By Olly Deed
The election of two British National Party MEPs points towards a failure in approach to their politics. No Platform isn’t working, hasn’t worked in the past and will not work in the future and the sooner those of us on the left realise this then the sooner we can win back those two seats in the European Parliament and smash the dishonest dialogue on immigration and multiculturalism.
The BNP has been making modest gains in local elections for the past few years. This should have been accompanied with a change of tact from mainstream political parties and particularly Labour.
The BNP are picking up our disenfranchised voters, so we have a moral imperative to address this situation. This view may be hard to digest but a No Platform policy is not an effective tool for fighting the BNP; throwing eggs at their leader is not an effective tactic in combating them; running scared from the debate on immigration is not the answer.
Why are Labour ministers unwilling to raise their heads above the parapet and defend the immigration system? Why won’t they defend the honest hard working immigrants who contribute to our economy? And where is the defence of the immigration policy that the government has employed?
Instead of that defence, on election night Andy Burnham talked about the concerns people have about immigration therefore conceding ground to the far right politics of the BNP. So therefore, the government has to engage in the debate on immigration, but should try to frame the debate around the positive impact that immigration has had in Britain and will continue to have in the future.
This leads me back to the No Platform policy, which in the face of increased media coverage for the BNP needs to be re-assessed. The policy fails in many ways. It legitimises the claims made by Nick Griffin that they are different from all the rest, which they no doubt are in the context that he talks about. It gives the BNP an opportunity to extol its anti-immigration, neo-fascist nonsense unchallenged. And it turns the BNP into the ultimate protest vote in places like Yorkshire and Humber and in the North West, where voters are infuriated by the inability of the mainstream to function properly and are taken in by the diluted rhetoric of Griffin.
Let’s take them on. The reason why we’re so angry with the election of the BNP is because their policy prescription is so abhorrent. So what are we so afraid of? Meeting the challenge head-on is the only way we can win back the two seats the BNP snatched from Labour.
The Labour Party should rethink its no platform policy immediately. Otherwise we’ll have a repeat of Sunday evening time and time again.
Olly Deed also blogs at Deedo Dictates.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Re Yugoslavia... At no point did I say that people migrated to those regions in the past few years. Some like you say can trace their families back through many generations, but its incorrect to suggest that there has been no migration. The former Yugoslav government (after the second world war) transplanted Serbs into Croatia, Croatians into Bosnia, Bosnians into Serbia. All in an effort to reduce nationalism. Unfortunately integration wasn't high on the list of priorities. Serbs continued to associate with and marry Serbs, as did the Croatians and Bosnians. They may have shared the same land, but they primarily segregated themselves.
A hundred years ago, Albanians were a minority in Kosovo. A large minority granted, but a minority none the less. Prior to the Kosovo war they made up almost 90% of the population. High Albanian birth rates account for some of the increase, but recent migration from Albania also had a significant effect on that increase. The same applies to the Albanian population in the North West region of Macedonia. My maternal grandmother was originally from the Tetovo region. She remembers distinctly Macedonians being the majority population during her early years. Today, Albanians make up approximately 80% of the population in that region. Again, some of that increase can be attributed to high Albanian birth rates, but much of that increase is down to immigration.
You would think that over the course of those centuries, Croats/Serbs/Bosnians would have interbred to such an extent that they would be one nation by now. With centuries of sharing the same land, Serbs and Albanians, or Macedonians and Albanians would have also interbred to the point of being indistinguishable from each other. They haven't. They remain completely separate. Isn't there a lesson to be learned from this?
"despite all the apocalypic warnings, Britain hasn't exploded"
Yet.
You see the trick with immigration is balance. Too much too quickly and tensions rise, problems start. When you have high levels of immigration in a short space of time, those new immigrants clump together in their own communities, they intermarry, and it becomes taboo to have any kind of relationship with outsiders. We can see this happening in the UK today. Young Pakistani men who despite being born in the UK, do not refer to themselves as Brits. Despite having English regional accents, they still identify themselves as Pakistani. Most of their friends are Pakistani, and many will invariably marry a "respectful Pakistani girl". It's not the BNP that's stopping them from integrating with the UK population though. They're stopping themselves. Do you seriously think that that attitude is going to change? Just look at the Serbs/Croats/Bosnians/Albanians/Macedonians from the former Yugoslavia. All as separate today as they've ever been.
Paced immigration on the other hand has the benefit of slowly integrating newcomers into the main population. There is a gradual transference of culture that goes both ways and the added benefit of a wider gene pool. The country as a whole benefits.
No-platform has been a (demonstrably unsucessful but principled) stand against fascism. Immigration is a issue that affects all people of all backgrounds. To say "no platform isn't working - it's time to put forward a case for immigration" implies the two are linked.
The simple truth is it doesn't matter if all immigrants come complete with Phds, a pot of gold and the morals of mother Teresa, immigration hinges on one fundamental principle: it's a two way contract between immigrant and the people of a host nation.
The vast majority, including those who are non-white believe there is too much immigration into the country. One of the noteable casualties of wave of new migration from Europe where the largely south-Asian employees of Gate Gourmet, who were sacked and replaced by contract staff who were recruited exclusively from Poland.
The piece simply flogs the dead horse of saying "oh its the far-right". The truth is the far right are right for the wrong reasons. That is a fact you will need to live with. The extremists are in government and implementing a policy the vast majority from middle England, to previous generation migrant to eco-warrior do not support.
In a near future without North Sea oil and a near total reliance on fossil fuels from Russia or the Middle East then life is going to become very difficult with a bloated population some 2-3 times greater than the carrying capacity of our nation. Yes we live in an interconnected world and we can buy-in food. All I will say to this is have you seen the value of hte pound and our trade deficits lately? Add to that competition from other expanding populations and increasing transportation costs then the basic costs of living are going to skyrocket in the coming years.
You also need to look at what previous immigration has actually meant to Britain. Here's a helpful piece for those who think out economy is proped-up by immigration http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=462. Unfortunately you do have to question immigration from group who experience unemployment 2-3 times greater than anyone else. And before the default racism panic-button is pressed, I'd like to point out that the succesful Indians are pretty much as brown as Bangladeshis and Pakistanis.
Unfortunately this means asking difficult and uncomfortable questions. Like is importing people with a culure of partners not working who will qualify of benefits, require healthcare etc. a good idea? What about chain migration? Do we win if we import a productive young person, who then imports his or her dependent elderly parents? I would like to reclaim the word "discrimination" for that is exactly what we need in immigration. Not by colour but by education, number and most of all, need; our need as a nation. The issue of "british jobs for British workers" comes up here like it's broken some kind of taboo. Well, when you vote for your MP, whose interests exactly do you think he should represent? Your's or an as yet unspecified number of random people from across the globe?
Time to seperate these issues and re-introduce some common sense. This piece doesn't help, it's just more of the same that led to defeat and disaster at the EU elections. You can't win this argument, because more people either in Britain or globally is the problem, not the answer.
So I guess it'll be business as usual and the right-wing bogey men will be wheeled out time and time again. How sad.
