for Wetherspoons, or pick up asparagus, daffodils, strawberries … for minimum wage (£8.91/hour) and compensate for the 188,000 workers who went home following Brexit? They might be able to ‘raise productivity’ and possibly help in developing ‘machine and computer support to raise wages and reduce our needs for cheap unskilled labour’?

      BTW, Sir John did you ever work waiting in bars/restaurants and/or picking up fruits when you were younger?

      Reply. Yes, picked fruit on a Kentish farm, was a temporary postman, a shop assistant and an admin clerk in my student days.

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        June 4, 2021

        How about you heffy?
        Get out there in “spoons” and do your bit

        Reply
        1. hefner
          June 4, 2021

          Yes, I did grape harvesting for three years starting in the Bordeaux area, moving to Bourgogne, then Champagne from September to mid-October before going back to Uni, usually after having been a counsellor in holiday camps for children and/or youngsters in July or August.

          And I would not be seen dead in one of Mr Martin’s establishments when there are so many more independent pubs over there.

          Next question, E2P2?

          Reply
          1. Peter2
            June 5, 2021

            Why do you think that counts when you originally demanded Brits go to work for Weatherspoons or toil in the fields picking asparagus strawberries and daffodils.
            I do dont see the connection nor the relevance heffy.

      2. J Bush
        June 4, 2021

        I worked in the following when I was younger:
        shops
        serving petrol (in the days before self service)
        factories
        admin

        I went to night school and after that took a degree with the OU, all while working full-time.
        And just for the record I left school at 15 and my weekly salary was £4 2 shillings and 7 pence and my working life spanned 50 years.

        So I reckon I have exceeded your expectation of me, or do you think I am not entitled to retire.

        Reply
      3. Narrow Shoulders
        June 4, 2021

        For minimum wage plus universal benefit I could take home £36K picking fruit @Hef. But when I apply for universal credit they will ask why I left my job so I can’t get on that particular merry go round.

        Reply
      4. graham1946
        June 4, 2021

        Or we could put the dinghy people to work in the fields to earn their four star hotels, 3 meals a day and 40 quid a week spending money rather than wandering around the towns where they are housed. The barracks they rejected were deemed good enough for our soldiers, but not them. Genuine ‘desperate’ people as MiC and Andy would have you believe would be grateful to be taken in to a safe country and to contribute. And for all of MiC’s great education he does seem to have some trouble with figures, there are thousands (over 10,000 last year and even bigger numbers coming so far this year) which is rather more than a ‘few hundred’.

        Reply
  9. Shirley M
    June 4, 2021

    Cheap labour is a big pull for many greedy employers. Many businesses do see the minimum pay as the ‘maximum’ pay regardless of experience required and job responsibility. If there is any justice then they should get the workers with a poor attitude, but good workers in high unemployment areas are obliged to take these jobs which only encourages the employers to keep wages low as they can get good workers for poor pay.

    At the other end of the scale, I have seen redundant employees refuse very good jobs at it would mean a slight cut in pay. I always thought that’s why redundancy pay was introduced, ie. to allow a person to take a lower paid job while they prove their worth to a new employer.

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      June 4, 2021

      ”For October to December 2020, an estimated 1.74 million people were unemployed, up 454,000 on the same period the previous year and up 121,000 on the quarter. The annual increase was the largest since September to November 2009, with unemployment at its highest level since July to September 2015”
      https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/employmentintheuk/february2021

      Lets read that again …1.74million people unemployed – and this government is spending all its time allowing illegal immigrants in, banning cars, banning carbon and spending millions on foreign aid

      Reply
    2. Bazman
      June 4, 2021

      Redundancy payment is not to help people take lower paid jobs!?
      Its an entirely just payment for service to an employer who has made money from the services of the employees.

      Reply
      1. IanT
        June 4, 2021

        Obviously you’ve never owned and run a small business then Bazman.

        Reply
        1. Bazman
          June 4, 2021

          That is of no consequence to the principal.

          Reply
          1. IanT
            June 5, 2021

            Principles tend to founder on the rocks of Reality.

      2. Narrow Shoulders
        June 4, 2021

        It’s been a long time Bazman

        Reply
        1. Bazman
          June 4, 2021

          Yeah. Banned from Dr Norths site by his right wing snowflake son.

          Reply
      3. dixie
        June 5, 2021

        Redundancy is intended to contribute to the period between jobs.
        Your regular wage or salary is the compensation for “service to an employer” and your contract may include benefits such as improved redundancy payments above the statutory minimum.
        Many employers see good compensation and benefits packages as part of the package to attract and retain the employees they want.
        If you don’t want an employer to profit from your service then it is simple – don’t work for them.

        Reply
  10. Sea_Warrior
    June 4, 2021

    ‘Given the decisions in the courts it will take a change of law to bring this under some control.’ Then I wish this shambles of a government would get on with it.
    P.S. The only minister effective at suppressing cross-Channel people movements is Grant ‘Holiday Wrecking Ball’ Shapps – and he’s too effective at it!

    Reply
    1. Roy Grainger
      June 4, 2021

      Why do we think Schapps is doing it ? I suggest firstly he wants holiday money spent in the UK to boost the economy, and secondly bankrupting the airlines helps meet the aviation Net Zero target they have foolishly signed up to. Concern about the new variant can’t be the reason because they didn’t bother to red list India (or Delta as we now have to call it apparently) for weeks after it appeared.

      Reply
      1. graham1946
        June 4, 2021

        That was because they didn’t want to embarrass Boris when he was due to meet the Indian PM. Of course such things are of much greater importance to politicians than the welfare of the nation.

        Reply
    2. Bill B.
      June 4, 2021

      Quite right, Sea Warrior. A party in government for over ten years and with the opportunity all that time to bring in changes of law hasn’t done so. You almost begin to ask why not, don’t you?!

      Reply
  11. Peter
    June 4, 2021

    ‘Given the decisions in the courts it will take a change of law to bring this under some control.’

    There is always a caveat or an excuse. Meanwhile a judge has ruled that a barrracks is not good enough for illegal migrants.

    I expect nothing to change. Just more talk.

    Reply
    1. Dave Andrews
      June 4, 2021

      Perhaps the judge could put them up at his place. I’m sure they would be over the moon.

      Reply
      1. graham1946
        June 4, 2021

        How would a judge know? They probably think 4 star hotels are slumming it compared with their gilded lifestyle.

        Reply
    2. Fred.H
      June 4, 2021

      amd they never get sent back. Just waiting for a hotel room, and ‘all found’ lifestyle.

      Reply
    3. Andy
      June 4, 2021

      A former barracks which dates back to the Napoleonic wars.

      I know many of you have a faulty moral compass but when did you start believing it was okay to house someone in a place which is not longer fit for human habitation?

      Perhaps we should send you there for a few days. See how you and the rats get on with each other. Or, alternately, perhaps you could just grow up?

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        June 4, 2021

        You got any spare rooms andy?
        Volunteer.

        Reply
        1. graham1946
          June 4, 2021

          How many staying in his empty Chateau while he can’t go due to Brexit (or is it the virus) – I get confused just what he thinks.

          Reply
          1. dixie
            June 5, 2021

            It has claimed to have two chateau.

          2. dixie
            June 5, 2021

            chateaux

      2. No Longer Anonymous
        June 4, 2021

        Andy

        A) You seen what your beloved EU (French) put them up in ?

        B) British soldiers are put in such barracks.

        C) Submariners are fed fish heads while prisoners get the fillets.

