Bring Back Boris?

[Nick]

Agri picking is pretty tricky to recruit for.  Aside from the nature of the work there is the constraints it puts on living.

Fruit picking is a) seasonal and b) location specific.

You cannot be a year round fruit picker and you cannot be a static fruit picker, you have to travel.  This is why picking jobs were traditionally done by travellers.  They would move from area to area as the various crops became ready for picking.

This imposes quite a lot of limits on lifestyle.  It is *very* hard to get brits to basically become travellers.

Seasonal jobs are very often done by migrants world wide.  A large chunk of the european snow sports industry ran on young (pre-Brexit, often Brits) migrants who worked a winter season before either travelling to the southern hemisphere for their winter, or did summer jobs elsewhere.

And that's before you factor in the hard nature of the work *and* the low pay.

We had numerous "brit pickers" campaigns and they all failed.

You don't need to travel if you utilise the local dolites, the hard work and low pay is not relevant as they would be forced to do it. Just a constant stream of excuses why the feckless cannot be utilised. 

[BeElBeeBub]

And as is slowly being proved, CO2 is irrelevant and you've all just been conned.

oh for FFS, is it sunspots? or cosmic rays? 
Maybe the scientists are stupid and forgot to account for the urban heat island effect?

[BeElBeeBub]

How about we us some of the bone idle dossers that are sitting on their arses? Don't tell me they don't live near by cause you don't know that. The will be a fair number in the area that can be made to work.

Your last statement is 2 exact scenarios so what are you talking about?

Agri picking is pretty tricky to recruit for.  Aside from the nature of the work there is the constraints it puts on living.

Fruit picking is a) seasonal and b) location specific.

You cannot be a year round fruit picker and you cannot be a static fruit picker, you have to travel.  This is why picking jobs were traditionally done by travellers.  They would move from area to area as the various crops became ready for picking.

This imposes quite a lot of limits on lifestyle.  It is *very* hard to get brits to basically become travellers.

Seasonal jobs are very often done by migrants world wide.  A large chunk of the european snow sports industry ran on young (pre-Brexit, often Brits) migrants who worked a winter season before either travelling to the southern hemisphere for their winter, or did summer jobs elsewhere.

And that's before you factor in the hard nature of the work *and* the low pay.

We had numerous "brit pickers" campaigns and they all failed. 

[Nick]

And we're back into the unsavory waters......

Let me make this simple for you: per capita is different from total.

developing wold wants to and will develop.  All we can do is try to guide that development in the lowest carbon way possible.  the best way to do that is lead by example.

The average american emits about 15t CO2e per year, The average Brit about 6t CO2e (similar to other europeans).  I wouldn't say our standard of living is much inferior to americans.  if america adopted european approaches (notably building efficiency and cars) they could slash their emissions and only have to live like Swedes or Danes. 

Depending on which figures you use the "sustainable" emission per head for earth is around about 2t

Cutting UK emissions by 2/3 will be tough, but not impossible.  over half of our carbon footprint is transport and heating our buildings, both areas we can improve on.

And as is slowly being proved, CO2 is irrelevant and you've all just been conned. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Not irrelevant at all.  If there are too many people in Bangladesh, they are forced to find a solution, which may be having fewer kids, or going without electricity, or whatever.  Cost of living and energy consumption is much greater per capita living in the UK than Bangladesh.

So, you haven't explained your contradiction of needing to maintain mass immigration, while needing to reduce energy and water.  Unless your solution is keep mass immigration, while telling British citizens to have fewer kids, in some sort of population replacement.  Is that your solution?

And we're back into the unsavory waters......

Let me make this simple for you: per capita is different from total.

 developing wold wants to and will develop.  All we can do is try to guide that development in the lowest carbon way possible.  the best way to do that is lead by example.

The average american emits about 15t CO2e per year, The average Brit about 6t CO2e (similar to other europeans).  I wouldn't say our standard of living is much inferior to americans.  if america adopted european approaches (notably building efficiency and cars) they could slash their emissions and only have to live like Swedes or Danes.  

Depending on which figures you use the "sustainable" emission per head for earth is around about 2t

Cutting UK emissions by 2/3 will be tough, but not impossible.  over half of our carbon footprint is transport and heating our buildings, both areas we can improve on.

