The continual creep of the UK towards dog-whistle populism and all that follows from it continues with the government's announcement of new controls on migration.
As the Guardian notes:
Britain is to close its borders to unskilled workers and those who can't speak English as part of a fundamental overhaul of immigration laws that will end the era of cheap EU labour in factories, warehouses, hotels and restaurants.
They summarise the points system as follows:
As the government says in its press release on the issue:
In line with the government's manifesto commitment there will be no specific route for low-skilled workers. It is estimated 70% of the existing EU workforce would not meet the requirements of the skilled worker route, which will help to bring overall numbers down in future.
There will be those who say that this saves the UK from a breaking point, just as yesterday the government claimed that EU regularity non-alignment also achieved that goal, without evidence to support the claim.
Alternatively, as the CBI claims (with some justification), this will undermine the viability of many parts of the UK economy.
Brexiteers claim it does three things. It takes back control. It limits migration. And it will force up the price of UK labour, which will then be priced into work.
I agree that this will achieve the first of these two things. I really cannot see the price of labour rising significantly though: in sectors such as care and hospitality margins are already very small and there is strong price elasticity - meaning that capacity to pass on wage increases will be very low. It is more likely that we will see business failures rather than significant increases in the number of lower skilled workers already in the UK taking these jobs, which are already available to them.
The challenge that this move represents is, then, to the UK economy as a whole, where during any period of transition to whatever new labour rates emerge there will be periods of major disruption in some sectors.
These disruptions will, I suspect, be enough to have a serious impact on overall employment: it will not just be low paid jobs that will be lost as a result of this transition as whole companies fail.
And I suspect that this will also have a serious impact on growth in many low environmental impact and socially important sectors.
But there will be something, of course, much more important than that which will happen. Priti Patel has, I have no doubt, the intention of increasing racial tension when promoting this idea. The already commonly made claims that all who are not very obviously first language English speakers, let alone from BAME communities, should ‘go back to where they came from' will increase as a result of this move. Of that I have no doubt, at all. And I am sure that the promotion of that sentiment that this move will deliver is deliberate, even though as we know in most cases those targeted are British and have an absolute right to be here.
This government wants to promote the ‘otherness' of Europe, at the very least. That will deliberately fuel racial tension, which they know already impacts very heavily on the lives of far too many in this country. To promote such a policy knowing its consequence, is an act of deliberate racism is my opinion.
I cannot describe this move otherwise.
I condemn it.
Our path towards fascism continues.
Theresa May's once predicted Nasty Party not only exists, but is in power.
We could pay a terrible price for this.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
All the evidence shows that encouraging young healthy well-motivated and well-educated people to come to the UK is good for our economy. So this is further self-harm.
“factories, warehouses, hotels and restaurants“ are not the half of it. The health service, social care, farm work, etc. If nothing is done, we are going to see worse problems in manning hospitals, care homes closing with consequent misery for all concerned, and crops rotting in the fields. Unless we employ people in those roles with STEM PhDs. But no doubt some magic automation solution is out there for delivering compassion, wiping bottoms and picking soft fruit.
If the intention was really to force up the price of UK labour (that is, force up the price of UK goods and services, and fuel inflation) then perhaps they could take a more direct approach and simply increase the minimum wage.
I find the focus on PhDs quite absurd
Do they not understand that there are a great many other ways of showing ability?
And I know a lot of people with PhDs, unsurprisingly
The focus on STEM PhDs is also laughable when placed alongside the funding cuts by central government to university STEM research, alongside and admittedly to a lesser extent than other field’s funding.
(Yes, yes, I know. The private sector will provide… /s)
Agreed
Johan G says:
“The focus on STEM PhDs is also laughable …”
Hmmmm…. ‘laughable’ ? Not the word I would have chosen 🙂
“(Yes, yes, I know. The private sector will provide… )”
Pillaging foreign talent to supply the deficiencies in our own education system is a rather primitive manifestation of private sector acumen. Redolent of piracy really, isn’t it ? I can see how YOU keep despair at bay….you laugh at the folly. Maybe I need to follow your lead (?)
If the UK is unable to employ lower paid workers it needs, might this lead to supply side shocks, and hence inflation ?
Zimbabwe ousted all their black farmers, replaced with white farmers who didn’t have a clue. The resulting supply side shock caused hyperinflation. Not saying this would happen in the UK. However, with barriers going up between us and the EU, our major food supplier, and with farmers potentially unable to get the fruit pickers they need, this might lead to food shortages.