        When did you last vote Tory btw ?

        Reply
    4. MiC
      June 4, 2021

      They are not illegally here at that point. They are awaiting the determination of their claims to decide whether they are or not.

      Reply
      1. No Longer Anonymous
        June 4, 2021

        MiC

        They have just crossed the water from that sophisticated and stable country called France.

        Technically you are right that they are not illegal but only technically.

        Don’t you think the way France treats them is appalling ?

        Reply
        1. MiC
          June 4, 2021

          It’s agreed between UN signatories that people can claim asylum in whatever country they choose.

          Only ~1% of the influx to Europe over the past few years want to come to the UK. Most want to stay in France, Germany, Sweden etc. – so it would appear that these countries treat them acceptably.

          However, that still amounts to ~10,000.

          Reply
        2. graham1946
          June 4, 2021

          They are only not illegal because our people pick them up and ferry them in. If they land on the beach without assistance they are committing an offence.

          Reply
          1. MiC
            June 5, 2021

            So shipwrecked sailors who manage to scramble ashore are criminals then?

            I think that you will find that neither they nor these people are.

          2. graham1946
            June 5, 2021

            MiC – It is simple, just Google it. You, the resident Barrack Room Lawyer don’t know the difference between a shipwrecked sailor (how many are there) and an illegal immigrant is pitiful.

        3. Fred.H
          June 4, 2021

          ‘ the safest arrondissements in Paris? – yes go on then, take a walk where cars are regularly torched in a variety of protests.

          Reply
          1. MiC
            June 5, 2021

            I’d avoid Toxteth then, Fred too eh?

            Hilarious.

          2. graham1946
            June 5, 2021

            I’d certainly avoid Wales. Went there when they were torching English people’s houses. Went into a bread shop and when they heard English they turned their backs and we never got our bread. Horrible people.

    5. X-Tory
      June 4, 2021

      Barracks are good enough for our soldiers who risk their lives for our country, but not good enough for illegal immigrants whom we don’t even want in the country in the first place! Utter madness.

      This proves that not only does the law on how we deal with these illegals need to change, but also the way judges are appointed and – just as importantly – SACKED. Judges who come to these absurd, grotesque and offensive judgements should be instantly dismissed by the Lord Chancellor. Of course, this pathetic government will NEVER take the necessary actions to make this a decent country once more.

      Reply
  12. turboterrier
    June 4, 2021

    The underground trade in unskilled labour does nothing to help the British youngsters in getting work. It keeps wages and conditions low.There must be real punishment to companies who thrive on the unskilled black economy and their gang masters.
    When running my own business youngsters on long term unemployment had no incentive to get their bums off of the mattress as they were a lot better on the brew (dole) and competitors on bigger projects just used foreign lump labour. It is all about regulating and controlling the workforce to protect those that want to work and progress and improve their skills.. Sorry if it makes few of your regulars to this site start screaming and ranting but in Spain it was easier to control as everybody had resident ID cards and there were on the spot checks as an ongoing matter of course.

    Reply
    1. David Brown
      June 4, 2021

      I support ID cards

      Reply
      1. None of the above
        June 4, 2021

        So do I.

        Reply
    2. Cheshire Girl
      June 4, 2021

      You wont hear me, ranting and screaming. In my opinion, we should have ID Cards here in the UK, and pretty damn quick!

      Reply
      1. MiC
        June 4, 2021

        You would have them too, if the Tories had not opposed their introduction under Labour.

        Reply
    3. jerry
      June 4, 2021

      @turboterrier; Your first paragraph is telling, as business owners many appear to want all the freedoms that suit but non of the constraints/regulations, surely having a closed-shop unionised workforce would stop the abuses you mention, as would having strong employment and wage laws, nor would it affect competitiveness as all employers would be so affected.

      I agree with your comments about a national ID card, I was never against the Blair/Brown wish to have national ID cards, just certain technicalities about content and issue.

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        June 4, 2021

        A closed shop means employees cannot choose the Trades Union they prefer to join.
        And they are forced to join the Union the company forces them to join as a condition of employment.
        Doesn’t sound very free and democratic to me.

        But it does remind me of some of the poorer elements of the 60s and 70s

        Reply
        1. jerry
          June 5, 2021

          @Peter2; My point was about the broad principle, not the detail, but there is no reason why a closed shop system could not work needing nothing more than union membership – but quite what the company boards would make of it, having to deal with multiple unions rather a single trade union, or at least related trade unions, after all what will USDAW know about railways, what will the TSSA know about retail for example?!

          “Doesn’t sound very free and democratic to me.”

          If you want democracy in the workplace then we need to start talking about the John Lewis & Co-op style of partnerships…

          Reply
          1. Peter2
            June 5, 2021

            I like the John Lewis model and the Co-op model.
            And I like the increasing number of companies that have good employee share schemes.

            I think an employee should be free to join a union of their closing or not join a union as they wish

          2. jerry
            June 6, 2021

            @Peter2; But the logical extension to the John Lewis and Co-op models are worker co-operatives, or at least equal representation on the board and all that, hence why most company boards and shareholders have traditionally preferred the Trade union method of worker representation – with or without Closed Shops, which in themselves were never the real issue, politicised trade union militancy was, and that still exists outside of of the closed shop system anyway. With lean staffing levels it doesn’t take many skilled workers to ‘down tools’ to bring a company to a stand-still, this is most notable within the railway TOCs for example.

            “I think an employee should be free to join a union of their closing or not join a union as they wish”

            What are your views on flexible working, should a production line worker also be allowed to chose when they do their 39 hours pw, should all office staff (post pandemic) have the right to choose if they wish to return to the office or not, should they be able to carry on working from home as a right. Or do you only like workers having a choice were it suits the employer, were the employer can then use organisational weakness to divide and conquer perhaps. Remind me, or perhaps our host can, did trade union members actually have a choice about the removal of their closed shops?…

          3. Peter2
            June 6, 2021

            wibble

    4. SecretPeople
      June 4, 2021

      Why don’t we have resident ID cards and spot checks? What is it that makes us a magnet for the world even as they pass through Europe?

      Reply
      1. Narrow Shoulders
        June 4, 2021

        Oh yes, I can imagine that working well just like when stop and search is used in those likely to be be carrying drugs or weapons. The ostentatious whiners on behalf of others will have a field day.

        The only people wo will suffer from further curtailing of civil liberties are the law abiding.

        Reply
      2. MiC
        June 4, 2021

        We’re not that “magnetic”. See my post above.

        Reply
    5. agricola
      June 4, 2021

      Yes ID cards are a must, but until the myopic and those who wish to draw a veil over all the illegals in the UK are out voted and common sense prevails we will be stuck with the problem. Like the poll tax, it was a logical moral thing to do, but miss interpreted, badly concieved and poorly managed, provided weaknesses which its enemies could exploit. The UK ID card is in the same position. As Turbo says, in Spain they are the key to everything and in most other EU countries as far as I am aware. Many of the problems we have would not exist with a national ID card.

      Reply
  13. formula57
    June 4, 2021

    “There is also a regularly repeated need to have more control over illegal economic migrants.”

    Did you perhaps mean “any” rather than “more”?

    Always is held out the promise of future measures after which something really will be done, no really, it will, possibly, in the fullness of time, at the proper juncture, if still appropriate, provided resources can then be allocated. Home Secretary Patel seems to be very more about talk rather than action.