[Nick]

It would (and is) damage the agri sector if fruit pickers were here.

like wise many other sectors require labour.  If you don't have the labour the product/service either doesn't get produced or goes up in price. The care sector (both young and old) is in dire straits because it can't get people willing to wipe arses and clean up puke at all hours of the day and night.  If it put wages up enough to attract people away from shelf stacking or working at Burger King, then the price of the care service (already too expensive for many) would go up *and* the supermarket shelves and burgers would go unstacked/unflipped.

In aggregate immigrants are a net positive for the public purse (they contribute more taxes than the state pays in services) - this went especially for EU migrants.

You mention the migrants getting old and (presumably becoming a drain of the public purse, like most old people eventually become).  Well, there is good news there.  Migrants are much more likely to emigrate out of the UK (often to their home country) then non migrants.  That is to say a lot of migrants come to the UK when they are young, work for a while then emigrate back home.

Unlike Brits who tend to emigrate when they get old.

How about we us some of the bone idle dossers that are sitting on their arses? Don't tell me they don't live near by cause you don't know that. The will be a fair number in the area that can be made to work.

Your last statement is 2 exact scenarios so what are you talking about?

[BeElBeeBub]

How many were returned before we left the EU?  1?  2?Of course the government has deemed this.  They are pro immigration.  That doesn't mean these people are actually in the national interest.Would it damage the long-term economy if foreign fruit-pickers were not here?

So your solution is more people, which means more costs, more population, eventually all getting old, more costs, in an eternal spiral.  Not very carefully thought through.

It would (and is) damage the agri sector if fruit pickers were here.

like wise many other sectors require labour.  If you don't have the labour the product/service either doesn't get produced or goes up in price. The care sector (both young and old) is in dire straits because it can't get people willing to wipe arses and clean up puke at all hours of the day and night.  If it put wages up enough to attract people away from shelf stacking or working at Burger King, then the price of the care service (already too expensive for many) would go up *and* the supermarket shelves and burgers would go unstacked/unflipped.

In aggregate immigrants are a net positive for the public purse (they contribute more taxes than the state pays in services) - this went especially for EU migrants.

You mention the migrants getting old and (presumably becoming a drain of the public purse, like most old people eventually become).  Well, there is good news there.  Migrants are much more likely to emigrate out of the UK (often to their home country) then non migrants.  That is to say a lot of migrants come to the UK when they are young, work for a while then emigrate back home.

Unlike Brits who tend to emigrate when they get old. 

[BeElBeeBub]

in 2018 (last full year  icould find figures for

Uk deported (not always to the EU)
9k asylum seekers forced deportation
15k asylum seekers voluntarily returned
19k asylum seekers refused and returned at points of entry

Of no asylum seekers the equivilent numbers were 5.5k, 15k and 20k

So all told, if we exclude the refused entry lot, a bit under 45k people were removed.

[Nick]

Developed countries in the West are generally having lower birth rates, which seems to indicate that better health and welfare systems gradually alter the idea that people need to have larger families to provide for family income, security in old age, or whatever.

Could be an argument for the world's developed countries putting more effort into helping regions of Africa, the Indian Subcontinent, South America, etc, to develop and be able to sustain themselves in a higher and more healthy standard of living, so they don't feel the need for large families or to emigrate...

It's called allowing them to develop, and not making the poorest people on the planet use the most expensive form of power. Let them build power stations and stop them from dying. 

[Borchester]

Developed countries in the West are generally having lower birth rates, which seems to indicate that better health and welfare systems gradually alter the idea that people need to have larger families to provide for family income, security in old age, or whatever.

Could be an argument for the world's developed countries putting more effort into helping regions of Africa, the Indian Subcontinent, South America, etc, to develop and be able to sustain themselves in a higher and more healthy standard of living, so they don't feel the need for large families or to emigrate...

I like immigrants, who are usually full of bounce and push. However, I have nothing against a tax being levied against Lib Dems such as Pat so as to buy rubber Johnnies for the third world

[patman post]

Not irrelevant at all.  If there are too many people in Bangladesh, they are forced to find a solution, which may be having fewer kids, or going without electricity, or whatever.  Cost of living and energy consumption is much greater per capita living in the UK than Bangladesh.

So, you haven't explained your contradiction of needing to maintain mass immigration, while needing to reduce energy and water.  Unless your solution is keep mass immigration, while telling British citizens to have fewer kids, in some sort of population replacement.  Is that your solution?

Developed countries in the West are generally having lower birth rates, which seems to indicate that better health and welfare systems gradually alter the idea that people need to have larger families to provide for family income, security in old age, or whatever.

Could be an argument for the world's developed countries putting more effort into helping regions of Africa, the Indian Subcontinent, South America, etc, to develop and be able to sustain themselves in a higher and more healthy standard of living, so they don't feel the need for large families or to emigrate...

[Scott777]

No, the demand for those things is created by the people being alive. Whether they need the heat/water/transport in Lithuania, Bangladesh or England is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all.  If there are too many people in Bangladesh, they are forced to find a solution, which may be having fewer kids, or going without electricity, or whatever.  Cost of living and energy consumption is much greater per capita living in the UK than Bangladesh.

So, you haven't explained your contradiction of needing to maintain mass immigration, while needing to reduce energy and water.  Unless your solution is keep mass immigration, while telling British citizens to have fewer kids, in some sort of population replacement.  Is that your solution?

[Scott777]

It should be noted that Brexit actually made the boat issue harder, previously the migrants could be returned to the continent under an agreement.

How many were returned before we left the EU?  1?  2?

"People with no qualifications or experience" is harder, they are already assessed as they need a visa to come. The fact they get a visa means the UK government has.deemed their entry as in the national interest.

Of course the government has deemed this.  They are pro immigration.  That doesn't mean these people are actually in the national interest.

We are short of people to.do jobs in the UK, so we either get people in, pay an awful.lot.more to entice some to do the job (which also stops them from doing whatever else you they were.doing) or just don't get the.jib done.

Would it damage the long-term economy if foreign fruit-pickers were not here?

Seeing as the 2nd and 3rd options generally harm economic production governments who don't want to Bork our economy tend to do the former, although it's alot harder and more expensive now.

So your solution is more people, which means more costs, more population, eventually all getting old, more costs, in an eternal spiral.  Not very carefully thought through.

[BeElBeeBub]

Mass immigration creates more demand for these, and yet you seem to think we cannot 'realistically' reduce immigration.  You really have no idea what you are talking about.

No, the demand for those things is created by the people being alive. Whether they need the heat/water/transport in Lithuania, Bangladesh or England is irrelevant.
To support a planet of 10bn the average demand for those things per person cannot (with current tech) be the same as the average US citizen.

It can't be the same as the average UK citizen.

It will need to be less

The trick is to do that without lowering the standard of.living.  It is possible but we.will.have to make some changes. More efficient homes, more efficient cars and swapping car journeys for other modes as much as possible.

[BeElBeeBub]

Back-tracking again.  You began by saying there's a high chance of "major damage to the economy" if we reduce immigration.  Stopping ALL the boats and people with no qualifications or experience would reduce immigration.  Your opinion on it making "very little difference" is not relevant.  I disagree.  You are now shifting from "major damage to the economy", to "I don't think that" and your OPINION on what makes a difference.  As ever, Beelzebub being a slippery snake.

Stopping all the channel boats would reduce immigration by about 1%. It should be noted that Brexit actually made the boat issue harder, previously the migrants could be returned to the continent under an agreement. That agreement lapsed with brexit so now it is harder to return them.

"People with no qualifications or experience" is harder, they are already assessed as they need a visa to come. The fact they get a visa means the UK government has.deemed their entry as in the national interest.

Some of those jobs are highly qualified like radiographers or engineers, some are less qualified but no less skilled like care assistant or agricultural worker.

We are short of people to.do jobs in the UK, so we either get people in, pay an awful.lot.more to entice some to do the job (which also stops them from doing whatever else you they were.doing) or just don't get the.jib done.

Seeing as the 2nd and 3rd options generally harm economic production governments who don't want to Bork our economy tend to do the former, although it's alot harder and more expensive now.