We’ve all had it drummed into us that its ‘money printing’ that causes hyperinflation, totally oblivious to the supply side storm that might hit us like a bus.
It might….except for the fall in demand because so many businesses might fail
Recession is much more likely, I think
If you are referring to the period since 1980, I think you might have your black and white the wrong way around, Tony… as far as I recall, Mugabe was not in favour of replacing blacks with whites.
Firstly, playground name-calling undermines your entire argument. As soon as I read such childishness, I am reluctant to engage with the potentially important points you have made. Racist? Fascist? Make reasoned fact-based arguments by all means, but leave the propaganda at the playground gate, assuming of course that you actually want to be taken seriously.
I note that you have conveniently conflated immigration and low paid labour. Let’s take the immigration aspect away for a moment. Are you suggesting that it is okay to deliberately and knowingly underpay a person, to the point that the system must step in with tax credits and other benefits in order that this person can survive? I would prefer that they are paid sufficient to stand on their two feet, and in so doing they will relieve the rest of us from topping up their wages and thus reducing our tax burden.
For sure, prices will rise, but we will have more of our own money in our pockets to pay for the increased costs. *That* is a fair tax system.
With respect, racism and fascism are not childish or playground issues
They are real
They have consequences
And you are very clearly condoning them
Racism and fascism are indeed real, and vile.
That you choose to mislabel government policy as such needs to be challenged, if only to speak up for those unfortunate enough to truly be subjected to these crimes against humanity. You throw these terms around like confetti and only serve to degrade them through inappropriate use.
That you so readily accuse me of condoning such issues, rather than engage in a level-headed adult debate, is all I need to dismiss anything you and your kind have to say.
прощай же!
So you seek to excuse this government when it is clearly racist and is displaying fascist tendencies
I make no apology at all
Keith Barber says:
“Firstly, playground name-calling undermines your entire argument.”
Sometimes it is appropriate to call a spade the ‘bloody shovel’ that it more closely resembles.
“Our path towards fascism continues.”
Many people from these islands might want to live in say Bermuda or Australia but can’t because of similar but far more aggressive restrictions placed on entry… for clarity and consistently, in your considered opinion, are Bermuda and Australia on the path to fascism?
Read what I have written elsewhere today
Fascism is not a single-issue topic
Steve pesenti says:
“…. are Bermuda and Australia on the path to fascism?…”
On the path to ? ‘Firmly entrenched’ would be more likely. I might be behind the times in regard to Bermuda, but Australia is probably ahead of us and proceeding apace. You know there is a political faction who seriously would propose to deport members of the aboriginal population ? (Where to?)
If you look at the points system above for assessing UK immigrants and apply it to the UK indigenous population you could make a strong case for deportation of a sizeable chunk of current UK natives. Where shall we send them ? Antarctica is thawing nicely, but perhaps not fast enough….. and do we have territorial rights for settlement ?
It’s a fascinating experiment in stupidity that is going on right now in the UK.
It’s an example, but I’m reminded of certain realities for one industry in this article from late 2018.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/19/christmas-crisis-kill-dinner-work-abattoir-industry-psychological-physical-damage
“EU migrants make up 69% of Britain’s meat processing workforce”
“Frontline employees in this multibillion-pound industry are often paid the minimum wage.”
It tells us that “people simply do not want to do this work any more”. Actually, that should read British people simply do not want to do this work any more. The Europeans do the work for us as they do in many other low paid, hard work sectors i.e. picking our crops. Boris and Priti tell us they are no longer welcome and is anyone else welcome to come and do this work for us considering the salary restrictions?
What next, forced labour? Chain gangs? A return to the Darling Buds of May as the UK gets in its time machine and goes back to its mythical golden age where Johnny Foreigner knew his place? Perfick.
Welcome to Boris not so Pretty Britain.
The slaughter industry as it is now and as it used to be are something that I can comment on from personal experience.