I am not a hypocrite.
You have neatly avoided the real question though. Without immigration the population of this country would still grow. If we are full how do you propose to stop this growth? Are you in favour of China's one-baby policy?
So you focus on two wars and ignore 163. What brilliant analysis.
And if you really "don't know what religion had to do with Nazism or Stalinism" ask the Jews. Or at least those that are left.
Don't try to deflect arguments by calling people that disagree with you names like "silly". It makes you look small.
My political beliefs and the party I choose to vote for got out there, debated the issues, got in the face of the BNP and got the vote out. As a result Peter, the BNP vote was absolutely nowhere in the Tory voting Shires, Home Counties and London.
How so? Maybe because there aren't many Labour voters either.
So what is your line and your accusations of me? You are relying on a pathetic sixth-form student strawman because you've been summarily beaten-up as your point of view is so badly out of touch?
Because I am white, I do not agree with Labour's disgusting immigration policy and I disagree with you?
Wow... how do you get up and look in the mirror everyday - the mental anguish you must suffer.
I'll say it again, 'No Platform' was one very cowardly act steeped in right-on political ideology yet precisely what gave the BNP carte-blanche in these Labour heartlands.
All sounds great in theory, in practice, absolute disaster.
The BNP have been there all along, all the time, they are not a new phenomena, they found a weakness in political engagement (No Platform) and they exploited it.
Labour have gone up it immigration cul-de-sac, hung on the petard of their reactionary language and ignored the voters. How many people on here have commented on 'racist' Woolas and his immigration proposals?
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Live with it, they are democratically elected, they have a mandate and they were elected in Labour's back garden.
Looking at what Labour are going to do about winning these seats back, let's face it they aren't going to suddenly turn Tory or Lib Dem are they?. All I see here is just smears, denial, more hand wringing and a lot of liberal middle class guff.
And you wonder why working class Labour voters are fed up?
Now you can argue day is night and night is day, it's not going to shift my point of view at all. You can smear all you like.
Until this country gets it act together with its immigration policy then the BNP have all the ammunition they need.
Until political engagement with the BNP in debate is restored, they can say what they like without impunity.
That's very simple common sense. Now please say it isn't so?
Until Labour gets its act together - the BNP are here to stay.
That not apologism - it's realpolitik.
Unemployment is rising, services are under pressure. It's not rocket science or indeed bigotry or racism or fascism - to work out that continued immigration will result in more not less friction.
So no it's not all about England but 90% about England.
Why does the modern Labour party have such a problem with the "E" word?
I don't know what sort of crazy atomised world Guy lives in, but it bears no relation to reality. Leaving aside the 'morale' (sic) issue, wealth distribution and effective public services are good for the economy. Pushing others into poverty will make it very hard for wealth creators like Guy to find anyone to buy his goods and services.
Repeating politican's phrases such as 'the EU dictatorship' betrays an uncharacteristic absence of individual thought from you, Ms Stobart.
Certainly, I too would support greater democratic accountability in the EU. But then I'm a federalist and would love to see a United States of Europe ...
I used to work as an investment adviser to the kind of people that some on here think they are. The real ones don't have time to **** let alone troll.
It's like your parents always said, lie too much and you get caught out.
I don't doubt there are people who abuse the asylum system as much as the benefit system, and they should be prosecuted for fraud and/or deported. I don't doubt that there are problems with public sector housing and local authorities have complex budget problems. But to jump from that to the assertion that immigration has come at a great cost to the country is demonstrably wrong: even your own evidence proves it
What's up with you???
It depresses me that this actually isn't hyperbole but rather something you really would do. You are an angry fella, aren't you?
But yes, I can equally imagine that Guy M actually blogs in the basement of his mum's flat, in his underwear, eating takeaway Pizzas.
Unless people use their real names you have to assume they're fantasists when they talk about their 'real lives'.
I'm just amazed that Guy has the time to post his re-hashed right wing talking points on here what with his business that's making him sooooo much money and all those consultants he employs and all the job offers he keeps getting and all the time he spends canvassing as well as spending time with his wife and kids, never missing an England game at Wembley (not sure about the others they played in the 7 years when it was being built) for 14 years until last night when 58000 other people managed it.
He just sounds too good to be true.
You can't parse your way out of that error, Celia. You're just looking silly now.
You accuse me of planning a "cull" in maternity wards, when you approve of killing babies and I don't.
No, it's not ironic. It's sickeningly, viciously hypocritical of you.
It said "most".
That was the question I answered.
How very condescending of you.
You also have the great advantage of not lapsing into Latin whenever the going gets tough!
Yes, people that came from overseas, people that have lived here for 40+ years, have second and third generation family born and brought up here. They brought their culture and it became part of our own. Remember them? I'm sure they are really enjoying the worsening race relations thanks to the foolish immigration policies of this government.
Black-on-black crime is up, non-white inter-racial crime is up. People smuggling, racketeering, gang warfare... do I need go on?
You can sit there in your smug little isolated liberal middle class world Peter but these people don't have the luxury of choice and don't have the luxury of your ideals. Labour have simply thrown all these people together and basically done nothing to enforce any kind of cultural framework.
The intellectual paralysis and hand-wringing of the left can't even determine that the teaching of English for all non-English speakers is required as it might be an infringement of their cultural identity. For God's sake, what about our cultural identity as a homogenised race developed over a millennia of many walks of life? Do we still speak ancient French, Italian, Scandanavian, Gaelic, Celtic, Pict and Anglo Saxon?
You can pontificate, self-congratulate yourself for using smears all you like, I'm sure they perfectly compatible with your bourgeois intellect and chattering class friends. I'm sure you are all very worthy in your own minds.
However, in the real world, Labour have made things worse and in their desire to be inclusive have just poured oil onto troubled waters.
Thats what I call a Labour government and its apologists that are in the habit of bankrupting countries. Sadly when I look at my pay slip and wonder what the tax is spent on it hurts.
Peter you bleat on about trolls - I suggest that I see this a pure arrogance on your part. Trolls to you are just people who dont agree with you. Your opinion seems to be the most important and you MUST have the last word.
Leave the Tory voters to themselves and stop expecting them to fund your economic mismangement.
This isn't my government, this isn't my PM. I owe it no loyalty, I refuse to work to help it in anyway. I want it gone and into the shadows as soon as possible and it looks pretty certain that time is fast approaching.
I've said nothing about what I earn here, I've said nothing about where I personally live, only where I canvassed and then only in response to your ludicrous view that ABC1 groups support Labour.
My money that I earn is my own and I'd prefer if your type keeps its grubby little grasping fingers off it even metaphorically on pages like these.
I have said, backed by the facts that there is no discernable economic benefit of the levels and types of immigration into the UK we ahve seen over the last 4 to 5 years.
The research supports that to the tune of 62p per week.
As for the cost to local authorities try this 2006 link:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/200806413536644?f=rss
and Sir Simon Milton, head of the Local Government Association:
“I am the son of a refugee. My father was – to use local government speak – an Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Child. So I understand very well this country’s historic role in offering refuge to people in need and opportunity to succeed in life. It is why I am able to stand here today.
