Many dead as lorry hits crowd in Nice

[freight_dog]

Rjan:
Just to add to what I previously said (and maybe get this thread back on its legs!), they’re now reporting that Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, far from being any sort of devout Islamist, was a bisexual, ■■■-crazed, pork-eating, drinker .

So not unlike some characters I’ve come across then? we were banned from a hotel in Asia. Nothing to do with my company but another “firm”, not “local” to the country shall we say. Let’s leave it at that. It wasn’t enough for the guy to just sleep with the prostitute, instead he got blind drunk and beat the girl to within an inch of her life. Blood everywhere. Yes he must have been devout too

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Meanwhile such immigration is being justified on the grounds that we are bringing in valuable additions to our societies that we need.

Werner Von Braun was a valuable addition to the American rocket programme.

There’s a big difference between accepting immigrants and accepting low wages.

If we draw in people like Von Braun, that is a valuable addition to our economic development, and if we allow people to travel freely we do get the benefit of exchanging ideas and enlarging the cultural community (including intellectual subcultures like rocket science).

It’s also a good prophylactic against war and when ordinary people have experience of other cultures, it gives people insight and sympathy into how the rest of the world lives, and deprives the far-right of their credibility. A good analogy to this is how workers in large employers will organise and stand together, whereas in a marketplace with several small employers all bidding for work, the bosses can whip them into competition with each other and drive down wages or encourage scab labour (against all the worker’s better interests).

The problem we have in our society is not a pro-immigration policy but a pro-low-wage policy. Bosses salivate at the prospect of hiring immigrants on the cheap, just as they salivated during the 80s and 90s when trade unions were neutered and wage councils abolished.

If we outrule any possibility of immigrants undercutting, and force bosses to pay the going rate and maintain acceptable conditions of work, we’d have much more modest levels of immigration, down at its natural, beneficial level.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Meanwhile such immigration is being justified on the grounds that we are bringing in valuable additions to our societies that we need.

Werner Von Braun was a valuable addition to the American rocket programme.

There’s a big difference between accepting immigrants and accepting low wages.

If we draw in people like Von Braun, that is a valuable addition to our economic development, and if we allow people to travel freely we do get the benefit of exchanging ideas and enlarging the cultural community (including intellectual subcultures like rocket science).

It’s also a good prophylactic against war and when ordinary people have experience of other cultures, it gives people insight and sympathy into how the rest of the world lives, and deprives the far-right of their credibility. A good analogy to this is how workers in large employers will organise and stand together, whereas in a marketplace with several small employers all bidding for work, the bosses can whip them into competition with each other and drive down wages or encourage scab labour (against all the worker’s better interests).

The problem we have in our society is not a pro-immigration policy but a pro-low-wage policy. Bosses salivate at the prospect of hiring immigrants on the cheap, just as they salivated during the 80s and 90s when trade unions were neutered and wage councils abolished.

If we outrule any possibility of immigrants undercutting, and force bosses to pay the going rate and maintain acceptable conditions of work, we’d have much more modest levels of immigration, down at its natural, beneficial level.

Firstly you’re really on dodgy ground if you want use von Braun as an example.IE let’s import a committed ■■■■ who enthusiastically helped a regime responsible for the deaths of forced labour and V2 rocket attacks.As opposed to the circumstances of people like Einstein and Neils Bohr and instead of employing trusting our own aerospace engineers and designers to do the job.

While if the so called self appointed ‘left’ really wanted to sort out the problems of under cutting and economic migration they’d have obviously called for an EU wide and enforced realistic minimum wage long before now.Together with closing down trade with the exploitative Communist Chinese regime.

While if it’s all about peace and good will in Europe we obviously don’t need to import anyone from the Islamic world.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Firstly you’re really on dodgy ground if you want use von Braun as an example.IE let’s import a committed ■■■■ who enthusiastically helped a regime responsible for the deaths of forced labour and V2 rocket attacks.As opposed to the circumstances of people like Einstein and Neils Bohr and instead of employing trusting our own aerospace engineers and designers to do the job.