The pay in abbatoirs used to be good, as you would hope it would be for such a job. There were always different levels of pay within, with the most skilled earning the most. The industry slowly changed with it becoming more efficient and mechanised which brought in a higher percentage of low skilled, low paid jobs. The result of this was that, obviously, it would be harder to move up to decent pay as more were chasing a lessening number of the higher paid jobs and this in turn made the jobs less attractive. The growing labour supply shortage here was filled by immigration. As the lower paid jobs were filled the higher paid skilled, mainly British born employees got older and thinned in numbers with the supply pool below willing to take on these higher paid jobs for a much smaller raise in pay.
And maybe that was because of other factors as well e.g. supermarket price pressure
Smaller raise in pay that employers were quite ready to go along with since, as Richard points out, supermarkets were putting pressure on them to lower their prices so Tesco, Asda, Morrison’s etc…could keep more profit for their business, and/or compete with each other more efficiently to sell poor quality meat to their customers.
The whole supermarket meat business is built on minimum standards. For minimum, read low (at least in animal welfare).
If they want native workers in those abattoirs, are they prepared to raise salaries? Will Tesco & Co. raise prices on the shelves? Or will they accept to reduce their profits for a while?
Anyway, as someone pointed out to me yesterday, there soon won’t be any need for abattoirs or farms in this country, as we’ll soon get a deal to import very cheap chicken & beef from the U.S, clean & cut in squares, to fit in our plates.
When, in four years time, Brexit has failed to deliver on its many promises and is shown to be nothing more than empty slogans, will the people who promoted Brexit be honest enough to admit their mistake? Will we be offered the chance to reconsider the narrow result from the 2016 referendum? Probably not. The failure of Brexit will always be portrayed as someone else’s fault.
‘ I really cannot see the price of labour rising significantly though: in sectors such as care and hospitality margins are already very small and there is strong price inelasticity ‘
Strong price inelasticity means that demand doesn’t change much in response to a change in price. Surely therefore there is ample room for wages to rise without affecting demand.
How does that work when businesses are on tight margins Tom?
Richard
Tom Parker is right about the definition – if demand is price-inelastic, it doesn’t change much in response to a change in price.
The sectors that you mention are highly competitive, hence the low margins. Demand may well still be price-inelastic at the sector level, if the whole sector experiences higher wage costs – probably true for care, and perhaps for hospitality as well.
Tom, you have that the wrong way round. If a good has an inelastic price it means that a large change in demand has little effect on the price. So putting the price up by a relatively small amount would lead to a major reduction in demand. That is fairly obvious as many councils / individuals are barely able to afford care at the moment.
Tom Parker says:
“Strong price inelasticity means that demand doesn’t change much in response to a change in price. Surely therefore there is ample room for wages to rise without affecting demand.”
Well, Tom that rather depends how you consider and identify demand.
There are two distinct forms of demand. Demand for goods and services and the economists idea of demand which involves customers paying for stuff. Market othodoxy of supply and demand deals with this sort of dichotomy very well where it applies to non-essential widgets.
In the care sector the unmet real demand (the NEED for care services) is already huge. A large proportion of the demand that is met, is met through the agency of Local Authorities (either directly or via private sector contractors). Local Authority budgets have been systematically tightened. Slashed if we’re being objective about it. That means the effective demand (in market fantasy-land) is already shrinking while the real world demand rises.
To suggest as this policy shift does that by some magical process (‘economists’ do so rely on magical thinking) that these circumstances are going to be changed for the better by forcing up wages without any indication of where the money is going to be coming from is palpably stupid. (There is only one place it can possibly come from)
If the architects of this policy suggestion are not stupid, their objectives must be different. QED.
This is more societal wrecking-ball thinking. This government can do a great deal of wrecking if it proceeds on this course. I see every sign that is its intention.
How does what work exactly ? You made a statement that there is strong price inelasticity. What I think you meant was there is strong price ELASTICITY.
The latter would account for the low margins, the former would not.
You’re a professor of economics so I assumed this was merely a syntax error. Your second response suggests something a little more worrying.
I strongly suspect I edited one part and not the consequence
Look on the bright side. All those mushroom-picking jobs that Ireland has lost to the UK since Brexit (E European labour, costs in euros, sales in weaker sterling, so no longer profitable in eurozone) will be done by blue passport holders.
Or, more likely, people eligible to hold blue passports?
If the EU reciprocates, and why shouldn’t it, perhaps some of blue passport holders will be retirees returned from the EU?
Fire sales of EU property owned by UK citizens ahead?
To expect the Home Office to run this?