    Reply
    1. Everhopeful
      June 4, 2021

      Again we enter the world of Lewis Carroll.
      ‘The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day’. (The White Queen).
      Our govt. is definitely “down the rabbit hole” and dragging us after it!

      Reply
  14. turboterrier
    June 4, 2021

    This country cannot go on just accepting thousands of non skilled illegal immigrants year on year.
    When located rounded up and shipped out. Those that have damaged their MoD temporary accommodation and screaming out for their rights should be told as an illegal immigrant to this country you have no rights none what so ever. When their friends see them being returned in numbers having paid thousands to the traffickers the message will get home, the UK is no longer the easy touch it was. Put our people especially our youngsters first, second and third on the list as well as those who lose the opportunity to work in later years. The money spent on all these illegal immigrants I believe would be better spent on training and retraining programmes.

    Reply
    1. J Bush
      June 4, 2021

      +1

      Reply
    2. Sharon
      June 4, 2021

      Turbo terrier
      +10

      Illegal immigrants are like a burglar demanding a meal and their own bedroom from the homeowner whose house they’ve just broken into.

      Reply
    3. Alan Jutson
      June 4, 2021

      So for our paid for escorted to safety illegals, an old barracks with free food, free healthcare and some benefits, is worse than war torn France, and this view is supported by the taxpayer funded legal aid lawyers and the judiciary !

      Whilst these people continue to get away with breaking the law, what incentive is there for others to wait in refugee camps and apply in a proper manner through the system ?

      John, this is why people get so frustrated and angry with Government, our politicians all talk good, but there is little or no effective action.

      Reply
      1. Andy
        June 4, 2021

        Claiming asylum is not illegal. Travelling across the Channel to claim asylum is not illegal. Passing through other ‘safe’ countries to claim asylum is not illegal. These people only become illegal if their asylum claim – and any appeal – are lawfully rejected. At which point they can be deported to a safe country, with that country’s agreement.

        We remain a decent country – with a decent majority – which is prepared to offer help to those who need it. We will not let the angry Conservative minority change who we are.

        Of course the ultimate irony in all of your posts is that it is all of you who are demanding law breaking. Perhaps if you do not love your country and its values of kindness and tolerance to all you should leave and find somewhere else to live.

        Reply
        1. Fred.H
          June 4, 2021

          ‘Passing through other ‘safe’ countries to claim asylum is not illegal.’

          yes it is.

          Reply
        2. Peter2
          June 4, 2021

          Asylum is about safety.
          It was assumed that it would be the nearest safe haven country to their own.
          To struggle to leave France to come to the UK after leaving African or Middle Eastern countries is ridiculous.
          The vast majority are young males attempting to leave poor nations and make a better life.
          So apply for immigration in the correct way like everyone else does.
          Essentially they are queue jumpers.

          Reply
        3. graham1946
          June 4, 2021

          ‘Decent’ . From the man who wishes the elderly to starve without money they have paid in for. What a laugh you are Andy, just a stupid man of 48 going on 12.

          Reply
        4. No Longer Anonymous
          June 4, 2021

          So is France ‘decent’ ???

          Reply
        5. Alan Jutson
          June 4, 2021

          Do you really think they are genuine refugees Andy ?

          Reply
          1. MiC
            June 5, 2021

            You are not interested in whether they are or not are you?

            You simply label them ALL as non-genuine to excuse the inhuman way in which you want them to be treated – including the genuine.

            Some are genuine, some are frauds. That is what due process is intended to establish.

          2. MiC
            June 5, 2021

            That said, I think that there must be two parts to granting asylum.

            a) The applicant must be in genuine danger in their home country for their beliefs or other valid reason.

            b) The beliefs for which they seek protection must not themselves be inimical to or incompatible with the principles on which their chosen country is established.

            This second point does not seem to be considered in many cases, and so we have been burdened with people completely opposed to post-Enlightenment values for no other reason than the immediate saving of their skins.

          3. Fred.H
            June 5, 2021

            so Martin – why would people in genuine danger leave their country, cross dangerous seas sometimes with pregnant women and their children, spend days travelling across EU countries to reach the French shores around Calais? Still feeling so at risk they then manage to buy a dinghy at several £thousand each, before setting out on the unpredictable Channel hoping to be ferried by the Brits after about 10 miles of sea?
            Just shows you how intolerant of asylum seekers the EU is!

          4. MiC
            June 5, 2021

            They – those who want to come to the UK – are just around a percent or so of Europe’s influx, Fred.

            So no, it doesn’t at all, quite the reverse.

    4. Narrow Shoulders
      June 4, 2021

      I support this post

      Reply
    5. Everhopeful
      June 4, 2021

      Ructions in Dover apparently because housing isn’t quickly forthcoming.
      Some illegals, it was reported, took our inane, insane, inadequate government to court because the accommodation given to them was not lavish enough.
      It had been adequate for our troops!
      Anyway they won their case and were awarded damages!

      Reply
    6. Fedupsoutherner
      June 4, 2021

      Too right Turbo. Our services for everything are going downhill. No dentists in some areas now. Only private patients seen. Doctors still on telephone appointments. Not enough nursing homes or care in the community. No money for roads or leisure facilities. Some of our own people are living in housing that is mouldy and not fit to be lived in but these immigrants get action through the courts. Something is not right here.

      Reply
  15. agricola
    June 4, 2021

    Of course the BBC fail to get it. Their brand of cornflakes is the only brand and is so good they would never consider checking the market for anything better. You had better face up to it in Westminster. It is another one of those referendum moments when the population are thinking outside the establisment box.

    Reply
    1. Andy
      June 4, 2021

      A small percentage of the population. The extremist bit who think they speak for everyone else but actually don’t.

      PS: Do you even have the BBC in Spain? Frankly what business is it of yours when you don’t even live here.

      Reply
      1. Fred.H
        June 4, 2021

        and you claim to have a home in France ! Pot, kettle, black.

        Reply
      2. hefner
        June 4, 2021

        With a (good) VPN connection (set to UK) from anywhere in the world, you can get BBC iPlayer and ITV Hub (possibly requiring the Beebs app and a registration) on your computer. Provided they get to the internet, you can get some of other countries’ TV channels.

        Reply
        1. a-tracy
          June 5, 2021

          Yes I’ve heard Spanish residents bragging they get the BBC and other channels for free, the digital broadcasts should be terminated and only available for an annual fee around £159 will do.

          Reply
      3. Fedupsoutherner
        June 4, 2021

        Andy, yes, you do get the BBC in Spain.

        Reply
    2. Ed M
      June 4, 2021

      Tories are partly to blame by appointing Sir John Birt. Terrible appointment (he would have been great in commercial TV). He turned the BBC into an organisation with a commercial mentality.
      Instead of Birt, the Tories should have cut the BBC down to size, a much smaller organisation doing things that the commercial sector cannot do. This would have cut out the political poison and commercial careerism and been much cheaper for the tax payer.

      Reply
  16. Old Albion
    June 4, 2021

    Uncontrolled immigration is turning England into a building site. Come to Kent and play ‘look at the new development in our once beautiful county’
    Population numbers rocketing for twenty years or more. Concreting over England to house the world.

    Reply
    1. Sir Joe Soap
      June 4, 2021

      Come to Oxfordshire and see the same.

      Reply
      1. Fred.H
        June 4, 2021

        Trumped by the (house) building in Berkshire.

        Reply
      2. Fedupsoutherner
        June 4, 2021

        And Shropshire. Sussex is already a concrete jungle. Studio flats going for £180K.