I did also consider Einstein, but I thought Von Braun was actually the more compelling case.

It also wasn’t a case of not trusting our own aerospace engineers, it is, as I say, a question of enlarging the number of people engaged in rocket science and sharing their creative product (which is then laid as a foundation to innovate further). In the initial stage it is also about gaining access to the innovations already made in other societies and importing fresh perspectives.

That is, what we gain on the eve of immigration is what the immigrant carries in with him. While he’s here, he helps develop those things further. And if he eventually returns whence he came (or if he acts as a bridge), then he carries some of what we have back out into the wider world (British rule of law and the incorruptibility of the civil service is an example of something we have culturally which has long been the envy of all the world).

While if the so called self appointed ‘left’ really wanted to sort out the problems of under cutting and economic migration they’d have obviously called for an EU wide and enforced realistic minimum wage long before now.Together with closing down trade with the exploitative Communist Chinese regime.

Most on the left are in favour of EU wide regulations. We also have to accept that poorer parts of Europe (and the world) need capital investment and human development - it’s just that this must be proportionate to our means and paid for from general taxation (i.e. in the same way that war and national security measures would be funded), not on the backs of the poor whilst the European rich contribute nothing.

While if it’s all about peace and good will in Europe we obviously don’t need to import anyone from the Islamic world.

You mean like the Afghan-English translators we ■■■■ all over?

[freight_dog]

Rjan:
If we draw in people like Von Braun, that is a valuable addition to our economic development, and if we allow people to travel freely we do get the benefit of exchanging ideas and enlarging the cultural community (including intellectual subcultures like rocket science).

I think the Von Braun example neatly sits at the polar opposite of Islamic immigration.

The rights and wrongs aside of bringing in a ■■■■ think tank engineer into an allied country to create a nuclear weapons, one thing is key, importing Von Braun did not import Nazism. However, I have a very large problem with allowing the import of large amounts of people who are prescribed in a cult like way with social and ethnic allegiances that are at odds with national security. And individuals that certainly do not bring any scientific prowess such as Von braun, even if used for peaceful means. Sure, a percentage bring scientific purpose, but any other than non Islamic pro overseas agenda at odds with the U.K.? Pound for pound I’d say the trade off was nett negative. All of the bad but non of the good if you will. Plenty of risk but no benefit that can’t be found elsewhere.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Firstly you’re really on dodgy ground if you want use von Braun as an example.IE let’s import a committed ■■■■ who enthusiastically helped a regime responsible for the deaths of forced labour and V2 rocket attacks.As opposed to the circumstances of people like Einstein and Neils Bohr and instead of employing trusting our own aerospace engineers and designers to do the job.

I did also consider Einstein, but I thought Von Braun was actually the more compelling case.

It also wasn’t a case of not trusting our own aerospace engineers, it is, as I say, a question of enlarging the number of people engaged in rocket science and sharing their creative product (which is then laid as a foundation to innovate further). In the initial stage it is also about gaining access to the innovations already made in other societies and importing fresh perspectives.

That is, what we gain on the eve of immigration is what the immigrant carries in with him. While he’s here, he helps develop those things further. And if he eventually returns whence he came (or if he acts as a bridge), then he carries some of what we have back out into the wider world (British rule of law and the incorruptibility of the civil service is an example of something we have culturally which has long been the envy of all the world).

While if the so called self appointed ‘left’ really wanted to sort out the problems of under cutting and economic migration they’d have obviously called for an EU wide and enforced realistic minimum wage long before now.Together with closing down trade with the exploitative Communist Chinese regime.

Most on the left are in favour of EU wide regulations. We also have to accept that poorer parts of Europe (and the world) need capital investment and human development - it’s just that this must be proportionate to our means and paid for from general taxation (i.e. in the same way that war and national security measures would be funded), not on the backs of the poor whilst the European rich contribute nothing.

While if it’s all about peace and good will in Europe we obviously don’t need to import anyone from the Islamic world.