I agree there is a racist (and a sexual discrimination) aspect to this and other proposals coming out of this government and it is really dispiriting that some of the people leading are themselves sons or daughters of fairly recent immigrants to the UK who came here after suffering discrimination or worse in the country from which they fled.
I’m not sure I understand how this policy (which has many flaws IMO) is ‘racist’ and ‘discriminatory’ as, so far as I understand it, the same policy applies to potential migrants from all countries and peoples.
I’d have thought the discriminatory aspect was obvious
As for racist, it works on the accident of birth…
Richard
You are just making stuff up now. Accident of birth. Really? That isn’t racist, unless you describe people’s country of origin as being directly linked to their race. I’m white. I was born in India. What does that make me by your accident of birth standards?
And the discriminatory aspect? Are you serious? Unless you are saying that we should have totally open borders and let anyone who wants to live here come and live here with no checks or limitations, then you have to have some form of measure to allow or disallow entry.
That doesn’t make it discriminatory. The standards are the same for everyone wherever they may originally come from. So no discrimination there – if anything it is more equitable than the previous system where EU passport holders could come here at will but non-EU passport holders couldn’t.
If I were you I would stop digging your hole deeper, as throwing around words like discrimination, racist and fascist, which might sound pleasing to the woke hard left, leave the rest of us totally cold – because it just isn’t what the reality of the situation is.
But I guess with people like you at the helm of the left these days, it’s no wonder Labour is totally unelectable and lost the last election so badly – and will most likely lose the next as well at this rate.
What we are getting is a system that is profoundly discriminatory
One basis for that is class based, of course
The other important factor is that it withdraws human rights and the reason for that is to deliberately create ‘others’ – to deliberately discriminate against them
Ignore that and you condone the whole motivation in this – that this is intended to create ‘otherness’
And I am unapologetic for saying that
And it is irrelevant what others have – what matters is why this is
How is it discriminatory? Please explain. Because as I read it there is no discrimination on the basis of race, creed, class or colour in the rules.
Basically all you need is an appropriate job (with a sponsor) and the ability to speak English.
Which is the same rules as pretty much every other country in the world.
it doesn’t withdraw any human rights – because freedom of movement isn’t one, and it doesn’t create ‘others’ unless you mean foreigners in general. I.e. the rest of the world.
So basically you are talking nonsense, trying to whip up a storm of left-wing grievance along with all the other hard left sock puppets out there.
Fortunately, it seems most working class Labour voters don’t feel the same way you do, and that’s why they voted Tory at the last election – just like me.
But please tell us all, if this policy is ‘racist’, which means that you think any limit on freedom of movement is racist, are you really telling us that the UK should have a totally open door policy and anyone from anywhere can come here at will?
I have answered all these points already
You do realize that lots of other countries have very similar systems don’t you?
Including Australia, Canada, Austria, Sweden and that is just off the top of my head.
So are all these countries racist and fascist as well, or is it only the UK because we have a Tory government that you hate (despite claiming to be non- partisan and non-party political)?
Someone above in the thread put it well – you are just throwing the terms racist and fascist around with abandon, and are degrading their use and frankly you should be ashamed of doing so.
This has nothing to do with party politics per se
And it does not matter whether other countries have such a system, what matters is the motivation for this change and by ignoring that it is not me demanding terminology – I am using it to describe what is happening
I am unapologetic
I am guessing that you are almost always unapologetic.
It does matter if other countries have a similar system, because if our system is the same, then you are calling all these countries racist and fascist too. But I don’t see you doing that.
All I see you doing is attacking a Conservative government policy because it was written by thay party. If Corbyn put that policy forward you would be defending it tooth and nail. It is a joke to claim that you are not party political.
But your description that this policy is racist and fascist truly disgusts me. You are taking words with deep and serious meaning and throwing them around lightly, trying to make yourself look morally superior.
I doubt you even know what the policy says, but are only too happy to join in with the other overly loud people on the far left to attack it, when there is nothing racist or fascist about it.
As other have pointed out, freedom of movement is not a human right, so it can’t have been taken away. Certainly not for racist reasons.
By the same logic, is it OK that the EU discriminates against people when it comes to freedom of movement? If you have an EU passport then you can move freely, but if you don’t it is very hard to get into the EU and you don’t get freedom of movement. How is that fair?
Or is it just one rule for the EU (who you like) and one rule for the Conservative government (who you don’t).
