Regarding last night : Immigration & multiculturalism

[Colston]

They took all the trees
And put them in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to seem 'em
Don't it always seem to go,
That you don't know what you’ve got
‘Til it’s gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

Most of the countryside is used for items such as rape seed {i.e. low growing crops}, not for trees. If there is a building built on some of the land, there would be investments, and instead of growing corn, you may find they plant trees, i.e. opening up the green belt could increase the number of trees, not reduce it. Indeed, intensive farming is harmful to the land.

p.s. The present high prices means most people could work all their lives and never have a house mortgage-free, where traditionally the 25 year mortgage was supposed to make a home-owner pay-off his mortgage after 25 years.

Something doesn't feel right about an economy based on home ownership to me... I don't know enough about it to have a reasoned argument against it except that it rewards speculation and profiteering and that seems to fuel inequality.

Just a hunch though.

Plus... it is not just trees. I like grass too.

[Mandy]

Something doesn't feel right about an economy based on home ownership to me... I don't know enough about it to have a reasoned argument against it except that it rewards speculation and profiteering and that seems to fuel inequality.

Just a hunch though.

Plus... it is not just trees. I like grass too.

In many countries (e.g. Switzerland) , very few people buy, and most rent. The problem with buying is you are tied down to one location and reduces your mobility (e..g to move around the country to get work).

Also,after every boom in prices, there is a bust (e.g. 1988 - 1994).

"Ownership" versus "Rental" is a different discussion to my main point here that the government should relax the draconian planning laws which artificially restrict supply of properties, and thus drive up the prices for everyone, which rewards the super-rich and the property speculators.

If by relaxing the rules, house prices drop, that would punish speculators. With house prices dropping, and with huge competition, there won't be a flood of houses in the countryside .. since it would be a buyer's market, and builders would realise that.

[Mandy]

I'm starting to question whether this whole idea of combining politician/performer is a good idea. (And that's what got me interested in Galloway at first, whether there might be new ways of doing politics in this age of mass media.) Last night seemed like he was straining for phony talk-show "passion", but providing no light.

I believe there was a caller who said there was unrestricted immigration. George disagreed, and the caller said what about people from Romania & Hungary, to which George replied they are part of the EEC where British people also move abroad in the EEC.

As such, it seems George doesn't advocate unrestricted immigration, but realises we are in the EEC, so the rules for EEC citizens are different to non-EEC citizens.

Regarding being "politician/performer / new ways of doing politics in this age of mass media", I think George is doing excellently .. which other politician has managed to leave (or get kicked out) of a mainstream party .. and managed to maintain such a high profile and a thorn in the side of the establishment without getting back to the mainstream party ?

[popinjay]

I propose 60 million immigrants come here, and we all sit on the dole.

[Mandy]

I propose 60 million immigrants come here, and we all sit on the dole.

Many a true word spoken in jest. Let's look at this seriously :

(a) If the immigrants were paying more than enough taxes to cover their "costs" throughout their life-time.

(b) If the new immigrants assistance increased the revenue of the government (e.g. by improving items which the government or others export), i.e. a benefit to the state, just like with more taxation.

(c) If there was place to house them without distorting the housing market.

(d) If the issue of voting (i.e. who is entitled to vote, i.e. how long before immigrants have a right to vote) is agreed.

Then what you propose could be an option .. let's see how the keep England "English" fans say to the choice of staying at home and being paid for it. Using the phrase "on the dole" sounds emotive .. how about being paid to do nothing and enjoy a life time of leisure ? Isn't that what people accuse the "idle princes" of the middle east of doing, i.e. living on state handouts ?

I am unsure if I want to mention that in Star Trek, the Earth was technologically advanced to provide anything which anyone reasonably wanted for free .. and money was abolished. People "worked" for the pleasure/intellectual challenge of it [though there were still a few "traders" who tried to make "profit", but these tended to "immigrants" (i.e. from foreign land)]


p.s. In today's modern age of internet, imagine everyone worked at home. Would you object to all these immigrants staying in their home countries, but paying UK taxes ? I would imagine you won't object. So what is the big deal of them renting a home in the UK where they also work from home ? The rent itself they pay is taxable .. and the items they buy (even on the internet) would be taxable .. And if you do see the immigrants, well, it provides some multi-multiculturalism and saves you the cost of travelling overseas to experience a different culture.

[DavidGig]

it seems George doesn't advocate unrestricted immigration,

You're probably right. (Although completely unrestricted immigration is a pretty extreme position. I think it'd be hard to run a country if there were NO borders.) My main beef was how little discussion he allowed on the issue. It was as if to even raise the topic was outrageous. It's odd that after all these months you and I can't really be sure exactly what his position is, and why.

which other politician has managed to leave (or get kicked out) of a mainstream party .. and managed to maintain such a high profile and a thorn in the side of the establishment without getting back to the mainstream party ?

Oh, I definitely agree. And as I say, that's what I find interesting. But there are risks on the path he's chosen. Think about what passes for "discussion" on most talk radio -- there's a big premium on anger, combativeness, the short-and-snappy, the weird-and-wacky. And GG is competing with that for the ratings that will allow him to stay on. To be honest, the whole format of talk radio is pretty trivializing. (One damn comment after another from random angry callers isn't really a conversation. Every time an interesting idea comes up, the next caller goes in a different direction. It's fun, but it's not very educational.) But it's the price he has to pay for the opportunity to slip a few good ideas in here and there. So far he's done fine.

[Mandy]

it seems George doesn't advocate unrestricted immigration,

You're probably right. (Although completely unrestricted immigration is a pretty extreme position. I think it'd be hard to run a country if there were NO borders.) My main beef was how little discussion he allowed on the issue. It was as if to even raise the topic was outrageous. It's odd that after all these months you and I can't really be sure exactly what his position is, and why.

The callers on Saturday tended to be extreme (one way or another) .. no callers raised the issue of how to manage migration policies .. they tended to be either totally for no immigration .. or totally pro-immigration.

This is why I opened this thread .. to cover the "middle" ground.

I am sure that if a texter or caller raises this issue, George would address it.

which other politician has managed to leave (or get kicked out) of a mainstream party .. and managed to maintain such a high profile and a thorn in the side of the establishment without getting back to the mainstream party ?

Oh, I definitely agree. And as I say, that's what I find interesting. But there are risks on the path he's chosen. Think about what passes for "discussion" on most talk radio -- there's a big premium on anger, combativeness, the short-and-snappy, the weird-and-wacky. And GG is competing with that for the ratings that will allow him to stay on. To be honest, the whole format of talk radio is pretty trivializing. (One damn comment after another from random angry callers isn't really a conversation. Every time an interesting idea comes up, the next caller goes in a different direction. It's fun, but it's not very educational.) But it's the price he has to pay for the opportunity to slip a few good ideas in here and there. So far he's done fine.

Agreed