You mean like the Afghan-English translators we [zb] all over?

Firstly in the case of von Braun that was arguably an example of crime pays in his case rather than making an example of him.As opposed to the double standard of Doenitz being charged as a war criminal for a lesser if any crime.

Getting back to the topic example what exactly did the immigrant in question ‘bring with him’.

As for the so called ‘left’ calling for EU wide wage legislation exactly who and when did anyone within Labour ever call for that.As opposed to the example of Callaghan imposing wage increase controls for the working class but not for the bosses or for that matter prices.

[winseer]

If there was ever to be an argument for “accepting quality immigrants only” - then all we ever had to do was use a points-based system in line with the rest of the commonwealth states - thus avoiding any labels of “racist policy” etc etc.

The fact that this was never even seriously looked at without howls of derision from the loony left - lays bare the lie that “immigration is about quality staffing” when in fact it was about importing new Labour voters and keeping them poor once here - so they keep on voting Labour. The fight to “climb out of the gutter” never ended when they reached the land of milk and honey where the streets are paved with gold - after all.

The workforce already here who found themselves displaced out of menial jobs as a kind-of bi product in all this - they are the very ones who flocked to the UKIP banner to the lesser extent, but the Leave banner to a far greater extent - explaining in part why the pollsters got it so wrong.

Deflation in cost of living with inflation in wages - means not just double the quality of life every generation - but four times.

Instead, we now have the exact opposite - which of course implies that we are about as quarter as wealthy as our parents were when they were the age we are now. Chew on that one for a minute before you cast your next vote for anything at all…

[carryfast]

Winseer:
If there was ever to be an argument for “accepting quality immigrants only” - then all we ever had to do was use a points-based system in line with the rest of the commonwealth states - thus avoiding any labels of “racist policy” etc etc.

The fact that this was never even seriously looked at without howls of derision from the loony left - lays bare the lie that “immigration is about quality staffing” when in fact it was about importing new Labour voters and keeping them poor once here - so they keep on voting Labour. The fight to “climb out of the gutter” never ended when they reached the land of milk and honey where the streets are paved with gold - after all.

The workforce already here who found themselves displaced out of menial jobs as a kind-of bi product in all this - they are the very ones who flocked to the UKIP banner to the lesser extent, but the Leave banner to a far greater extent - explaining in part why the pollsters got it so wrong.

Deflation in cost of living with inflation in wages - means not just double the quality of life every generation - but four times.

Instead, we now have the exact opposite - which of course implies that we are about as quarter as wealthy as our parents were when they were the age we are now. Chew on that one for a minute before you cast your next vote for anything at all…

+1

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Firstly in the case of von Braun that was arguably an example of crime pays in his case rather than making an example of him.As opposed to the double standard of Doenitz being charged as a war criminal for a lesser if any crime.

The complexities of Von Braun’s case, and particularly his origin from an enemy nation with a hostile authoritarian ideology and then his rehabilitation into a pre-eminent space rocket engineer in a liberal democracy, is precisely why I thought he was a better example than Einstein or the rest.

Getting back to the topic example what exactly did the immigrant in question ‘bring with him’.

Lahouaiej-Bouhlel you mean? I can think of many reasons why the French do so in the same vein as already mentioned.

I go back to my key point that just because we don’t want wages undercut, doesn’t mean that there are no good reasons for free movement or that the only solution to undercutting is to close borders.

Close monitoring of rates of immigrant employment (easy to do with modern technology), having proper minimum standards of pay adequate for settled workers, and forcing up sector-specific wages (and reflecting on the adequacy of training and retention) in response to significant spikes in immigrant employment in those sectors, or imposing a tax on foreign-national employment, is a perfectly sensible way of managing the problem. Rather than trying to shut the borders completely but having no internal controls on wages.

The inability of people to support themselves without work is an implicit obstacle to free movement, and once immigrants struggle to undercut settled workers and are having to return home empty handed because they couldn’t compete with settled workers except on wages, the rate of migration will drop and we will naturally draw in only as many immigrants as we want (according to the wage and employment policies we set).

