Further or Alternatively

But it's broader than just the C of E (which, as its name suggests, is "of England", not apart from it). @luketryl.bsky.social pointed this out recently. The Left has gained the establishment in this country, as in the US.

Crossness Pumping Station. They don't make 'em like they used to.

Or at least, I consider that to be a distinctive and valuable strand of left-wing thought.

My point about framing is a point not just about rhetoric but about values: what is the value of immigrants? Are they just economic units of activity?

The free-market approach is "here's a market - in labour, goods, services, whatever - and it will decide". The left-wing approach, for all that it is also anti-stasis, is more "here are some people - workers, parents, compatriots - deserving of respect and better treatment".

I agree that the Left is pro-change, of course. But I disagree that centralised economies are not inherently leftist: I'm not sure what is more leftist than a communist state.

But the real point I'm making is one about whether you treat people as people.

(2) my argument is not that sometimes people on the Left have said some things. My argument is that the distinctive contribution of the Left to labour issues is not the liberal free market view (shared by liberals of all stripes) but an emphasis on collective & state action. This is obvious!

That's plainly not my argument. At the risk of repetition:
(1) the context for this debate is the argument from Starmer quoted below and the riposte *to that argument* that in fact being pro-labour mobility is left-wing. That's a debate about people with no jobs or current labour rights here.
...

Immigrants are people not currently employed in this country. They are not everyone.

The converse question would be: who has typically been more pro-*emigration* for economic reasons, the Right or the Left? I have no immediate instinct on that one.

But, as I said at the outset, "the framing of "mobility" is already right-wing". It's a way of thinking of labour as something like goods or capital which the market can allocate. It's not the only right-wing position (obviously there are less free-market forms of right-wing), but it's right-wing.

If you wanted to say "when it comes to allowing people to leave their jobs (or, more broadly, their current position and status in life), the Left is historically more in favour than the Right" then I might well agree.

Hence my quotation of Rose in the Brexit context, which doesn't make sense except in that context. I'm not ignoring anything.

The whole context for this whole discussion is the question of whether being pro-immigration for mobility of labour reasons is left-wing. That's about people not currently employed! That's what prompted me to comment in the first place.

The reason is that, while the Left has other strings to its bow here (collective action, collective bargaining, state action, workers' ownership of capital etc), the Right broadly has nothing but 'the free market will help you' (it has a bit of 'worker's ownership' too).

Right. The highlighted sentence you gave is wrong. I accept that all kinds of liberals (left and right) have been and are in favour of freedom of movement for labour. I think what is characteristic about the Left as a whole is its emphasis on *other* ways of improving the lot of workers.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that the history of the Left (and this is nothing to be ashamed of - it's a proud one) is stuffed full of the sorts of examples I cited. Nothing to do with feudalism.

Conversely, sacking all the old, skilled, unionised workers and replacing them with new cheaper ones is very pro-labour mobility but not very left-wing.

or factory, say), you could in theory run away to join the circus, or go to sea, but the reality was that people had (and still have) ties to where they live and there's a perfectly respectable left-wing case for trying to prevent employers exploiting those ties.

A lot of (very proud and morally-motivated) left-wing history is to do with trying to shift the balance of power between employer and employee in situations in which freedom of movement is a notional right rather than a real possibility. Maybe, if you lived in a town with one big employer (a mine...

"always" is doing a lot of work there. I'm old enough to remember the Brexit referendum and this exchange!

Not in this case!

Yes. I think "judgmental" just happens to mean "making unfair judgments" in popular parlance (and so there's an element of tautology in these arguments), but I agree with your sentiment.

Or think of the similarities with off-shoring jobs to low-wage economies. That's an increase in job opportunities for the new workers, who will get better pay in their new jobs than in their old jobs. That's labour mobility without physical mobility. But is that left-wing?

The logic that says that a worker might do better by moving to a new job also says that an employer might do better (i.e. pay less overall) by having more people competing for the jobs they offer.

No doubt! But "take advantage of a competitive market to make more money" is not the most typically left-wing advice. Surely the left-wing solution is for pay & conditions to be improved for the worker *without moving*, ideally by state or collective action?

"Get on your bike" may be Tebbit-ism, but I'm not sure it's very conservative, either. It's not very trade-union left. Maybe it's liberal: freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of contract ... freedom of movement for work?

That's an interesting question. I think the framing of "mobility" is already right-wing. Labour is worthwhile/a component of dignity/oppressed/ought to be paid more/the enemy of capital/good - those are left-wing positions. Is it left-wing to be in favour of moving for work?

Exactly. A top 10% income is somewhere in the £60,000s, top 5% income in the £90,000s - those are people with mortgages, cars, utility bills, council tax - not yachts and offshore trust funds. They are already paying lots of tax and can't do anything about it. What can you do about PAYE?

Check the international comparisons for yourself. There is really very little that high-paid salary-earners can do to avoid tax. Pensions, ISAs etc - there's not much more out there. Sure, if you're v rich you can emigrate to a tax haven. But for people in professional or managerial jobs - no way.

But the discussion here is about income tax and the idea that 'raising the top rate' is a panacea. It's frankly not.