        Reply
    2. Cheshire Girl
      June 4, 2021

      You’ve put it in a nutshell. Well said!

      Reply
    3. Dave Andrews
      June 4, 2021

      There was an article on our local news yesterday, where people were complaining about a proposed new reservoir and loss of ancient woodland. New water facilities are needed because the current 19m population in the region was expected to rise by a further 4m within the next few years.
      I have a different proposal – stop building houses.

      Reply
    4. Andy
      June 4, 2021

      Immigration is not uncontrolled. It is highly controlled. So much so that if you were trying to get in you’d probably be refused as you’d be unlikely to qualify.

      Reply
    5. MiC
      June 4, 2021

      Isn’t it the brexit-necessitated lorry holding areas which are rather blighting Kent?

      Reply
      1. Peter2
        June 4, 2021

        Nearly a million acres in Kent MiC
        Lorry parks are a very very tiny number of acres by comparison.
        The one near Ashford at Junction 10a is 66 acres.
        So yet more nonsense from you.

        Reply
      2. Fred.H
        June 4, 2021

        it illustrates the level of trade going on — zillions of opportunities for UK businesses!

        Reply
    6. Bazman
      June 4, 2021

      How are you enjoying your new developments to help the lorry industry?

      Reply
      1. Old Albion
        June 4, 2021

        I’m pleased to see something being done to help “the lorry industry” The drivers work to strictly controlled driving hours. In the past they tried to take rest periods in lay-bys or quiet roads which were never a good idea. They then got effectively banned from motorway services. Now near Ashford Kent they are to be given dedicated R&R facilities. Exactly what is needed for those leaving England or those entering.
        However this single site, as large as it will be. Pales into insignificance when compared to the hundreds of green field sites now being built upon to house the never ending population increase.

        Reply
    7. Christine
      June 4, 2021

      Not just Kent. I live in the North-West and the amount of house building is staggering. I don’t think our Government has a clue as to how many people are living in this country. They just allow more and more people to come here. The results from the recent census will be interesting.

      Reply
    8. Everhopeful
      June 4, 2021

      This government is a shocking, disgusting disgrace.
      They are speeding up exponentially what has been happening for generations.
      After we had fought WW2 for them they began giving our country away.
      The new “no planning” laws are no coincidence.

      Reply
    9. Fedupsoutherner
      June 4, 2021

      +100. People who live in areas with low immigrant numbers are completley unaware of the effects of this problem.

      Reply
  17. Sea_Warrior
    June 4, 2021

    My nearest ‘local’ is full manned – with 100% British workers. (One German appears to have disappeared – a pity, as I rather liked her.) The only problem it faces is the government regularly shutting it down for months on end, for no good reason.

    Reply
  18. BW
    June 4, 2021

    It is absolutely diabolical that people enter our country illegally. Not forgetting they are not asylum seekers, they lost that privilege when the reached the first friendly country. When they get here get access to lawyers at our expense to complain about a camp that I as a soldier was put in and happy to be there. If they are living in squalor it is of their own making as the camp was pristine when with the military.
    Now the government is forecasting how many will come across this summer. If this is expected then what is being done to stop it.
    We must remove the draw. We should follow the Australian method. They should be told if they enter this country illegally it will never be their home.
    I had high hopes with Ms Patel. They have vanished. Change the law Ms Patel. Remainers seemed to be able to make law in a day. Change the law and stop the draw. The latest High Court decision will have then running for the boats. It is odd that illegal only seem to have Human Rights when they arrive at Dover. If the Elected Government with such a majority cannot protect our shores from illegal invasion then our democracy is not fit for purpose.

    Reply
  19. Lifelogic
    June 4, 2021

    You say:- “We can do better by welcoming fewer economic migrants, attracting a higher proportion with skills, and doing more to promote higher productivity and wages.”

    Indeed, but the main thing depressing higher productivity is the huge size of the largely parasitic state sector, the high level and over complex over taxation, damaging employment laws, reams of OTT red tape, restrictive plnning, the continued lockdown and the absurd expensive energy/net zero agenda. UK energy prices are about double those of the US. Patel and the Gov. clearly have no intention of addressing illegal immigration and we still remain in the ECHR which prevent her doing so. She talks tough but does nothing of substance.

    Reply
  20. Sakara Gold
    June 4, 2021

    The issue of the government’s Brexit deal and our fishing industry is having a devastating impact in Humberside. The last Hull trawler Kirkella – a modern, highly efficient ship – is now laid up in its home port unable to sail, as the Government has failed to strike a deal with the Norwegian government over long-held rights to fish in its waters. The delays are due to Brexit but 100 crew from the Kirkella, the last distant water fishermen in Hull, now face losing their livelihoods.

    I was also disheartened to read a recent series of pieces in the FT outlining the costs of Brexit so far. One contributor calculated that £980 billion has left the City this year and moved to Frankfurt and Paris. Another study estimated that we have lost £117 billion in services export income. A third suggested that old smuggling routes across the Eire/Ulster land “border” were being re-opened and petrol, cigarettes, alcohol, trafficked women, dogs and even bees were moving to and fro, with the paramilitaries and criminal gangs being the main beneficiaries.

    How long is it going to be before the anticipated benefits to the country start feed through to replace these apparent losses?

    Reply
    1. a-tracy
      June 5, 2021

      It is not good what you report SG.
      Follow Jefferson Mfg on twitter if you want some good news to cheer up your weekend.
      Great week: This week they reported:
      ▪️Kraft Heinz: £140m investment
      ▪️Airbus: New £40m facility
      ▪️Lotus: £100m investment
      ▪️Etex: New £140m factory
      ▪️Nissan: £52m investment
      ▪️SAICA: New £50m factory
      ▪️Dairy Partners: £15m factory
      ▪️GE: New blade factory, 750 jobs

      UPDATE: The UK has secured a new trade deal with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Reduced import tariffs on shrimps, prawns and haddock will reduce costs for UK fish processing, helping support 18,000 jobs in the industry. #UKmfg🇬🇧

      Reply
      1. MiC
        June 5, 2021

        It already had one with the EEA when it was in the European Union, so it’s a replacement for that, but not such a good one.

        Reply
        1. a-tracy
          June 6, 2021

          We’ll see

          Reply
  21. Denis Cooper
    June 4, 2021

    Off topic, more threats from Brussels/Dublin:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/eu-could-retaliate-against-britain-over-protocol-coveney-warns-1.4583673

    “EU could retaliate against Britain over protocol, Coveney warns”

    “Minister says status quo not sustainable as some states advocate possibility of tariffs”

    “Britain’s lack of co-operation in implementing the Northern Ireland protocol is driving European capitals to push for a tougher response from the European Commission, Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney has warned. Speaking in London ahead of a meeting on Friday morning with Brexit minister David Frost, Mr Coveney said Ireland wished to avoid a situation where the EU would take retaliatory action against Britain.”

    “Until now, the EU has limited its response to initiating legal proceedings against Britain but there are arbitration measures built into the protocol that could be triggered. Some member states believe the commission needs to take a tougher approach by taking retaliatory action under the trade and co-operation agreement that could include imposing tariffs on British goods.”

    Reply
    1. MiC
      June 5, 2021

      Like, if you don’t keep up your loan repayments, then a lender might possess your home.

      Yes, I suppose it’s a threat, but hardly a surprising one given what you negotiated and then signed, just like this.

      Reply
  22. GilesB
    June 4, 2021

    You need to look at the impact on infrastructure of bringing in ‘cheap’ labour.