It strikes me as being very hypocritical.
Given that I frequently criticised Corbyn, whose supporters and advisers had no love for me as a result, the whole premise for your argument is wrong
You are simply seeking to excuse abuse
Something is missing from this news story.
At first sight it appears that talented engineers from China and Russia are going to have an equal crack at getting a work permit in the UK, stamped NRTPF, as people from Czechia and Romania of equal talent.
That can’t be the right takeaway, surely.
It would be blatant discrimination too against EU nationals as stated by our host. With a racist undercurrent.
Since when was ‘freedom of movement’ a human right?!
Given that the vast majority of people on the planet do not have the benefit of this ‘human right’, who took it from them?
It’s so funny when you invent things to support your claims!
In the same way that a policy that treats all races and nationalities evenly, and which is common across the rest of the world, is described as ‘racist’ by you!
Should you really be using these words if you don’t understand them?
Since when was it a human right?
It has been our human right
And it has been that of others
And it has been taken away for racist reasons
And to create ‘otherness’, deliberately
Please don’t pretend you do not know that because I do not believe you
Just saying something is a human right does not make it so! How do you define a human right?
Was paying tax at 40% a ‘human right’ which was removed by the previous Labour government?
Are you suggesting that all other governments that do not operate freedom of movement are ‘racist’?
I have already answered your points
You are now tediously repeating them and that contravenes the comments policy
Stephanie Platt says:
“Since when was ‘freedom of movement’ a human right?!
Given that the vast majority of people on the planet do not have the benefit of this ‘human right’, who took it from them?”
I’m not sure this is really the issue here, but in answer to your question. In big picture terms freedom of movement was always a human right just by virtue of physical mobility and almost certainly explains why virtually all habitable regions of the globe are inhabited. Certainly so if you accept the view of human origins in the African rift valley area.
Who took the right away ? You know the answer to that. Ambitious men (mostly men) claimed exclusive ownership, created borders and protected them by force of arms. That’s the field we ‘play’ on. In Europe those borders are still more or less as decided by the treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
I’m not suggesting current territorial borders could easily be unwound but they are entirely a human construct.
FYI, human right
noun
noun: human right; plural noun: human rights
a right which is believed to belong to every person.
Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world. In the UK human rights are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998. … Human rights are based on important principles like dignity, fairness, respect and equality.
Can you explain how ‘freedom of movement’ meet the above criteria?
Thanks
If you really think that question makes sense you have missed the point
You are wasting my time
Please don’t call again
But whilst you are at it, see UN Charter of Human Rights Art 13 and realise that it has been restricted so a human right had been taken away
Indeed, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
“13(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”
[That is, the right to move freely within a country (compare the USSR, or South Africa), and the right to leave any country, and the right to return to your own country.]
Compare ECHR Protocol 4, Articles 2 and 3(2) – https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168006b65c
“2(1). Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
(2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
(3) No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the maintenance of ordre public, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
(4) The rights set forth in paragraph 1 may also be subject, in particular areas, to restrictions imposed in accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society.
3(2) No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the state of which he is a national. ”
”
[Again, the right to move freely within a country, and the right to leave any country, and enter your own country]
Both say there is a right to return to your own country, but otherwise neither recognises a human right to enter any country. Leave yes; arrive, no.
Freedom of movement of workers (and others) with the EU is a different thing – a legal right, rather than a human right.
That said, as I suggested above, these proposals are wrong-headed.
Except under Maastricht we extended that right across the EU
And now we are removing that right
So a human right has been removed
And the motive clearly is race, and the criteria meets that specification
So I stand by my argument as being correct
The reference to the UN was made as it was claimed free movement is not a right, but it is
And now it is one that has been taken away
My logic is, I think, entirely correct
I’ve had a shufty at Article 13 and it doesn’t mention immigration.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
I still reckon Johnson will backslide and exempt the low-pay sectors when it quiets down. It’s bluster for the tabloids.
Why not read what I wrote?
Richard
Can you really not understand the difference between a (Basic) human right and (Temporary) legal right? Conflating the two does you no favours.
Changes to legal rights happen all of the time – indeed you are very much in favour of changes to legal rights to implement your personal Political viewpoints.
Secondly there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this change is linked to race in any way whatsoever – the whole point of the change is to treat all countries, races equally from the point of immigration.