“And it’s why I feel so strongly that the government has mismanaged immigration so badly in recent years. There is no point in having an immigration policy if you lack the basic administrative capacity to implement it effectively. And yet government cannot even state with accuracy how many people are entering the country and where they are settling let alone do anything about it.
“And it is local government that picks up the pieces."
Final word though to Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep herself...
Hazel Blears: "has admitted that Labour’s policies towards immigration have been mishandled and that working class people on council estates feel that their concerns on immigration are being ignored. She also suggests that some councils do not have transparent housing policies and that the economic downturn could lead to racial disharmony."
Thankfully both Tories and Labour will heavily restrict immigration going forward and your idea that I and those like me have to subsidise migrants who offer nothing to the uk goes "bang"
Your arguments aren't even supported by your own party it seems.
As I said earlier, please don't go canvassing for Labour as all you'll do with your views is drive more of the electorate into voting for a racist party.
The canvassing of the wealthy neighbourhoods near me...
Boasting about how much you earn, what a wealthy neighbourhood you live in - and all this in the anonymity of a blog. If I wasn't such a nice person I would call you an insufferable arse. Instead, I frankly find it sad, and living proof of the failures of private education.
You bring no facts to the argument - just snobbery, prejudice and dogma. It's like trying to debate with a melting jellyfish
Go troll your own kind.
You are making the best of a very bad job though :)
The Tory core vote (those of the 40% in opninion polls of late) must be all working class
Dear me what a fool you are.
Again I'll happily take all the Tory voters and live seperately to all the Labour voters. You self fund without all the middle classes to screw out of taxes.
As I've said this isnt my government and it isnt my PM and I owe it not one iota of loyalty.
Go tax your own kind
I work in one of the toughest marketplaces there is and have earned my own crust for 30 years.
Where do you come from? This is like an episode Of Life on Mars. I'm waiting for the 'scroungers' comments next. Maybe complaints about students 'with long hair'.
You're antiquated prejudices about Labour voters is also ludicrously retro: AB professionals and high earners have voted mainly Labour in recent years. But hey, don't let a fact stand in the way of your ill informed condescension.
I had to pay for 17 years of Thatcher and Major. Did I whine like you about my money? No. Because I'm a democrat, and accept the democratic principle.
I don't need any of your money, buddy. You can put it where the sun doesn't shine.
a> Immigration is driving down wages
B> immigrants are a massive drain on local authorities.
The focus of analysis should rather be on the effects of immigration on income per head of the resident population. Both theory and the available empirical evidence indicate that these effects are small, especially in the long run when the economy fully adjusts to the increased supply of labour
Bang goes your great drain theory.
Unfettered immigration costs in terms of local service provision which hits Council Tax amongst other things. But never mind the middle classes can pay.
Con't lets discuss our contribution to the EU and the value we get as it's a useful body to promote leftisit ideas. Just keep getting the middle classes to pay their taxes to pay for the UKs contribution.
That's the ingrained naure of the Labour party and it's supporters. If we rounded you all up and added up your tax contributions you'd not have enough to run Andorra let alone the UK. You rely on the middle classes and business to pay for your socialist nonsense.
Peronally I'd like to split the UK in half and have all the Tory voters in one half and all the Labour voters in the other. Each half to self fund and govern. Your half would be bankrupt in months.
For 12 years I've had to pay to fund a government and PM that is not mine. You can't even manage who comes into the country and you have the nerve to say I have to fund your stupidity and inefficieny.
Non sequitur my ass, go generate some wealth of your own for once.
As for the pathetic ad hominem: since you hide behind your keyboard under a false name you can claim any spurious credits you want. It means nothing.
The Economics Committee to the House of Lords
THe Treasury's own research
An ONS letter to Frank Field
Now I know your sort would rather shoot the messenger than the message but when a report uses only collated information from those sources you're on rather thin ground.
Just to clarify you regard the House of Lords Economic Committee, the Treasury and the ONS as not impartial or authoritative?
Retract it or leave it. You were the one who adduced personal anecdote. I brought mind, and I find it a slur on those people in my family who've come from abroad, and the others who housed refugees, that you blame the rise of the BNP on their liberalism and tolerance.
But let your last words stand as an epitaph to your argument. RIP
Please link to known authoritative and impartial site. Like I did with factchecker.
He obviously also thinks that the affluent middle classes owe everyone else (including economic immigrants) in the UK a living as well.
My message generally to people like him I meet in real life is that I earn my money, it's mine and he has no morale right to take it from me.
If he wants to fund the EU distatorship he is more than welcome to. Personally I'd like the UK's contribution back as I think we could make far better use of it.
Peter is no doubt very very good at spending other people's money just not too good at generating wealth himself.
I'll try again.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2510611.0.Nine_out_of_10_immigrants_live_in_England.php
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6368575.ece?Submitted=true
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5387657/England-absorbs-virtually-all-net-migration-to-UK-MPs-warn.html
It's not, it's actually a badge of honour.
The original "Little Englanders" were opposed to the British Empire and in particular the Boer War. Back then, Little Englander's wanted to live in a small, peaceful, just nation.
Just like they do now.
Most of England's problems arise from Big Britishers like yourself and their delusions of grandeur.
It's worrying that in the best part of 100 comments there doesn't seem to be much in the way of agreement about the way forward on this.
.
.
immigrants are indeed different from the rest of us - as it is our decision whether they are our guests or not.
The country has after years of struggle rightly left racism behind. It is not possible to tun the clock back. Society has now deeply invested in a new framework.
To make the point totally unamibigiously, is it now time to look at our flag - our Union Jack - to see whether it ought be redesigned.
I would suggest an addition - which also recognises this country's (now diminishing) link with the past - namely the commonwealth - and also at the same time recognise beyong doubt that segment of the country that BNP describes as non "indigenous".
It is now time to finally settle the issue of racism - beyond doubt.
the time for "beyond doubt" is indeed now. I think.
The two main points that I was trying to make in this post, where that a no platform policy has failed to work and that the Labour government should be willing to defend its record on the issue.
Some of the statistics that have been referred to in this thread are misleading I feel. Mike Blakeney makes the point at the top of this thread, but bounding about a figure like 2.1 million immigrants means nothing when it is not talked about in context. How many of these immigrants, for instance, are international students who pay vast sums of money to study in this country? How many of these immigrants have jobs that are vital in keeping the NHS running? How many of these immigrants are working in jobs that workers in this country will not fill? Empirical data is useful in the context of this debate if it isn't used in such a vague manner.
I have to say I don't personally recognise the notion that Britain is full to the brim and that we should close the doors immediately. I've come to this conclusion having judged both the empirical evidence provided in this thread and my own personal experience and observation. Of course, there are those that disagree but I honestly feel that the idea that this island is full and overflowing with immigrants is at best exaggerated and at worse downright dishonest. Of course, I respect the views of those who think differently to me. At this point I should probably wheel out the obligatory Voltaire quote, but I won't because I'm sure everyone knows it.