    We have about £1m of infrastructure (housing, schools, roads, hospitals, etc etc) per head of population. The cost to an employer of bringing in ‘cheap’ labour should include a £1m contribution to public funds for each job. Otherwise infrastructure is strained, and productivity declines.

    We have seen the impact of strained public infrastructure, and investment squeezed out of the private sector over the last thirty years. It must be reversed if we are to increase investment and productivity and remain competitive.

    ‘Cheap’ labour is completely mispriced when the balance sheet impact is totally ignored.

    Reply
  23. David Brown
    June 4, 2021

    The main concern I have right now about harvesting specific crops using unskilled Labour is that any immediate changes will lead to higher food prices.
    Accepting new mechanical technology for crop picking in the future there is a need to ensure crops are not left to rot in the fields.
    We know most people here don’t want that type of work and the immediate concern is to get the crops harvested.
    Asylum is a separate issue although many seem to be stuck not being allowed to work etc so may be they can be allowed to crop pick?
    We all have opinions on Brexit and mine are well know.
    Right now I feel the Gov must give some priority thinking to seasonal workers.
    Or potentially we lose an important area of food production.

    Reply
  24. Fred.H
    June 4, 2021

    OFF TOPIC.
    Drivers caught littering on M6 made to pick it up.
    Highways England has released footage of drivers on the M6 littering in an emergency refuge area as part of an anti-litter campaign. The drivers were travelling northbound through Staffordshire when they tried to dispose of the rubbish. They were caught on Highways England’s CCTV who notified the Central Motorway Police Group (CMPG). The occupants of the car were then forced to pick their litter up.

    Fines should then follow, and if not paid, vehicle confiscated.

    Reply
  25. Narrow Shoulders
    June 4, 2021

    My hope, once uncontrolled immigration to bolster the low skilled workforce was ended, was that we would start to come to rely on our own unemployed and supposedly unemployable. There are many disabled candidates who would love to work but need simple adjustments in order to do so. Let us get these people into the workforce and rising through the ranks before we start to import more workers through work permits.

    Similarly there are those who have come to depend on benefits and for whom it does not pay to work – surely a travesty, I also hoped that the skills shortage would begin a dialogue about this situation. Why should someone who does not work enjoy a similar or better lifestyle than someone who does? Why should a minimum wage worker be able to take home on Universal credit the same amount as a manager with responsibilities.

    None of these questions would be addressed while we can import cheap labour. I thought that they may be addressed once the taps were turned off.

    Reply
  26. Newmania
    June 4, 2021

    We voted for Brexit so a wide range of decisions including the decision of who we invited to work here is taken in future in the UK

    Thats right John, I mean Sir John, the good old British general Public were incredibly angry about our constitutional and legal entanglements with close trading partners. Nothing to do with stopping immigrants swarming in from Syria (or something ) .Pretty awful campaign you ran then , barely mentioned anything but this irrelevant by product of the main constitutional question …..
    Daniel Hannan I mean , Baron Hannan of Kingsclere, talks this sort of risible nonsense regularly. I had supposed it was because he is foreign but Redders lives in the UK doesn`t he just not the one I live in obviously . Even if he does live on some planet far far away , he can still read a survey or two can’t he ?

    Reply
  27. nota#
    June 4, 2021

    “The BBC still not getting it”

    Or maybe the UK is not getting it. The BBC is a left wing political movement, that by default is subsidised by the UK taxpayer. So if you own a TV in the UK you pay for the BBC to exist, you have no say, there is no democracy, no accountability – they are a loose cannon and anti-UK, anti-English organisation.

    Irony they are so pro-the EU, the EU pays them to air pro EU proper gander. The BBC is the biggest contributor to the nonsense that is the Eurovision.

    Surely it is not right that any political organisation should be subsidised by the taxpayer.

    Reply
  28. Newmania
    June 4, 2021

    ..and annuver fing
    “We” did not vote for any of this you did its your mess and you can keep it thanks. I am not surprised to see Brexiteers wishing to escape the consequences if their own foolishness . Free Ports are exactly that same thing. Funny thing is that despite the flood of Europeans flooding ( like a flood ) back to Europe , we still seem to have a Housing crisis endless waits for operations Doctors vast regional inequality and every other problem this was supposed to solve
    Its almost as if many of these claims were not true .
    Crickey !

    Reply
    1. No Longer Anonymous
      June 4, 2021

      Hospitals… errr… nothing to do with Covid then !

      Regional inequality is a myth. The poorest I know live in London and those with the loveliest homes and camper vans in the North. But carbon cuts are going to produce regional (and racial) inequalities the likes we have never seen.

      Reply
  29. ChrisS
    June 4, 2021

    We certainly need to eliminate the ultra low paid jobs from the economy by encouraging businesses to invest in machinery to raise productivity. 100% capital relief in a tightly defined list of suitable machinery would help here.

    The Hospitality business is a problem. For far too long it has existed on low wages and long hours. Both need sorting but while there has been an inexhaustible supply of Eastern Europeans willing to work for very little, there has been no incentive to change. Now, perhaps, with a shortage of staff available, that can be redressed. It will mean that prices will go up, though.
    Our own son, a Michelin-trained Chef – has recently given up being a Head Chef because the pay bears no resemblance to the responsibility and skill required to run a kitchen properly. Not everyone can be a Gordon Ramsey or a Jamie Oliver !

    Reply
    1. Fred.H
      June 4, 2021

      and if prices go up, customers go down….

      Reply
      1. ChrisS
        June 4, 2021

        Yes, to a certain extent that’s true, Fred, but the market has a habit of realigning itself.
        Rents and rates are the real killer for restaurants. At least rents will come down over time with the wipe out of so many retail shops on the high street.

        Our son has three friends he trained with. All became head chefs in nice places but not one of them is still in the business. The best part of 80 years experience between them, all lost to the industry because of poor pay and conditions. We live near Bournemouth and almost 60% of pubs and restaurants are looking for staff but there are few takers.

        Reply
    2. No Longer Anonymous
      June 4, 2021

      I’ve been to a Michelin restaurant for our 25th and for the two of us it cost nearly two week’s pay.

      Reply
  30. Walt
    June 4, 2021

    Sir John,
    If it needs a change of law, when is a governement with an 80-seat majority scheduled to make that change?

    Reply
  31. Alan Jutson
    June 4, 2021

    I see yet another Government contract with the Army for its Ajax next generation of tracked vehicles has failed to meet its requirements, and will be late in the field with a suggested huge overspend (original budget £5.5 Billion), and more time required to resolve design faults which at the moment make them unfit for purpose.

    Why does every single contract always cost more than originally agreed, no matter what the government orders it seems to fail in some form or another, and no I am not talking about emergency action costs for the pandemic, but design and build contracts no matter if it is for computer systems, ships, aircraft, trains, hospitals, roads, railways etc etc, it always but always costs more, WHY, WHY, WHY !

    In commercial business if a contractor under costs a project, they suffer the loss, not the customer, unless of course the customer keeps on changing their mind or the specification from the original.

    John, who actually agrees to these open ended contracts, and why are they not better controlled ?

    Reply
    1. graham1946
      June 4, 2021

      If projects were properly costed and estimated, the bean counters at the Treasury would never allow the money, so, its always under priced, under estimated in time just to get the thing started.

      Reply
  32. nota#
    June 4, 2021

    “illegal economic migrants” at the moment an illegal meaning someone who breaks UK Law has more rights and privileges than the UK taxpayer.