With respect, it is you who is making the error
And there is absolute evidence that this is racially motivated
Your presence here is no longer welcome
@Keith Barber
A government lead by a man who is on record for publicly using racist language, many times, and who, in order to get elected, borrowed arguments from a far-right racist party.
A Prime Minister whose main adviser chose to employ a well documented & published eugenist because, as this adviser is one himself, he can get help in implementing racist policies.
A Prime Minister who plans to curb the scope of the Judicial system.
A government who plans the dismantling and selling off of public services.
A government who plans to stop the only public media from operating with relative independence from it.
A Prime Minister who hasn’t been held to account for his lies and cover-ups.
A Prime Minister whose reign was introduced by a fraudulent referendum.
I’m sure I could find more, but those examples are, to most with open eyes and a knowledge of history, a clear trend, a clear path to the normalisation of fascism and racism.
Any attempt at diminishing the seriousness of what we’re seeing here is suspicious to those of us who have lived in countries where fascism did take hold in the not so distant past.
We know the signs. We’ve learnt to denounce them.
And we hear you, the complacent ones.
And because silence, when we hear you, isn’t an option, we speak up.
To answer Terry’s question as to how it is discriminatory the whole point of the legislation is to discriminate. Between those with higher earnings, between those with a “better” education. You cannot argue it is not discriminatory because that is precisely what it is designed to do.
As to whether it is racist well the effect is to allow financiers from the US and Europe to continue to come and work in expensive cities like London and Edinburgh. Those with better educations and UK sponsors will work for large US or European companies in the main. There may be some from other parts of the world but not many. What you won’t see is lots of PHD graduates arriving to work in Nottingham, Derby or other small towns. There may be some scientists who will want to work in Cambridge and other centres devoted to science but these will again be largely from the US and Europe. What the legislation is designed to do is discriminate against foreigners who cannot initially command a high salary or have the skills the Government deems necessary. The fact that the legislation by its nature seeks to exclude foreigners from entry to the UK is legislation based on race and so can quite easily be termed racist.
Governments design legislation to look as if it is one thing, usually seeking to look reasonable, so its supporters can claim as Stephanie tries to above that “there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this change is linked to race in any way whatsoever — the whole point of the change is to treat all countries, races equally from the point of immigration” while ignoring how it discriminates against others. If you wanted to discriminate against the majority of Africans, Pakistanis, Eastern Europeans etc what better way than to discriminate on the grounds of wealth or education. Behind the reasonableness there often lies different motives. I don’t know why the apologists don’t just say that what they want is to exclude poor, largely non-white people from the UK rather than hide behind this façade that the policy is there to be fair to all.
Ed note: this comment ash been deleted because inappropriate and unjustified accusations were made.
The commentator is not welcome here
“Ed note: this comment ash been deleted because inappropriate and unjustified accusations were made.
The commentator is not welcome here”
You just can’t get the trolls these days. Maybe the points system will ensure we import a better-qualified crop. ?
🙂
politicians doeasn’t care about people, they even doesn’t care about people who voted for them.
best option before this policies will be introduced is give all our PM opportunity to experience roles in vital sectors, sectors which struggling with staff. They are for people ,choosen by people and should be serving their nation. it is still long time before 1st of Jamuary 2021-in my opinion all MP should once of every month work 1 day in public sector and be paid money which are offered for this jobs-entry levels (MPs doesn’t have required skills and required qualiffication, therefore will should be treated as unskilled workers) amd for example one month:cleaner in hospital on paliative care, childrens or emergency ward, other day shadowing care assistants in care home, working as server in cantine or kitchen porter or kitchen assistant in restaurant, other day in warehouse as picker, go clean streets from rubbish, have shift in children hospicium, sit in the insuramce office and make calls amd try to sell insurances. summer will come and plenty of opportunities for them-one day pick fruits, another lay flat for few hours on slowly moving platform to pick salads, pick strawberries or asparagus. go work on farm with livestock-wake up 4am to feed animals and finish late evening.
all of MP should do this, just once a month for next 10 months. They living in unreal world and by experiencing what other citizens have to go through to put bread on their table, they will go down back to earth.
@ Wieslaw
I think if this page worked like Facebook, you’d get a good few ‘likes’ for your posting.
Too many of our politicians do seem quite out of touch with the lives of their constituents. And particularly with the lives of what they obviously view as ‘the lower orders’.