I'm not going to defend the government's immigration policy because that isn't my job. That may sound a bit whet but this feeds into the debate that I was trying to instigate. Some people hear have arguably made some sound points about the immigration system. These are points that the government often hears but refuses to answer. Now if that is because the system is broken then I expect some honest and a change in the system. If it’s because Ministers are afraid to breach the issue of immigration because it isn't a vote winner, then that is cowardice. And cowardice will not win them another election.
Once again, thank you to everyone for replying and I look forward to reading the response to this article.
First of all, I said it WOULDN'T result in 'swathes'.
You are right, the BNP didn't do as well in the South West as it did up north (their share did increase slightly though). A very substantial 22% of the vote went to the UKIP though. (Labour got just under 8%). I'm sure you're aware that the UKIP want us out of the EU, and frankly with us out of the EU, most EU migrants would probably have to go home. Well, that's the rationale of some of those voters at least.
"This is a major theme in all societies, and you above all should understand, with relatives from the Former Yugoslavia, where this bullshit leads"
I know full well where it leads, and it's not community harmony. This is the point many are trying to make. Uncontrolled mass migration brings with it far reaching problems. Large populations of Serbs in Croatia caused dissatisfaction, unrest, and finally civil war. Large populations of Albanians in Kosovo had the same effect. Do you want the same thing to happen in the UK?
Labour underestimated how many Poles would come to the UK. Germany and France put a strict limit on numbers for the first five years, and even warned the UK to do the same. Labour's argument was that no more that 50,000 would make their way over, and we could easily accommodate them. How wrong they were. After finally admitting the sheer scale of the migration, our illustrious government imposed a limit on EU migrants from Bulgaria. If indeed the million plus Poles have had a mainly positive effect on life in the UK, why would the Labour government impose these restrictions on the Bulgarian population?
"Of course there is ethnic hatred in this land, as in all others. But I would have thought our task lies in combating it wherever we see it, rather than acquiescing in the new enemies someone has found. And the specifics of a few years of new arrivals aside, you and I have a vested interest, like many Brits, in celebrating the multifarious ethnic roots of contemporary cosmopolitan Britain."
Most people couldn't give a toss for celebrating "multifarious ethnic roots". Being encouraged to celebrate someone else's cultural history is of no interest to them. Calling people racist if they tell you they're not interested in celebrating multiculturalism, telling them they're wrong is the wrong way to go about it. It simply won't get results. Those that voted for the BNP and UKIP aren't interested in being told that they're wrong, and racist to boot. They're actually sick and tired of having other people's cultural beliefs thrust in their face.
For far too long, Labour wouldn't discuss the issue of immigration. Whenever anyone (individual or party) brought up the subject, they were shouted down as being racist. Funny that now that the BNP have two seats in the EU parliament, suddenly Labour finally wants to talk about immigration. I suspect that for some, it will be regarded as "too little too late".
What the government ministers have been doing for several years on programmes like Question Time is taking exactly the line you suggest. If anyone brought up immigration as a topic, ministers like Alan Johnson would say what you have said, then they implied that it was racist to think otherwise.
Frankly it's this approach that has stopped debate and allowed the extremists to gain a foothold.
What you have to remember is that net immigration causes rising population. Rising population has to be planned for by ensuring expansion of housing, education services, roads and other resources.
Unfortunately the government record on planning for the rise in population is dire. Certain areas (say like Slough) get to breaking point before anything is done. In those areas, competition for resources increases, council tax rises, the migrants themselves live in slum conditions, locals get upset and the government doesn't seem to care.
I think people who are excessively pro-immigration are as dangerous as the extremists. Their love of people and cultures overrides the issues associated with rising population namely the allocation of limited resources. They defend a government that has failed to plan properly for the influx of migrants.
Rather than be passionate for and against immigration, we need thoughtful ideas and planning for the resulting population expansion and we also need truth and honesty so that the people of the UK can be involved in the decision. We may need to recognise that the current UK population doesn't want the population to continue increasing.
Take housing for example. Everywhere that a new housing development goes up, there are objectors. It's correct to make sure the whole population of the UK has somewhere decent to live and is adequately housed. So what do we do? Do we:
1. Make planning laws more lax so that more private or social housing can be built
2. Let the new arrivals live in slum conditions or live 10 to a room
3. Restrict the growth of population because we can't actually house them?
These questions are simple and a reasoned mind could come to a decision. Shamefully, the main parties including Labour take the cowardly approach of never discussing these issues. The lack of public debate causes inevitable frustration which can lead to more extreme views forming.
To be fair to Peter, I made the mistake of starting a complaint about finger-wagging by, er, finger wagging.
Peter I salute your indefatigablity (thanks George) and agree with much of what you've said. B Bendle is one of the good guys on here so I'm surprised that you 2 are disagreeing. Slight misunderstanding perhaps.
Onwards and upwards. 3 more goals in the second half and I've won my bet (see my post on Julian's UKIP article for more information).
A strong union WOULD be a solution to Bob's problem. I didn't say they wouldn't be. But under New Labour it has got harder to unionise in the workplace.
Weakened employment law is all part of the same problem, surely?
Anyway, I sense you're insinuating I'm being simplistic and xenophobic, whereas I was just trying to share experiences, so I guess we're not going to go anywhere here.
Call me what you like, if you get your jollies from it, whatever floats your boat.
The BNP have been around for a long time. No one wanted for vote for them because people thought they were what they were - racist scum.
However, Labour have deciminated unskilled workers with economic migrants willing to bunk 12 to a house and undercut them. Same with the trades. Right to reside put pressure on council homes, schools, hospitals, welfare services.
When people are concerned - words all too familiar in your lexicon get used, bigot, racist, apologist.
Might as well have thrown in rapist for good measure.
Now, these people have nowhere to turn, Labour just calls them names - so they vote BNP.
There have been plenty of articles here begging people to vote Labour, not stay at home.
It seems they stayed at home and voted BNP. These are Labour core-vote regions. It is Labour's stupid no platform that could have exposed these morons to the heat of debate and it could have listened and done something about immigration.
It did neither.
The far-right, took good Labour policies like nationalisation and economic protectionism.
British Jobs for British Workers
And found plenty of new voters.
I stand by what I say. Labour's contempt for democracy and debate and its desertion of its core vote has made this happen.
It just made the BNP's job so much easier.
What is the solution to Bob Robert's problem then? Not employment law? Not unionisation? But, yes you're right, there are too many foreign labourers undercutting your wages. Let's kick them out.
I'm sorry. I put that down to weakened employment legislation. The BNP have barely risen in the polls, and there are lots of factors. Blaming 'foreigners' has been par for the course throughout my lifetime.
I've had this conversation loads of times with friends on the left (as I am, by the way) and what they usually say is, a) well they need to get a union in and b) well they should be protected by employment law. But the unions have been derecognised, or the people who try to organise them sacked. Who can afford a lawyer? Who has the confidence to go see one? It just seems the people telling me this stuff know nothing about the reality of modern managers in big multinationals.