    We learnt yesterday from the media that the legal teams acting on their behalf have personally earnt millions from the UK taxpayer in defending foreign non-UK taxpaying illegals. Asking for more rights than the taxpayer paying their fees. Why aren’t this legal fees paid for by their own Governments and taxpayers? At mots form a UK prospective a public defender is all that is needed, as in each law firm in rotation has to put up a some one operating pro-bono basis.

    Not forgetting the key word ‘economic’. The system at the moment means these illegals get to jump the queue on those with genuine asylum needs.

    Then add in these people are seeking refuge from the oppression of the EU. The EU believes they protect citizens yet people are desperate to escape their domain.

    The system wont change until these people are returned, then the traffickers will have to face the wrath of those they conned out of their money. A short sharp shock is all it will probably need to stabilise the situation.

    Reply
    1. MiC
      June 5, 2021

      What a troublesome world you inhabit.

      Come over here to the real one, and stop suffering quite so much.

      Reply
  33. glen cullen
    June 4, 2021

    ”Given the decisions in the courts it will take a change of law to bring this under some control”

    Isn’t there already a Law to refuse entry or to remove people if they don’t have the correct visa ? Or are you and this governmnt only now coming to the conclusion that after decades we need additional Laws to control migration ?

    Reply
  34. SecretPeople
    June 4, 2021

    Work permits, rather than the right to settle – fine. But given 5+million have applied for the right to settle, how come we are still short of these hardworking people?

    Reply
    1. jon livesey
      June 4, 2021

      Because new hard-working people generate their own needs for goods and services.

      Reply
  35. nota#
    June 4, 2021

    There is to much of the ‘taxpayer will pay’ mantra being followed in the systems of the UK Government.

    It has now gone to far, especially as their is no direct taxpayer stakeholder representation or methods of taxpayer accountability in how this confetti is spread around.

    The BBC, Foreign Aid, Foreign legal aid, Political Funding, so-on and so-on. Its as if the UK Government is playing to another agenda(or is it playing a fiddle) while the Country is burnt to the ground.

    Reply
  36. nota#
    June 4, 2021

    The anti Brexit Cabal will never ‘get it’ just as they don’t get Democracy, Freedom, Personal Responsibility and Self Reliance. They aim for a World that is centrally controlled be an un-elected, un-accountable EU Commission. A World that should be controlled in the image of the unelected, unelectable Elite – a Socialist World deprived of choice and individuality. You get the human rights a trade commission gives you because they start by removing all your rights. In the Free World these right were never removed in the first place. A bizarre notion.

    Can any Democrat believe a trade commission, as that is all the EU Commission is gets a higher standing and status than Democratically Elected Governments. The EU Commission gets to attend the G7 when it is not a Country. I don’t see NAFTA, APEC, BRICS and OPEC even being given the same privileges, being able to dominate and Control another Countries, their Laws and citizen rights. Yet they are all trade commissions in exactly the same way.

    Yet this is the Utopian World the anti-Brexiters prefer.

    Reply
    1. MiC
      June 4, 2021

      Even if your plain daft assertions were true, the UK has left the European Union and will not be readmitted any time soon, not even if there were a landslide vote for it – and so none of this could ever happen if only for that reason.

      So what ever is the point of your comment?

      Reply
  37. Bryan Harris
    June 4, 2021

    I’m told by my GP surgery that we have a massive deficit in doctors, with major shortages in surgeries…

    We badly need to get our education system up to scratch so that we can train the people we need.
    Blair did so much for education, and none of it was in the least bit good – He spent £billions on it, allegedly, and we suffer the ill effects of his legacies on a daily basis.

    Until we revamp the whole education system, extract the pc dogma and just ‘educate people’ we will remain short of the skills we need.

    Reply
    1. Fred.H
      June 4, 2021

      our Wokingham surgery has an attendant ( member of staff )operating the metal expanding door guard, just like you see in old movies. Sort of like a prison warder.

      Reply
    2. MiC
      June 4, 2021

      The moral philosophy of the young has first to be changed to one which promotes the rising to challenges, such as the studying of demanding subjects.

      You can improve teaching all you like, but if few people want to study science, mathematics and the like, then this country will have to continue importing such people from countries which do have that popular philosophy.

      Reply
      1. a-tracy
        June 5, 2021

        Sir John, when you ask what we’d like to hear on your blog I would like a once per week post of good news from the previous week. Achievements made by the government.
        % of people studying STEM at University for the past fifty years and under which government increases were made.
        % of people teaching STEM.
        % of people in STEM jobs
        Average earnings of the same period of those people working in STEM per hour worked.
        Your government needs to stop these bogus accusations about no improvements to the numbers studying STEM in the UK, The accusations of a lack of training and advancement of British people or all the investment you, yes The Conservative Governments, over the years they’ve been in power have made and achieved.

        When your government tries to steer people away from degrees where there are few job opportunities people from the left kick off BUT you need to tell us these history courses that are closing down in a small fraction of Universities just how many of those graduates are paying off their interest on their student loan five years after graduating let alone making an inroads into paying off their loan. Just how many people that studied sport science racking up £27,000 loan and £10,000 living award have work in this field? Otherwise we are pouring money down a drain.

        Reply
        1. a-tracy
          June 5, 2021

          By the way this is not a dig on humanities subjects it is a query on the quality and outcomes of some University courses. You wouldn’t buy a home or car for £40,000 down without learning about it, but so much is hidden from prospective students. People don’t need to know that 80% of people went into work, they need to know how many people went into work earning more than £23,000 pa in a related field that they studied in and how many earning that into a none related field.

          Reply
    3. steve
      June 4, 2021

      Bryan Harris

      Well in my neck of the woods it isn’t a shortage of GP’s, more the fact that they’re either sitting on their arses at home, or holding surgery but by refusing to be public – facing.

      Either way the ones in my area milk the covid excuse for everything they can instead of doing what they’re paid to do, i.e some work.

      Might be different in your area but that’s what it’s like here.

      Reply
      1. Bryan Harris
        June 5, 2021

        @Steve

        Personally I put the blame squarely with the NHS (and Blair) for GP shortages and difficulties in getting a GP appointment – They set the rules after all, which adds to the general frustrations

        Reply
        1. MiC
          June 5, 2021

          Are you quite sure that it wasn’t Attlee’s fault, Bryan?

          Reply
        2. Fred.H
          June 5, 2021

          and when salaries become £100k average – hundreds decided to retire or go on 3 days a week …not bad for ringing a few patients up and chatting about their piles over the phone.

          Reply
  38. Jacob
    June 4, 2021

    We read this piece today peppered with words like fewer ecomomic migrants and illegal migrant workers when what is obviously meant is poor economic migrants – but not to worry when this growing season is over we can collectively stand back and count what was harvested and then what was unsaved and see what has to be ploughed back into the earth? then in usual British fashion it will be time for a rethink –

    Reply
  39. nota#
    June 4, 2021

    From todays Telegraph

    “BBC One will speak to northern viewers in their own accent “

    How patronising is that! We cant indoctrinate you with our left wing views unless we patronise you with your accent. Its show they have never been North of Watford Gap. Just because people are friendly get on and cooperate in their communities doesn’t mean they have accents, are part of a gangs, or tribes and need dehumanising to be rebuilt in the BBC left wing image.

    BBC Comment
    “We take a licence fee from every household across the UK and they have to believe that the BBC is an organisation for them – not just a brilliant, world class organisation, but an organisation that speaks to the individual audience member.”

    Or our left wing bias needs more work and manipulation if we are to get the UK to return to our beloved EU Rulers.

