Lee Anderson MP

[reddiesel]

Countdown said:

Good question. Given that there's zero evidence of SK "pandering" I wonder what the answer's going to be.

How do you substantiate there being zero evidence ? The bloke is a typical disingenuous Politician ( bone up on his association and subsequent treatment of Corbyn ) who made a career as a Human Rights Lawyer helping his own kind game the Immigration system . Its only a matter of time before him and his ilk will be hanging out the bunting in Newnham welcoming back Shamina Begum . Majid Nawaz is also on record attacking Khan for being an opportunist Politician who panders to Islamic Extremism in order to win Muslim Votes .

Edited by reddiesel on Tuesday 12th March 17:08

[crankedup5]

E63eeeeee... said:

crankedup5 said:

E63eeeeee... said:

crankedup5 said:

E63eeeeee... said:

crankedup5 said:

I disagree with Reform U.K. policy ‘net zero immigration’ I much prefer supporting the Governments policy introduction of the working visa scheme.

What working visa scheme? The one we've had since about 2008? Or a new one?

The recently updated one.

Do you just mean the fact that they changed some of the salary thresholds? Because that's minor tweaks to an existing scheme and certainly not the introduction of a scheme. What difference do you envisage the changes making?

I felt that the increases in salary thresholds is a significant change to the scheme, I support the scheme in the round, makes good sense. Government policy is high skilled high wages economy long term , so is consistent to raise thresholds within some high skilled sectors.

Given that the change it was undoing was barely reported at the time, I'd have to say you're wrong. But then it sounds like you don't actually know what's changed, and having attached yourself to a headline you're just waffling vaguely. How does the change impact on net migration and how does it affect industries which have typically low salaries but are critical like the care industry? What is it that makes you think this set of tweaks is better than any of the last 16 years' iterations?

The changes made were reported. The UK no longer has access to easily available cheap labour via F.O.M. That is the big change which Government have had to address with changes to the working visa scheme. It’s an ongoing process with changes to be made as industry requirements change.
Lower salary sectors salary thresholds remain unaffected.

My view is that it is morally wrong to continue exploiting cheap labour from abroad to fill job vacancies U.K. based workers will not apply for.

[pb8g09]

crankedup5 said:

My view is that it is morally wrong to continue exploiting cheap labour from abroad to fill job vacancies U.K. based workers will not apply for.

So are you saying your view is that UK employers should be legislated to pay higher to workers in order to attract people to apply for the roles? That sounds all very middle left of you - Are you sure you wouldn't rather vote for Labour then?

[W124]

Does sound a lot like what old Corbyn was saying. And he was right as well.

Bit tricky to implement though.

[President Merkin]

reddiesel said:

valiant said:

How has he pandered to the Muslim vote specifically?

Khan has supported a succession of Islamists both as a Human Rights Lawyer and as a Politician . He even chaired the Legal Affairs Committee of the Muslim Council of Britain who's links to the Muslim Brotherhood are well known . I well remember his defence of a Muslim Cleric Al Quaradi stating that he wasn't the extremist he was painted . This despite the fact Quaradi supported Suicide Bombing in Iraq and Israel , Wife beating and executing Homosexuals . In 2009 when Khan was Labour Minister for Social Cohesion he went on Iranian State TV denouncing reformist Muslims as Uncle Toms .
There is a reason Sadique Khan and George Galloway dress the way they NOW do . They pander to the Muslim Vote in order to advance their standing within these Communities . Two Cheeks of the same Arse .

What you've done there is largely quote chunks of Zac Goldsmith's widely denounced & catastrophically racist mayoral campaign in 2015. You're not the only one who remembers things. Still no anser on the wider electorate question, although, while we're on the subject of Zac Goldsmith, we can probably infer what the wider electorate actually think.

I'm starting to think Khan's policy suite isn't your actual problem wiith him, because you keep pointing to that view.

[ATG]

bad company said:

reddiesel said:

bad company said:

I take your point and would prefer to have been able to vote conservative. Sadly we don’t seem to have a major right of centre party at the moment. We need a Margaret Thatcher but I can’t see anyone of her stature anywhere.

There is a complete dearth of Political talent in this Country . Instead it seems we have been hijacked by self serving tokenist appointments promoted far outwith their capability . It doesn't necessarily need to be right of centre , it can be centrist making work pay and promoting traditional Conservative values

Agree.

Both Labour and the Conservatives got themselves hijacked by self-serving lunatic chancers. The first thing they did was to get shot of the grown-ups, but worse still, they stopped developing any emerging talent on their back benches, so when their chaotic leaderships fell apart, there wasn't a new generation ready to take over. Hence why the Foreign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer are both reanimated political corpses, which genuinely isn't a criticism of either of them as individuals, nor a comment on their political talent, but does mean it feels like we've got a caretaker zombie government in power at the moment, rather than a rejuvenation.

Labour has had some time to recover from this. The Conservatives will have time in Opposition to do so, and I hope to god they grasp the nettle. The civil service have shown in 97 and 2010 that they can help an inexperienced group of MPs fulfill ministerial roles pretty quickly. Vaguely competent government will give new talent the hope that they'll be able to progress and make a useful contribution which is genuinely what motivates the overwhelming majority of those who get involved in politics. It's all recoverable.

[crankedup5]

pb8g09 said:

crankedup5 said:

My view is that it is morally wrong to continue exploiting cheap labour from abroad to fill job vacancies U.K. based workers will not apply for.

So are you saying your view is that UK employers should be legislated to pay higher to workers in order to attract people to apply for the roles? That sounds all very middle left of you - Are you sure you wouldn't rather vote for Labour then?

Nope that is not what I am saying at all, we already have minimum pay levels. As always industry has to offer T&C at least commensurate with direct competitors that will attract people into the industry.

[E63eeeeee...]

crankedup5 said:

E63eeeeee... said:

crankedup5 said:

E63eeeeee... said:

crankedup5 said:

E63eeeeee... said:

crankedup5 said:

I disagree with Reform U.K. policy ‘net zero immigration’ I much prefer supporting the Governments policy introduction of the working visa scheme.

What working visa scheme? The one we've had since about 2008? Or a new one?

The recently updated one.

Do you just mean the fact that they changed some of the salary thresholds? Because that's minor tweaks to an existing scheme and certainly not the introduction of a scheme. What difference do you envisage the changes making?

I felt that the increases in salary thresholds is a significant change to the scheme, I support the scheme in the round, makes good sense. Government policy is high skilled high wages economy long term , so is consistent to raise thresholds within some high skilled sectors.

Given that the change it was undoing was barely reported at the time, I'd have to say you're wrong. But then it sounds like you don't actually know what's changed, and having attached yourself to a headline you're just waffling vaguely. How does the change impact on net migration and how does it affect industries which have typically low salaries but are critical like the care industry? What is it that makes you think this set of tweaks is better than any of the last 16 years' iterations?

The changes made were reported. The UK no longer has access to easily available cheap labour via F.O.M. That is the big change which Government have had to address with changes to the working visa scheme. It’s an ongoing process with changes to be made as industry requirements change.
Lower salary sectors salary thresholds remain unaffected.

My view is that it is morally wrong to continue exploiting cheap labour from abroad to fill job vacancies U.K. based workers will not apply for.

The changes in 2019 were reported? Not widely, I don't think, but feel free to provide some links to prove otherwise. And I thought the undercutting rules had been changed across the board, not just for higher salary sectors as you're suggesting. Again, feel free to point us at some evidence that you're correct. Also you should explain how preventing workers bringing dependants fits in with your idea that this is a replacement for FOM. Surely the change in dependant ratios was a consequence of replacing young mobile Europeans with older non-Europeans who are looking to settle, and EEA nationals could bring dependants.

[pb8g09]

crankedup5 said:

Nope that is not what I am saying at all, we already have minimum pay levels. As always industry has to offer T&C at least commensurate with direct competitors that will attract people into the industry.

So going back to care workers then. What other levers can ‘industry’ pull for more labour there? There’s already an apprenticeship scheme, so free education is out. Can’t mandate extended holidays or flexible working because obviously that can’t be implemented. So beyond pay, what other T&C can care homes do to encourage English people to become carers that Lee Anderson and the gang can achieve?

Maybe we could increase the pool of labour they could hire? Oh wait you want that banned because foreigners are stealing the jobs.

[Sticks.]

crankedup5 said:

Nope that is not what I am saying at all, we already have minimum pay levels. As always industry has to offer T&C at least commensurate with direct competitors that will attract people into the industry.

You can generally earn as much in a shop as spending all day bent double in a field.

[reddiesel]

President Merkin said:

What you've done there is largely quote chunks of Zac Goldsmith's widely denounced & catastrophically racist mayoral campaign in 2015. You're not the only one who remembers things. Still no anser on the wider electorate question, although, while we're on the subject of Zac Goldsmith, we can probably infer what the wider electorate actually think.

I'm starting to think Khan's policy suite isn't your actual problem wiith him, because you keep pointing to that view.

I haven't quoted anything from Zac Goldsmith so that's the first apology you owe me . Secondly as regards the wider electorate i.e. those outside London I suspect many share my views .

[bitchstewie]

How does Khan dress?

[MC Bodge]

Sticks. said:

You can generally earn as much in a shop as spending all day bent double in a field.

..as a sex worker?

[reddiesel]

ATG said:

Both Labour and the Conservatives got themselves hijacked by self-serving lunatic chancers. The first thing they did was to get shot of the grown-ups, but worse still, they stopped developing any emerging talent on their back benches, so when their chaotic leaderships fell apart, there wasn't a new generation ready to take over. Hence why the Foreign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer are both reanimated political corpses, which genuinely isn't a criticism of either of them as individuals, nor a comment on their political talent, but does mean it feels like we've got a caretaker zombie government in power at the moment, rather than a rejuvenation.

Labour has had some time to recover from this. The Conservatives will have time in Opposition to do so, and I hope to god they grasp the nettle. The civil service have shown in 97 and 2010 that they can help an inexperienced group of MPs fulfill ministerial roles pretty quickly. Vaguely competent government will give new talent the hope that they'll be able to progress and make a useful contribution which is genuinely what motivates the overwhelming majority of those who get involved in politics. It's all recoverable.

Is it recoverable ? People it seems are deserting the Electoral Process in droves and as for self serving lunatic chancers hijacking parties I think its much deeper than that . For me its as much about Populist Politicians and Policy that seems derived from what's current on Social Media