It seems to me that if immigration in the 2000s has benefitted the economy, it might have been through reducing labour costs - which is fine so long as you're not the original labour. Particularly because in many cases if you remain in employment in factories with a lot of people with poor English, you end up sorting out a lot of the problems arising from poor training etc.
I'm not anti-immigration per se at all. I can see that ultimately these problems are causes by managers not the immigrants themselves. But the fact that immigrant labour is so freely available is integral to the situation. if Labour wants to reconnect with people like Bob (Bob? Maternity? That's another question I spose) it has to find a way of talking about this. It's not new - it's just that, for example, in the 1950s and 1960s, the LP connived at the NUM membership finding reasons not to let Caribbean and Hungarian people work in the pits.
Sorry to have gone on a bit.
They aren't all here to sponge of the system either, many are students who after a few years leave, many are propping up the NHS, and many happily doing the jobs lots of lazy Brits find demeaning.
Why was 'no platform' supported? You don't hide from people you can out argue...
BNP is the natural end point for socialism - that why socialists can't confront it directly.
The BNP support discrimination just like Socialist do - you lot just disagree over who to discriminate for and against.
As a supporter of meritocracy, I have no such problem in dismissing the BNP and all other socialists.
However the BNP won their seats fair and square - I have tolerated a decade of rule by a bunch of socialist that I hate, so I find it amusing to watch you labour socialists abandon any pretence of support for our democratic system just because another bunch of socialists are outflanking you.
Religion. I have none, and feel all the better for it.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2510611.0.Nine_out_of_10_immigrants_live_in_England.php
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2510611.0.Nine_out_of_10_immigrants_live_in_England.php
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6368575.ece?Submitted=true
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5387657/England-absorbs-virtually-all-net-migration-to-UK-MPs-warn.html
You perfectly demonstrate it by labelling me as such. You don't know me, you don't know my family. You're just sitting there judgemental and quick to use the language of the reactionary. Very well done.
These people feel ignored and powerless and may not agree with BNP policies but as Andy Burnham described it - it is the ultimate protest vote.
It is Labour deserting its core vote that precipitated this problem. It wasn't Tory voters turning their backs on their party and voting BNP - it was Labour voters.
We've had plenty of article grovelling not to vote BNP and to turn out and vote.
Now we know why.
Can't deal with the facts, hard luck Peter. As for your insults, well, that sums you up as the nasty person you are. I've heard worse in the playground looking after my sister.
But let me take your personal experience at face value.
I've absolutely no doubt there is racial antipathy towards the Poles. But after 48 years in the UK (born and partially bred like you) I've heard this year after year: it's those Irish, those Gypsies, those Blacks, those Pakistanis. I remember our Russian cleaner complaining about the Somalis in the early 90s, Polish neighbours (from WWII) complaining about the Asians. This is a major theme in all societies, and you above all should understand, with relatives from the Former Yugoslavia, where this bullshit leads.
Every society is prey to hatred of the outsider. The Kikuyus I know hate the Masai. The Bosnians and Croats I know hate the Serbs. The Hutu hate the Tutsis and the Armenians and Turks still don't get along, and I won't even go there with Palestinians and Israelis...
Of course there is ethnic hatred in this land, as in all others. But I would have thought our task lies in combating it wherever we see it, rather than acquiescing in the new enemies someone has found. And the specifics of a few years of new arrivals aside, you and I have a vested interest, like many Brits, in celebrating the multifarious ethnic roots of contemporary cosmopolitan Britain.
I appeal to you on this, not only as a Brit, but as a citizen of the world. Where have most the wars, genocides and horrors of the last century stemmed from? Ethnic hatred in a era of mobility of labour and capital. This reaches its apogee in the racist policies of the Nazis and the hundred and counting dead of World War II and the Holocaust.
This isn't some cheap debating school point. This subject isn't just more fodder for the tabloids: its the dark material out of which most the horror of the recent past have been created.
For the love of Mike, let's not play political football with this stuff.
A very substantial sum.
Again I say if you can't grasp the issue of net migration on a year by year basis which shows significant increases in the UK immigrant population then what is the point of asing for statistics?
As to the last points, I've posted house of Lords and TReasury data in another post that shows what a nonsense it is.
Non economically active migrants to the UK should not have been let in. Labour had no clue who was coming and going and badly underestimated figures.
Your views are exactly why the Labour vote went BNP, please don't go canvassing as you'll only stir the population up to vote for racist parties.
And there's no evidence that it doesn't.
I used plumbers as an example. It applies to many other trades. I personally drive a taxi in the west country. In our town, 25% of taxi drivers are now Polish. As a result of the increase number of taxis, all drivers have seen a significant drop in income. (this has dropped even further since the credit crunch) Assuming that each and every Polish taxi driver pays their full tax obligation, the taxman will NOT have seen an increase in revenue from the taxi trade.
Futhermore, I have experienced on many occasions customers getting into my cab and asking me if I'm Polish before telling me where they want to go (probably because being half Croatian, I look foreign). On almost every occasion, it turns out that they are a plumber, builder, carpenter etc. On the journey they go on to explain how much buseness they've lost to Polish immigrants, and they would have refused to travel with me if I was Polish.
I think you would have to be pretty naive to suggest that the influx of more than a million Polish workers haven't had an effect on people's income, and in turn their attitude to immigrants in general. As someone who looks foreign, I've noticed a definite change in attitude in recent years. Now that may not translate into a swathes of people voting for the BNP, but enough where it brings the BNP the publicity that it craves
"The economic benefit of immigration was called into question by a major report from the Economic Committee of the House of Lords published in April 2008. They found "no evidence for the argument, made by the government, business and many others, that net immigration generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population".
The overall conclusion was that immigration has very small impacts on GDP per capita, whether positive or negative. The government's own evidence put this at 0.15% per year which works out at an annual benefit of 62p per head per week"
Add the social costs to the open door immigration we had suffered under Labour and work ut how much better we are all for it.
By the way, I employ Aussies, Kiwis, South Africans and Kenyans as consultants and they are damn good at thier jobs and contribute to the UK economy. But they don't come in sit in a cultural ghetto, claim benefits and take up social housing queues.
I'm all for migrants who contribute to the economy, all against migrants whosit doing nothing. There has ben far too many low skilled economi migrants let in by Labour.
But as for the spurious "fact that for the years in question they were a drain on local services", try factchecker
The verdict
There is no doubt that immigrants have helped fuel an increase in the size of Britain's economy and filled posts previously left empty by British workers.
No doubt either that hundreds of thousands have made significant tax contributions.
Enough of your mealy mouthed and baseless assertions.
The ONS make it quite clear, NET migration of people staying at least the year in question.
That means even if they didn't "settle" when they left they were replaced at a higher rate than those who left.
I'm afraid if you are that unitelligent to understand that basic statistical point then there's little point talking.
The solution to sexism is to reduce the number of women around - or it would be if the solution to racism was to stop them coming in.
I think that the 'No Platfrom' policy comes from a fear that too many of us might end up agreeing with the BNP if we end up talking to them, awkward if there's journalists or members of the public around. I think the responses here show that.
Also 'No Platfrom' also means having a limited view on what the BNP stands for - it's easier to oppose them if they're venal racists - talking to them you might find out that they're not. Not that I have and I realise that they might say one thing in public whilst calling for something else when they think no one is watching.
We've had no effective immigration controls since 1066. If people haven't come here it's because they couldn't or didn't want to, not due to efective immigration controls. When the Tories were last running the country we had more immigration than they let on but because they didn't let on people assumed it wasn't a problem. Labour likes to be open and honest about everything which can leave it open to accusations. The Tories are just as keen on imigration, although there are advantages to illegal immigration - no employee works harder if you can get him deported.
Of course part of the problem is that they do work harder. How can you tell your boss you can't do something if the immigrant goes right ahead and does it. The same people opposed to Europe's 48 hour rule object to foreigners who work harder than they do.
Economies that have inflows of immigrants grow better. Look at the US. Look at that chap who runs Easyjet. Migrants tend to have get up and go. The lazy sorts tend not to get out of their countries. We might have better welfare than their countries but they come over here to work. Migrant flows reflect the state of a nations economy. The Tories weren't successful at keeping the migrants out, they were successful at causing recessions, and immigrants didn't want to come. Look at Ireland. It's population used to grow around Christmas as so many of its people came home for Christmas, having left to find work and returning after Christmas back to employment in foreign countries. Then one year they didn't as EU membership had created enough jobs in Ireland for them to stay. Similiar thing will happen with the eastern EU countries.
There's no way you can control immigration unless you put up a fence like Israel has and stop all flights in and out. There's no way you can prove that the person wanting to come in is or isn't who he says he is, no perfect, impossible-to-fake Passport or Visa. No way you can be certain that people who say they're only visiting will leave. Some people will intend to leave then change their mind. The best you could do if have some form of national register like the ID card system. If immigration controls in mainland Europe are better than over hear it's because everybody must have an ID card so it is practical to require employers and service providers to check these. Of course you don't need ID cards if you're saying no non-whites but white immigrants are o.k. on a 'don't ask don't tell' basis and for a long time the only immigrants we had were either european or non-white. I remember being in a group of new employees, we all seemed English to me but the one Black lady had to get her passport.
I like the BBC's countryfile. The country is clearly not full - each week they go to somewhere new and there are green fields everywhere, and we produce more food than we did before WW2. We need more houses. It would be nice if GB believed in council houses. Part of the problem is pressure of resources. We could have more houses but that would reduce the scarcity premium that partly explains GB's success - keeping the NIMBY's, those who have homes, happy and wealthy.
Then there's 'British Jobs for British Workers'. So many of the things I dislike about the BNP have GB's support - how do you debate with them if they can point out that part of GB's policy is to try and be BNP-lite to get some of their supporters. Same way he is Green-lite. Not suggesting he does anything either of those parties would want. Not saying he would do anything... Wasn't it Blair who spent his pre-Uni summer in Paris? Migrants have get up and go.
I see you're not interested in facts when they don't suit you. You bang on (with no evidence) about the costs of immigration and ignore the net benefits to the exchequer and the economy. More of the same I'm afraid, and all the more proof this debate needs to be had in the open.
But I remember all these kinds of warnings throughout the 60s and 70s too. And I'm happy to live in that incredibly diverse cosmopolitan creation called London. There are models other than Rotheram or Burnley.
I'd say the UK still has some room, but England, especially the south of England, is overcrowded, to the point where it affects people's quality of life, access to housing, need to commute long distances etc.
Certainly being as crowded as the Netherlands, and much more densely packed than Germany or France, can't be much fun.
So the UK is about the same population density as Germany. But if we slice the borders conveniently, we get the result we want - which is what precisely? Britain is full? Or England is full? That we haven't got the infrastructure to maintain current population trends (no doubt to be devised post crash), or that we will need the labour force to remain competitive?
These are all points worth debating. But unless there's a subtext that we're filled with people of the 'wrong sort', I fail to see how recent immigration to the UK from Eastern accession countries has anything to do with the (tiny) rise of the BNP in the North West and East, where the communities they complain about, mainly from the sub continent, mainly arrived here two generations ago, and are growing because of their higher birth rates.
I am however interested in the pressures applied to local services such as education, NHS and social security etc. that a figure of over 2 million immigrants in 4 years brings with it.
A large chunk of emmigrants are people retiring abroad and the higher wge earners going to live abroad. A large proportion of the immigrants are what might be termed less skilled economic migrants in need of social support.
Local authority after local authority has complained about the large increases in costs for looking after the increased number of immigrants that haven't been matched by increased government funding.
The fact over 1 million people voted BNP at the last election tells me that certain sections of society are getting fed up with Labour's open door policy and it's inability to have a clue about what was going on.
There needs to be a dramatic reduction in immigraton levels and those coming in should be solely on the basis of a high points score making it economically desirable to have them here (apart from the legitimate refugees we take).
Alternatively I could use it to help pay the tax increase I've suffered due to the abolition of the 10p tax rate.
Then there's the higher utility bills, higher petrol prices, higher food prices.
Yet all the projections to date have been overshot rather than undershot, have they not?
Hypothetical - would you regard that additional 7m as a potential problem?
You make this sound like it's a cataclysmic failure. I think that, unlike France and Germany, opening up our Labour markets to Polish workers was smart, provided a boost in the economy, and made us friends in what is one of the largest countries in the EU. Sorry that's where we differ.
As for facts, English Socialist (??) claims "Between 1991 and 2007; 2.1 million immigrants settled in England."
Where's the evidence for that?
Thanks!
England on the other hand is densely populated, according to the Office for National Statistics quoted in the Telegraph:
"In 2008 the average number of people per square kilometre in Britain was 253, rising to 395 in England.
Latest figures from Holland show that its population density was 395 a square kilometre in 2002 and 393 in 2005.
The population density in England is already almost double the level in Germany and quadruple that in France."
As for economic benefit, when you consider the fact that most immigrants perform fairly menial tasks which contribute little by way of tax when offset by their use of schools, hospitals etc. this is fairly minimal. And whilst most immigrants are hard-working, and the myth of widespread "benefit scrounging" is a lie, we are seeing more people claiming benefits in this country now the recession has set in, and a while back there was the furore about child benefit claims. It is ridiculous that immigrants can claim unemployment and other benefits after just one year in the UK. France and Germany imposed curbs on immigration from Eastern Europe, whereas the UK did not. There's also got to be something wrong with UK law when illegal immigrants are queuing up on the French coast to get to Britain, even forming shanty towns, despite having crossed already several countries of equal or greater economic strength than us.
Yes, a level of immigration is needed for the sake of the economy and to offset those leaving, and yes some things are being done to cut back immigration (points system for example), but more is needed to crack down on the UK's "open doors" policy, which does exist to an extent.
And who will pay for their pensions?
If this is "making the case" then God help you.
There are huge social problems there, and inter communal distrust, as recent riots have shown. But it's not Labour immigration policies at fault.