    The BBC is a terrifying Political Organisation that serves no one but their own ego’s

    Reply
  40. bigneil - newer comp
    June 4, 2021

    Have read that Denmark has passed a law to deport asylum seekers outside Europe – meanwhile they arrive here to a life of free everything. You should hang your heads in shame as you ALL clearly welcome the destruction of this nation.

    Reply
    1. MiC
      June 4, 2021

      Yes, Denmark is in the European Union too, so clearly membership does not prevent countries from doing that, does it?

      Looks like its countries retained pretty well all that sovereignty that you claimed they had ceded after all, doesn’t it?

      Reply
      1. Fred.H
        June 5, 2021

        Well I hope S.Kinnock doesn’t get ahead of himself and go for sovereign over there.

        Reply
    2. Fred.H
      June 5, 2021

      but all the ‘asylum seekers’ come from within the EU, don’t they? How many travel from the Med in to the Channel and carry on up to Denmark?

      Reply
  41. Everhopeful
    June 4, 2021

    Promises, promises.
    Only two kept by Johnson.
    Paint the flat and marry Carrie.

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      June 4, 2021

      Didn’t he also promise us Brino by Jan2020

      Reply
  42. nota#
    June 4, 2021

    “UK must align with EU to ease Northern Ireland border checks, says Irish foreign minister ”

    They are still fighting to break up and control the UK, joined by the BBC. This like Covid is a never ending battle. The UK Government if it had ‘balls’ a conscience, a brain between them, could stop all this nonsense tomorrow and comply with the Democratic results of the referendum.

    In trying to manipulate and control instead of doing what was promised is undermining the very notion of the point of a UK Government, a HoC, Democracy.

    Reply
  43. Bazman
    June 4, 2021

    Tim Martin was all about cheaper food, and now even he asks to relax immigration laws. The way the Australian deal is being promoted is also all about cheaper food.

    Seems to me the cheaper food will get priority, but immigration will get more promises. As in the choice already been made but we’ll pretend to hear your concerns.

    Reply
    1. Peter2
      June 4, 2021

      I’m puzzled Baz, are you in favour of cheaper food, or not?
      Is cheaper food OK from the EU but not from outside the EU ?

      Reply
      1. graham1946
        June 4, 2021

        EU food is not cheap on the world comparison. The EU keeps prices up, not down.

        Reply
        1. steve
          June 4, 2021

          graham1946

          Well EU food prices don’t affect me in the slightest as I don’t buy anything from the EU, RoI or Scotland.

          Reply
          1. graham1946
            June 5, 2021

            Good. I also do my best and as said previously have found some nice Chilean wine to substitute for French and Spanish. My comment was just a fact as the EU is the biggest protectionist racket on the planet, but some people still think it keeps prices down.

    2. Fred.H
      June 4, 2021

      It will not become law that you have to buy it.

      Reply
  44. bill brown
    June 4, 2021

    Sir JR,

    Now we are into generalisaitons about the EU gaing. (noting how little influence we had on EU dicisions) whilst we were members we had significant influence and the single market is just want example

    Reply
  45. Iago
    June 4, 2021

    Cynthia: Some nasty men actually made the virus!
    Cedric: The world is full of scoundrels, but all the more reason to get this wonderful vaccination, the children too.
    Cynthia: Of course, Cedric.

    Reply
  46. Iain Gill
    June 4, 2021

    the entrepreneur in question has complained that the press were misquoting him

    Reply
  47. nota#
    June 4, 2021

    From the BBC – “Hillsborough: Police forces agree cover-up compensation for victims”

    Nothing as such wrong with the pay-out as the courts have proven liability. The However bit, and it highlights the structural problem of how we are Governed (or is it Ruled) . The Police actual pay nothing – the taxpayer pays everything. That’s not accountability, responsibility or reasonable(Not talking victims, they have a claim but it is not the taxpayer, even they are taxpayers, so the get to fund their own award)

    At the same time the taxpayer, the shareholder of the UK Authorities has no direct say. The taxpayers voice, their MP doesn’t even seem to have a voice. There maybe a another public enquiry – more expense for the taxpayer. The continued way those receiving taxpayer funding gets to run away fast and loose with taxpayer money is abhorrent.

    Employment stays a problem due to the Government and the Authorities sheer lack of concern and their waste of the bottomless pit that is the taxpayer. You could even consider everything else is just a mere smokescreen to deflect the real problem that exist – incompetence!

    Reply
  48. Andy
    June 4, 2021

    If I may offer Brexitists some advice.

    Of your many Brexit failures your biggest is expectation management. You should always under-promise and over-deliver – not the other way around. And you have spectacularly over-promised and even more spectacularly under-delivered.

    Brexitists made the mistake of promising all of the advantages of EU membership with none of the responsibilities. This was never going to happen. There may be some plus sides of Brexit – though beyond cheaper tampons you’ve never come up with any. But you have failed to accept there are significant downsides to Brexit too – and, consequently, you have not communicated these to the unsuspecting British public.

    You have already let down fisherman, farmers, Unionists and many more. Removal of free movement sounds wonderful to some – until it is pointed out it is reciprocal – meaning people like hauliers, musicians, photographers, engineers and all sorts lose out. Expats get sent home.

    None of you have yet been honest about travel either. Sometime soon, probably next year, Britons will need visa waivers to go on holiday to Europe. Brexitists have always denied this will happen. Consequently you’re going to get a lot of very angry British tourists turn up at airports not prepared for the pointless and pricey new paperwork you have imposed on them.

    When Wayne and Sharon and their 17 kids from Essex suddenly discover they can’t travel to Benidorm because they haven’t filled in, and paid for, their Brexit forms they ain’t gonna be happy. Would you like to tell them now or should we wait to laugh at them too?

    Reply
    1. Peter2
      June 4, 2021

      See at the end of andys post the sneering snobbery he has for people who traditionally do not vote Conservative.
      Hard working people
      They are realising how the wealthy urbanites hate them.

      Keep up the abuse of your core voters andy.
      It will keep your dreadful lot out of power for many years yet.

      Reply
    2. Derek
      June 4, 2021

      I do not think we shall require any advice from a loser.

      Reply
    3. Fred.H
      June 4, 2021

      I suppose you go on round the world cruises with the elderly who can spend £millions?

      Reply
    4. No Longer Anonymous
      June 4, 2021

      Wow.

      Like we didn’t used to go to Europe on holiday before the EU existed.

      Reply
      1. MiC
        June 5, 2021

        The vote was to leave the European Union.

        It did not succeed in reversing time by a few decades – you must grasp this.

        Reply
    5. graham1946
      June 4, 2021

      Are the EU going to do that then? Seems like cutting your nose off to spite your face, but then they just might as they love insulting their best customers. I rather think that there will be a bigger backlash from the unemployed in the EU than from Sharon and Wayne. I understood that they are desperate to get the UK tourists back and are fast going broke because we are not going.

      Reply
      1. Fred.H
        June 4, 2021

        Europeans will be bitterly complaining in the years to come ‘ What bunch of damn idiots legally slapped the Brits round the face, who of course promptly stopped buying anything from us, didn’t ever come and spend with us, laughed at our tragic incompetence over anything and everything, while they got on and built a new wonderful free country’.

        Reply
        1. MiC
          June 5, 2021

          I don’t read of anything like the Grenfell Tower outrage in the twenty-seven, Fred, nor of a shambolic rail service, fish rotting unsold, etc.