Those who are able to compete with settled workers will be higher-quality citizens, who have the best English, the best educations, and so forth, and even these numbers will be limited by our tax policies and the fact they have to compete with well-educated, well-trained settled workers created by an adequate industrial strategy (to use the old-new buzzword of the week!).

As for the so called ‘left’ calling for EU wide wage legislation exactly who and when did anyone within Labour ever call for that.As opposed to the example of Callaghan imposing wage increase controls for the working class but not for the bosses or for that matter prices.

Nobody is going to defend the Blairites. I don’t want to discuss 1970s Labour in too much detail again, but yes I agree they ■■■■ on the workers, and that’s because they weren’t revolutionary socialists and neither were most of the workers in the country whom they were ■■■■■■■■ on.

[rjan]

Winseer:
The fact that this was never even seriously looked at without howls of derision from the loony left - lays bare the lie that “immigration is about quality staffing” when in fact it was about importing new Labour voters and keeping them poor once here - so they keep on voting Labour.

Surely a better analysis is that the Blairites were trying to buy the votes of Tories, and garner the big donation cheques from businessmen who were getting drunk on the supply of cheap workers (immigrant and settled) created by New Labour’s policies?

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:

As for the so called ‘left’ calling for EU wide wage legislation exactly who and when did anyone within Labour ever call for that.As opposed to the example of Callaghan imposing wage increase controls for the working class but not for the bosses or for that matter prices.

Nobody is going to defend the Blairites. I don’t want to discuss 1970s Labour in too much detail again, but yes I agree they [zb] on the workers, and that’s because they weren’t revolutionary socialists and neither were most of the workers in the country whom they were [zb] on.

The obvious question being what exactly are you calling for.Is it a Marxist Leninist type Soviet Union for Europe in which Asia and Africa etc are considered part of that ?.

And/Or the Chinese type model ?.

If not and assuming that you’re saying that those aren’t what you’re calling for,or Wilson’s and Callaghan’s Labour administrations weren’t ever defined as Socialist,then define exactly what it is that you are calling for.

Bearing in mind the impossible contradiction of trying to maximise wage levels and maintaining national security together with an open door immigration policy without National borders and controls.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
Surely a better analysis is that the Blairites were trying to buy the votes of Tories, and garner the big donation cheques from businessmen who were getting drunk on the supply of cheap workers (immigrant and settled) created by New Labour’s policies?

The inconvenient fact being that no Labour government has ever been about maximising income levels.Not just the Blair administration and obviously not Callaghan’s.Bearing in mind in this case that immigration policy and definition of citizenship,regarding national security,is the issue and priority regardless.

[winseer]

Rjan:

Winseer:
The fact that this was never even seriously looked at without howls of derision from the loony left - lays bare the lie that “immigration is about quality staffing” when in fact it was about importing new Labour voters and keeping them poor once here - so they keep on voting Labour.

Surely a better analysis is that the Blairites were trying to buy the votes of Tories, and garner the big donation cheques from businessmen who were getting drunk on the supply of cheap workers (immigrant and settled) created by New Labour’s policies?

Big business though, never really cared as much as we’re led to believe over the “cheap labour” thing.

Why are so few firms really up there in laying on English classes for new immigrant workers in their staff for example (some do, but nowhere near enough!) and how come there is STILL this reluctance by firms of all sizes to actually TRAIN people do the jobs they want them to do?

…“Laying on training after all” - means that you can justify that minimum wage rate of pay a lot easier. There’s an argument that “we don’t want to train anyone, as they might up-sticks and move on the moment the training is done” - but I don’t accept that, as “Tie-in” contracts have been around for DECADES at this point.

I was originally on one myself when the firm paid for my HGV training. If I resigned or got sacked within 5 years - I’d have the cost of that training taken out of any wages left to come…

Meanwhile, you hear firms bleating on “OOhh you just can’t get the staff nowadays” when it’s hardly surprising - when they want fully SKILLED staff and then expect to palm them off with crappy wages as if they didn’t know jack… “Well - this mechanic can barely speak English - so I pay him minimum wages for something that self-employed they could get away with charging £50 per hour for!”