ONS state:
"An estimated 577,000 people arrived to live in the UK for at least a year in 2007, compared with 591,000 in 2006. These figures represent a continuation of the level of immigration seen since 2004. Of all immigrants, 502,000 (87 per cent) were non-British citizens in 2007."
and
"Net migration was 237,000, up 46,000 on 2006. This is a result of emigration falling more than immigration. This was slightly lower than the record estimate of 244,000 in 2004. Net migration has remained high since then, in comparison with earlier years."
There's your official statistics and they are pretty damning.
The constituencies in the North where the BNP saw a mild (1.6%) rise in support are actually mainly communities which are thirty to forty years old. They are not recent migrants by any stretch, and the problem there is to do with poverty, communalism and housing, not Labour immigration policy.
As I've said many times in this thread, the main influx in migrants has been to London, where BNP support went down. So explain how 'immigration'=BNP on that.
It doesn't, and given the BNPs real policies, we're falling into their trap by accepting the debate about immigration controls on their terms.
That's pretty much what we've had for the last 12 years.
Lets be clear about this, between 2004 and 2007 there was a little under 1 million net immigration to the UK.
If you remove the people leaving the UK then the figure is an astonishing 2.25 million people migrated to the UK in those 4 years.
Thes figures are unsustainable, put enourmous pressures on local services and have contributed to the feeling of anger in white working class enclaves that have led to the rise of the BNP.
Immigration has brought great benefits to the UK in some respects and serious problems in others. It is no use just giving a carte blanche to a previous laissez faire approach this government has had.
You are an aplogist for an appaling lack of control and policy on immigration that has led to the BNP rise.
It is England (with far lower public spending per head) which has had to absorb the numbers - not the Welsh Hills or the Scottish Highlands. And it is the *poor* who bear the costs of immigration. The rich benefit from the lower wages they pay for services while being insulated from the social tensions, and public service and housing pressures.
Perhaps you would care to look at Frank Field's "balanced migration" website where much of the data people are quoting here can be found.
http://www.balancedmigration.com/
Field and Soames (the cross-party co-chairs) state:
“For some time we’ve been trying to make the main political parties wake up to the public’s concern about large scale immigration. Yesterday’s election results and this poll show the need for real action. The public are deeply opposed to immigration adding another 7 million to our population by 2028. The main parties must stop ducking the issue – and respond to strong and well-justified public opinion.”
Perhaps Mr Field is a secret racist? Somehow I doubt it.
I don't hold out much for your statistic since the other one who cite, that England is the most densely populated country in Europe, can be quickly disproved. We're well behind Belgium and the Netherlands, and not that dissimilar to Germany, around 50th in the world
It's not the far-right at fault, it's the left and their stupid reactionary language and appalling immigration controls fault.
You clearly have not read your history books, and your willing to turn any fact into an intemperate rant.
Just FYI. My mother, child of Armenian refugee of the genocide, was adopted by a liberal East Anglia lawyer in the 20s. He also sheltered Jews before and during World War II. My mother, one of your liberal left wing types, went on to have five children, and adopt a mixed race sixth child - my younger brother. He's Half Bajian, Half Scottish, but British through and through, with an accent probably more posh than yours.
Of course, his older brother, who marched past Nazi Saluting skinheads to attend the Rock Against Racism gig in Victoria Park, was a bigger threat to him than those skinheads. And of course his adopted mother, a social worker, was to blame for the rise of the BNP. And of course the real culprit was the her adopted father, a namby pamby liberal lawyer, who had the temerity to look after refugees of massacre and genocide.
Don't you ever think before you write your posts? And if you do, perhaps you ought to read some history before you write.
England is now the most densely populated country in Europe and our systems just can't cope with the scale of the influx.
England is full as far as I'm concerned and piling more people in just creates more pressure on services. It's not as if England gets proper funding per person - it doesn't the Barnett Formula ensures that the English are the bottom of the pile - and it takes no consideration of the hidden illegal immigrants using the services which are no doubt also mainly in England.
I suggest you read what I wrote at 4.38pm underneath this. Bias? You sad, sad little man.
God it must hurt to be so smug and self-righteous. Yet again you have no clue what you are talking about and when there is an opposing view out come the character slights.
Paralysed by the fact you can't debate without making it personal is nothing to be proud of. There are another load of people that cannot debate either without making a personal trait an issue either.
So it looks as if the BNP and you have more in common than you might think.
It's just a broad brush smear.
I suggest you look above. The left brought the BNP on us not the right.
As for statistics on the contribution of 2004 EU accession countries, please endeavour to look up the facts. As the fact checker points out...
The verdict
There is no doubt that immigrants have helped fuel an increase in the size of Britain's economy and filled posts previously left empty by British workers.
No doubt either that hundreds of thousands have made significant tax contributions.
The costs and benefits of immigration are very unevenly distributed, and the costs hit the poor, not the rich, who of course benefit from the lower costs while at the same time are wholly or largely insulated from any of the social tensions or pressures on public services and housing.
The problem is (a) the numbers have simply been too large and (b) the system is completely out of control.
Sensible people like Frank Field have proposed "balanced migration" with no net increase in the population.
That seems very sensible - though rather depends upon sorting out (b)!!
What I said, Celia, if you care to read it, is that the BNP's key policy is not about immigration but ethnicity. 'Recent migrants' is just a plank in their rhetoric. They exclude all non 'Caucasians' from membership of their party, and would repatriate anyone (including myself) who is not of pure Aryan descent, regardless of how long our ancestors have been here.
To miss this point, to make it all about Labour and immigration policy, fits exactly into their strategy and gives them succour in my eyes. The BNP have not been that successful in terms of the vote, only up 100,000 since 2004. They're also down in London, the main source of these new migrants.
But thankfully you reveal your real thoughts when it comes to Britain is full.
Actually we still have labour shortages in many sectors, and our density of population is about middle ranking in global terms. But you want to reverse centuries of liberal tolerance because of some typical Daily Mail froth about freeloaders (when we gain more from tax receipts from economic migrants).
Personally, I prefer Great Britain rather than Little England. But I'm by no means surprised by your choice.
The amount of people allowed into the country has to be based around ecoomic need and the ability of local services to cope.
I rally am tired of people, like you Peter, who whenever it's said we can't just have a free for all and that we need to limit immigration to what the country economically needs and can cope with start trotting out comments about "Mosleyites".
There are over 6 billion people on the planet, the UK can't hold them all. If you accept that rather obvoius fact it also rather obviously follows from a logical point of view that somewhere between 60 million and 6 billion is the optimum number for the UK to have. That means there has to be policy and control over immigration.
The lack of policy in this area is a major factor in the rise of the BNP
These well meaning people are playing with forces they don't understand.
A very close member of my family is an adopted war orphan, now she faced certain death if she remained in the country of her birth. Fortunately, a Christian charity raised money and got some support from the media to get some of these children out before it was too late. Many others were not so lucky.
Now, they are over 30 and they are proud to be British; end of story. They don't want to be belong to a ethnic pidgeon-hole to be buttered up and patronised by diversity this and equality that. They are British.
To hear these left-wing types 30 years ago - the message was very, very different, getting the children adopted was a nightmare according to my parents. The government of the time was very against it; it was the people then that put pressure on them to cave in. That was the compassionate strength of the British people then - compare it to now!
The warmth and kindness of the people all through her life was compassionate and understanding. There was one or two idiots but the overwhelming majority and I mean 99.99% of people see a person, have a little curiosity and accept the differences but that was the beauty of this country. We did our bit.
They hold down a good job, have good friends and they take part in wider society.
Like many, many others, they integrate and work hard; they are just people, no labels, no little pidgeon-hole. And there's nothing wrong with that.
This moronic government have simply just ignored years of improving race relations and simply opened the doors. No problem if it's for rare skills to fill shortages, no problem if they face serious persecution.
Economic migrants must have skills we need, otherwise we have plenty of people to fill vacancies. Those not working should have their visa or remain to stay ended. You are right, limited resources and strained infrastructure cannot cope.
We cannot rely on just goodwill that they will go home.
This member of my family is now treated differently, there isn't the warmth anymore, there's suspicion and a few idiots, despite they have lived her for over 30 years think she's either an asylum seeker or a migrant worker 'taking their jobs'. I worry that some nutter is going to attack them and for the first time in a long time I worry about them just for the colour of their skin. That never crossed my mind in over 30 years, now it does.
It's not the far-right at fault, it's the left and their stupid reactionary language and appalling immigration controls fault.
Then you get the left-wing twits that think they've read a history book think they understand immigration and 'they care' so anyone that doesn't like it is a racist. All they give a toss about is they can get a cheap plumber, electrician, painter/decorator.
That's not the empirical evidence in my borough, where I have yet to encounter a Polish worker outside of a restaurant that does not work only for cash. The appreciation of the PLN vs GBP since 2004 by 25% will give you a feel for the scale of the remittances and what that missing multiplier effect of money has done to the economy.
If you're going to make a case, please endeavour to do so from a platform of veracity.
You also forgot that one Home Secretary inadvertently released immigrant rapists and murderers back into the UK and did not deport them.
Some raped and murdered again.
The only saving grace to this government is it had the sense to implement the Tory idea of a points-based system for immigration. However, even this isn't working that well and is limited in which applicants apply.
No it's not. The point is that trades people have seen their work decline due to being undercut by polish workers. Those bricklayers, plumbers, decorators etc. really don't give a damn whether Polish workers pay their taxes or not. They only care that their own personal income has dropped as a result of mass migration.
I would argue that the "net gain" to the exchequer is questionable. For example, there is only so much plumbing work at any given time. Personally I would only call a plumber if I have need for his/her services. Just because a Polish plumber is cheaper than a British plumber, doesn't mean I'm going to call out two plumbers instead. Now, if a Polish worker charges £100 less for a job, as a customer I'm more inclined to use his services. When I pay that Polish plumber for his work, he then has to pay tax on those earnings. Now imagine for a second I pay a British plumber £300 for his services. At a rate of 20% tax, he'll have to pay the taxman £60. If on the other hand I decide to use a Polish plumber who is going to charge me £200 for the same job, the tax payable at 20% now becomes £40. The taxman's take is actually reduced by roughly £20. Less money being earned means less money being taxed.
Labeling anybody that thinks Britain is full as a Nazi or BNP supporter is a 'fatuous and toxic contribution' which appeases the left.
I think Britain is full - there, I said it. We are overcrowded, our infrastructure and support services are overloaded. A recent Panorama or Dispatches said we have about a million illegal immigrants that concomitantly do not contribute to society; they leech from it.
And you have to ask yourselves why so many people that hate us and what we stand for in this country want to come here. The answer is, because we are suckers. Soft touches. We are Butlins to the world's freeloaders, a real and metaphorical holiday camp.
Getting to my point - while the mainstream parties faff around on the issue of immigration, those that are at the sharp end in the poorer, most disadvantaged communities will look elsewhere for representation.
Tell them all about your Lombards and Huguenots, Peter. And watch them laugh.
Just goes to show how off course some people in the Labour establishment are these days. Where are the discussions in the party over real Labour policies such as re-nationalisation of the railways or completing the nationalisation of the banks, rebuilding our manufacturing industry, reintroducing council housing, etc.? Oops, sorry, I forgot, those are "Old Labour" and taboo.
Immigration is an issue for a large number of people, if the Labour party refuses to acknowledge that then we will be the worse off. There maybe times when immigration is a necessity, but that should be a policy decision based upon economic considerations and skills required in the workforce. The sort of allcomers open door policy we have had in recent years was not a good idea and we should learn from that.
The Tory leader isn't making speeches saying "British Jobs for British Workers."
You are also on thin ice with me regarding this matter too. This country has a proud history of integrating different races and creeds. However, this government poor control of immigration flies in the face of a coherent and sensible immigration policy based on maintaining the social fabric of this country. It's multi-cultural policy has been to create ghettos (the word used by the Equality chief).
Instead, it presided over a period of uncontrolled immigration that drove down wages and effectively priced them out of work.
Poverty, ignorance, poor housing, political apathy in the mainstream - all these are the main factors in the small spurts of far right wing activity.
Your misleading and erroneous analysis that it's to do with 'immigration' is only falling into the BNP trap.
I for one applaud this diary as an overdue pushback against fellow travellers on this issue.
The BNP success was a direct result of our failure to control immigration and manage the effective integration of the immigrant population already here.
This approach will only force more traditional Labour voters into the hands of the BNP.
The issue isn't immigration. The issue is citizenship. The BNP want to institute unscientific and odious Nuremburg like 'race laws'.
Mentioning Polish workers - who mainly pay taxes and provide a net gain to the exchequer - in this context is fatuous. Part of the pushback against the BNP must be some intellectual clarity on this issue. Your contribution is misleading at best.
What policy is that then?
The government haven't had a clue how many have been entering the country legally or illegally for years.
Their immigration estimates aren't worth the toilet paper they should have been written on.
Funding for local authority services haven't taken account the lumps of immigrants the government have distributed abuot the country.
They have made little or no move to promote community cohesion by an expectation that immigrants should speak English.
The time taken to remove illegal immigrants seems to based upon a geologic time span
Things got so out of control even the Home Office was employing illegal immigrants under dear old hapless Jacqui.
I have a friend working in the Home Office legal department who tells me things are far far worse than the public realise regarding a lack of immigration controls and there is a culture like a police state to try and ensure there are no leaks of this damaging information.
Labour have allowed a free for all for years and are no reaping the rewards in their heartland with the rise of the BNP.
Posting a thread calling for the defence of a policy that doesn't exist is, however, pretty much par for the course for Labour.
Most of those that voted BNP would argue that allowing over 1 million Polish migrants into the UK, wasn't a great idea. Many trades people have suffered as a result. I don't think they'll see that as "positive impact".
I can see how it benefits employers.
And of course it benefits the immigrants itself - an important moral argument.
How it benefits those who compete with immigrants for low-skill jobs or public services or housing escapes me.
People voted for the BNP because they do not want more immigration, they want less.
As for Labour immigration policy, feel free to defend it but don't be surprised that people don't rush to support you.