          “Tragic incompetence”? Them? Are you sure?

          Reply
          1. Fred.H
            June 5, 2021

            yes – I’m sure.

  49. Peter2
    June 4, 2021

    Interesting latest You Gov poll after “Dom Gate” shows a further increase of 3 points for the Conservatives.

    Now on 46 versus 30 for Labour.

    On these numbers, which are remarkable for a government in mid term, they would be awarded a majority in the region of 120 seats at an election.

    Reply
  50. Mactheknife
    June 4, 2021

    In the meantime Sir John, this government continues its self-harm policy on UK jobs and industries. In a meeting with UKEF recently they stated they are no longer going to fund investment in major international fossil fuel projects, an area where of course the UK excels in knowledge, experience and capabilities. Apparently this bring us in line with Europe’s intentions. Here’s me thinking we’d left the EU in voting for Brexit, seems not unfortunately. This on top of the all out attack on diesel / petrol engine manufacturers and self imposed ridiculous climate targets.

    Remind me again, did I really vote for a Conservative government ?

    Reply
    1. Fred.H
      June 4, 2021

      You might have voted for one, but you certainly didn’t get one !

      Reply
      1. Fedupsoutherner
        June 4, 2021

        You would have got more of a Conservative government by voting Reform.

        Reply
        1. Fred.H
          June 5, 2021

          and almost certainly more controllable if Corbyn was in power. I know !- I’ll go and wash my mouth out.

          Reply
  51. jon livesey
    June 4, 2021

    I don’t know why you are bothering about this. In the first place, since none of the predicted Brexit disaster has happened – not a single one – nothing is going to happen to Brexit. You only reverse something like Brexit if there are really serious unexpected side-effects, and there aren’t, so that’s that and so the Remainers at this pint are talking to themselves, and to anyone who has the time to waste to talk to them.

    The second point may be a bit more nuanced. “Taking back control” means not only taking back the policies, but also the process. From now on, change takes place in a British, not a European way. Change becomes a messy, pragmatic process instead of some European drama with over-arching principles. If some industry wants more low-skilled workers, they get them and it does not invalidate some grand principle, because thee isn’t one.

    We should remember that Remainers are they way they are because during EU membership they became addicted to the European vice of seeing philosophical principles everywhere and thinking that gave them more control over life than is ever really possible.

    Reply
    1. steve
      June 4, 2021

      John Livesey

      “…and so the Remainers at this point are talking to themselves”

      ……more often than not also talking out of certain anatomical regions.

      Reply
  52. jon livesey
    June 4, 2021

    Another looming Brexit disaster. From the Guardian this morning:

    “Exclusive: loss of young Europeans on pupil visits will cause major reputational damage to UK, warn tour organisers.”

    Reply
  53. Derek
    June 4, 2021

    I’ve just read the French Police are now closing down the Calais camps because they have been emptied. The occupants have drifted across the Channel to the good old, stupid UK to let the Brits, house, feed, medically treat and pay them all for free, just for being here. No matter they are effectively, criminals, for coming here illegally. Yet none are immediately deported back to France. Why not? French refusal to take them? LOL.
    It’s now easier for an illegal to enter this country than it is for a genuine legal migrant. What sense is that?
    Nobody can formally identify every one of these illegals, nor do they now have any Covid 19 checks because there is a lack of Border Force personnel to process such large numbers and no money to employ more. Such is their cheek and recognition that we really are a soft touch, they are demanding good accommodation. The mind boggles.
    Many of these are economic migrants looking for a free ride in this OTT liberalised country where its leaders appear to think more of foreigners than they do the persons who voted them into power and currently pay their salaries.
    Where will this nonsense end? When we get a proper “Putting Britain First”, British Government into Downing Street? That’s never, then.
    God help our offspring, for it is they who will most suffer the consequences of mass, unfettered immigration, both legal and illegal. Someone has to pay for them, don’t they? Each at an estimated cost of around £6000+ per year to the British Tax payers (Migration Watch). Do the maths and be alarmed at our ever-increasing debt pile.

    Reply
    1. No Longer Anonymous
      June 4, 2021

      Life is much better if you pop an escitalopram and accept that the Tory Govt LOVE mass immigration…. even while they lock us down for a ‘lethal’ global pandemic and despite us being vaccinated.

      The masks are coming off on the 21st and we don’t care what Boris says. His treatment of the Channel crisis makes a mockery of it all.

      In fact, around here, it looks like lockdown is over already.

      The Tories will be destroying all the businesses that make life worth living out of pure stupidity, some may say spite.

      Reply
    2. Fedupsoutherner
      June 4, 2021

      Derek. It’s a situation that does nothing for race relations. All this Woke rubbish too doesn’t help. On the whole we are a tolerant nation but all this illegal immigration is fuelling problems for the future. This government is lying when they tell us they are tackling it. They are doing NOTHING.

      Reply
    3. steve
      June 4, 2021

      Derek

      “Yet none are immediately deported back to France”

      Because if we did that it’d make us racists you see.

      Reply
  54. agricola
    June 4, 2021

    Something in need of clarification. For a good few days we have been talking about the Indian Variant. In the last 24 hours talk has switched to the Delta Variant. Is this a PC gesture towards the sensibilities of India. We the Brits have frequently used foreign national adjectives to describe things a bit risque. French Letters, Dutch Caps, Spanish Flu, and German Measels for example. I wonder how many unpleasant Brit attributions there are by foreigners.
    Today we learn that Nepal has produced a new variant. Is that in reality the Delta Variant or is it entirely new.
    One thing is very clear in my mind, long ago we should have stopped accepting flights from the sub continent and any passengers of sub continent origin from other hubs. We would not then be resorting to panic measures over people who have gone on legitimate holidays to Portugal only to find days after getting there that they will be subject to a mass of panic strictures in the process of returning. This is not government, but self generated flap.

    Reply
  55. glen cullen
    June 4, 2021

    I’m fed up hearing the same story day in day out; yesterday 201 illegal immigrants crossed the channel and landed in Kent !

    Reply
    1. Fred.H
      June 5, 2021

      The latest idiotic incident appears to be the Brit ‘Border Force’ asking (the French) if they could enter their waters to ‘rescue’ illegal migrants while the French merely watched, and probably almost fell overboard laughing at us.

      Reply
  56. steve
    June 4, 2021

    JR

    A vey welcome topic I must say. I commend you for having conviction to speak about immigration and jobs, many these days kneel to the woke-ism, as it were, and cower from the subject.

    However quite understandably your perspective differs from that of someone who has worked all his life in manufacturing and seen it all.

    On the whole immigration, particularly from eastern Europe has been good for the kind of employers who resent paying British workers the going rate for skills and harbour what can best be described as a vendetta against employees rights.

    Such companies de-skill the jobs as much as possible just to accomodate eastern Europeans. In my opinion this will ultimately come back and bite hard. If for example my skills as a qualified Craftsman with 40 years experience in the Defence Industry are needed again – my response will be somewhat blunt and to the point; ‘don’t ask me ask your eastern European friends, I’m not interested ‘.

    In my opinion there should be no immigration, and if businesses who only employ immigrants suddenly find themselves dependent on the skills of British workers for survival they should be blacklisted and left to go bankrupt – because of the apalling way they’ve treated us. The pleasure will be watching companies like these die.

    Mr Redwood you appear to imply that some immigration is good, I am sorry but I do not share your view. It might be good for unscupulous businesses maximising profits to the nth degree, but it didn’t do the rest of us any favours.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *