Our political system, what 'is' the answer?

[diy_fun_uk]

I thought the justification was that there wasn't enough indigenous labour available to do all the jobs that needed done.
Also the easy availability of cheap imported labour has led to the creation of business models based on cheap imported labour.
Most of these businesses are run by Tory party supporters, that is why immigration levels exploded under the Tories.
We had Rishi Sunak an unelected PM from India, under his 'leadership' immigration from Asia was at record levels.

Rishi was born in Southampton.

This was touched on in last nights QT when discussing immigration. Someone on the panel suggested we need to glean ourselves off cheap foreign labour and employers need to start sourcing more employees from the UK.

Ok, fine. However, in relation to these jobs and the employers, how will this work in practice? Take the example of seasonal labour required on farms, often fulfilled by foreign workers. What does the employer do if they can't source enough folk from the UK to do the jobs? Or, if the answer is they need to offer higher rates of pay to attract UK folk, are we happy as consumers to pay that bit more for our goods/services?

It's all well and good saying we need to employ from within, the reality won't always be as straightforward as that.

 

[Vinty]

Fine, shut them all down. If they're calling themselves a court and issuing orders then they have no place in our society.

The Roman Catholic church also has religious courts.
One thing they have in common with Sharia and Beth Din courts is that they have no impact on Civil law , so any judgements they make can be ignored.
Participation in these courts is voluntary.

A.I

Catholic courts in the UK, known as Diocesan Tribunals, handle canon law matters, primarily marriage nullity cases (annulments), and have no civil legal effect
. They operate independently of the UK legal system, meaning a civil divorce must be obtained first. Decisions are purely spiritual, applying only within the Church.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Participation in these courts is voluntary.

"Voluntary" is very questionable when you're talking about religion. People are coerced into agreeing, that is just how all religions work. If you rebel then you'll be shunned in various ways.

The Sharia courts have produced some really dodgy divorce settlements, where women get almost nothing. She wouldn't refer it to a legal court as she'd be excluded from her community and/or her life would become unpleasant in various ways. So essentially it replaces the legal court, against the will of the participants.

 

[MNW67]

"Voluntary" is very questionable when you're talking about religion. People are coerced into agreeing, that is just how all religions work. If you rebel then you'll be shunned in various ways.

The Sharia courts have produced some really dodgy divorce settlements, where women get almost nothing. She wouldn't refer it to a legal court as she'd be excluded from her community and/or her life would become unpleasant in various ways. So essentially it replaces the legal court, against the will of the participants.

That's a good point. It's not something I've looked into much before.

 

[King Billy]

Which I'm assuming is coerced.

Of course you would.

 

[chirpychippy]

Where else in civilisation can you offer up a contract "manifesto" for works, agree the contract for works and then completely dismiss the contract once work has begun, without severe repercussions. absolutely nowhere is the answer.

Yet in Politics parties can be voted in through elections based on their manifesto yet when they break the manifesto "i.e our current Communist Party" we, as the people have no realistic power and either have to wait five years to vote in another bunch of lying tyrants or wait for a vote of no confidence.

MP's realistically are a bunch of self serving career driven ratbags who's main isn't for the betterment of the people they seemingly stand for.

Its all Crap.

 

[JBR]

"Voluntary" is very questionable when you're talking about religion. People are coerced into agreeing, that is just how all religions work. If you rebel then you'll be shunned in various ways.

The Sharia courts have produced some really dodgy divorce settlements, where women get almost nothing. She wouldn't refer it to a legal court as she'd be excluded from her community and/or her life would become unpleasant in various ways. So essentially it replaces the legal court, against the will of the participants.

She could become an atheist (like what I am!). Yes, she'd be kicked out of her community, but she could then join a more civilised community, dress like an English woman, eat what she wants, make some civilised friends, even think what she wants.
Atheism is the future!

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

She could become an atheist (like what I am!). Yes, she'd be kicked out of her community, but she could then join a more civilised community, dress like an English woman, eat what she wants, make some civilised friends, even think what she wants.
Atheism is the future!

If she was a muslim she'd probably have a death warrant from her unelected "community leaders". Which could make life somewhat less free.

Which nobody within that community would question, nobody would whistle-blow, and nobody would get prosecuted for it.

 

[JBR]

If she was a muslim she'd probably have a death warrant from her unelected "community leaders". Which could make life somewhat less free.

Which nobody within that community would question, nobody would whistle-blow, and nobody would get prosecuted for it.

True. Wait until they take over! Fortunately I shall not be here, or if I am I'll be in my wooden box.

 

[Vinty]

If she was a muslim she'd probably have a death warrant from her unelected "community leaders". Which could make life somewhat less free.

Which nobody within that community would question, nobody would whistle-blow, and nobody would get prosecuted for it.

That is why there is no point in abolishing Sharia courts.
In the type of community you describe, coercion will take place with or without Sharia courts.
These so called unelected leaders would just carry on as usual.
Coercion happens in sorts of communities.
Golf clubs for example, you fallout with the committee and you get blackballed and the members ignore you, eventually your membership gets terminated.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

That is why there is no point in abolishing Sharia courts.
In the type of community you describe, coercion will take place with or without Sharia courts.
These so called unelected leaders would just carry on as usual.
Coercion happens in sorts of communities.
Golf clubs for example, you fallout with the committee and you get blackballed and the members ignore you, eventually your membership gets terminated.

Your argument just became so circular it vanished up its own back end.

Perhaps it made sense to you?

 

[richw]

Is there any justification at all to import low/un-skilled people

I thought the justification was that there wasn't enough indigenous labour available to do all the jobs that needed done.
Also the easy availability of cheap imported labour has led to the creation of business models based on cheap imported labour.
Most of these businesses are run by Tory party supporters, that is why immigration levels exploded under the Tories.
We had Rishi Sunak an unelected PM from India, under his 'leadership' immigration from Asia was at record levels.

There absolutely is/was enough labour already: in a supply/demand market economy, you would struggle to run out. The typical options are to pay the workforce more, or innovate to increase productivity (so you can do more with less). Importing a 'slave class', morals aside, would act on a brake for either of those two actions.

I don't know who owns/runs businesses like 'Deliveroo'. Traditionally, yes, the wealthy/conservative types would be in favour of such moves, purely to keep the workforce in-check. Likewise, traditionally, the labour-led parties would oppose importing people, because the unions would rightly recognise the issues. But these days, it's clearly a uni-party, and both of them are happy to import slaves.

I am no apologist for the political parties!

I can completely understand that we (as a country) might want a successful businessman, sportsman etc. to live and work in the UK. We can have some basic tests, e.g.: do you accept the culture, and will you never need a penny from the UK state? Is that unreasonable? I can't imagine going to live in India, Nigeria, or even the US, if I turned up with no skills or money, immediately requested aid, and complained about the place non-stop.