“Keep 'em ignorant” then is a lot easier if you take on staff with a poor command of English then. Once again - kinda flies in the face of the argument that “We really would like more quality immigrants”… No employers bloody don’t! - There are no £50ph jobs for them - so why pretend?

[rjan]

Carryfast:
The obvious question being what exactly are you calling for.Is it a Marxist Leninist type Soviet Union for Europe in which Asia and Africa etc are considered part of that ?.

And/Or the Chinese type model ?.

For now I’m a reform socialist, but I wouldn’t say I really subscribe to a particular model - because nobody has yet written a master plan that I’m willing to be committed to, and I’m sceptical of those who say they do.

If not and assuming that you’re saying that those aren’t what you’re calling for,or Wilson’s and Callaghan’s Labour administrations weren’t ever defined as Socialist

It helps to be clearer about the context. They weren’t socialist in the sense that once the capitalist economy faced a problem, they weren’t in a position to resolve it in any way that furthered socialism (according to any definition, and certainly not according to their definition). They reverted to defunct capitalist logic and attacked wages to re-establish profits (a process which continues today).

But before the problems struck, it would probably have been reasonable to describe 1970s Labour as socialists, whose incompetence and willingness to abandon socialism was, for the time being, latent.

then define exactly what it is that you are calling for.

I talk at length here about what I’m calling for.

Bearing in mind the impossible contradiction of trying to maximise wage levels and maintaining national security together with an open door immigration policy without National borders and controls.

It depends. If people are trying to maximise wage levels by exploiting inequalities between nations, then obviously you can’t allow the exploited workers to simply move out of the domain of exploitation and into the domain of privilege. For socialists, the answer to this is to unwind exploitation in a managed way, and help develop the rest of the world.

Nor can you wage wars against a foreign nation, if the victims can simply move into your nation, or already have. As I’ve said before, the frustration of defunct nationalist logic and the impaired ability of the old nations to maintain their coherency is part of the long-term political benefits of immigration.

[rjan]

Winseer:
…“Laying on training after all” - means that you can justify that minimum wage rate of pay a lot easier. There’s an argument that “we don’t want to train anyone, as they might up-sticks and move on the moment the training is done” - but I don’t accept that, as “Tie-in” contracts have been around for DECADES at this point.

The reality is that the cost of training is properly met by the state, that has the power to raise taxes or impose training levies against the whole marketplace to pay for the trained workers that the marketplace needs.

Having paid for the worker’s training, the state doesn’t care which employer then employs the worker, because the state gets its tax money back so long as the worker works somewhere in the marketplace (whereas an employer that funds training only gets their money back if the worker works for them, which leaves them wide open to other employers poaching trained workers, which impairs the competitiveness of the employer which pays for the training whilst subsidising those who don’t).

[dieseldog999]

what happens if a badger or fox wanders through le chunnel…? do they do it in,drag it back across to france,or do they repatriate it in blighty? …just asking ■■?

[carryfast]

Rjan:
As I’ve said before, the frustration of defunct nationalist logic and the impaired ability of the old nations to maintain their coherency is part of the long-term political benefits of immigration.

What could possibly go wrong.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
As I’ve said before, the frustration of defunct nationalist logic and the impaired ability of the old nations to maintain their coherency is part of the long-term political benefits of immigration.

What could possibly go wrong.

The impairment is certainly not total, and of course introducing too much strain (as with immigration used as scab labour) will do the opposite!

[bking]

Why have the French police told Nice city council to destroy all video evidence from the street cameras.What have they got to hide?

[the-snowman]

Bking:
Why have the French police told Nice city council to destroy all video evidence from the street cameras.What have they got to hide?

They say verbal diarrhea and mental constipation is a common symptom of having ■■■■ for brains.
I think that describes you quite nicely