|
Post by smallthorner on Jul 9, 2024 21:05:55 GMT
Mrs Starmer is quite nice isn't she.
Let's see more of her.
Could be a Jackie Kennedy Lite.
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Jul 9, 2024 22:44:55 GMT
When we talk about cutting immigrants are we on about the 30k who come over on boats or the immigrants who come over via the legal routes of education, jobs, etc. People often say cut immigration but which bit should we be cutting? That's a very interesting question.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 10, 2024 0:28:09 GMT
When we talk about cutting immigrants are we on about the 30k who come over on boats or the immigrants who come over via the legal routes of education, jobs, etc. People often say cut immigration but which bit should we be cutting? an ambiguity all too often exploited for political gain.
This entirely.
It's been used for the past 50 years and (sadly) it appears to have just as much traction now, as it's ever done.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 10, 2024 1:15:39 GMT
an ambiguity all too often exploited for political gain.
This entirely.
It's been used for the past 50 years and (sadly) it appears to have just as much traction now, as it's ever done.
Aye Paul and further back to post WW11 possibly before Immediately after the absorption of Eastern Bloc Countries by USSR saw a huge influx from Poland, Ukraine and Baltic States even more after Hungarian Revolution many resettled in Manchester, Bradford and West London Then about the same time you had the Windrush and Irish Immigrants both treated equally badly but huge contributors to the rebuild of UK in NHS, Transport and Infrastructure The consequences of loss of Empire also meant a large inflow of immigrants from the former Colony's particularly India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. This resentment was then most vociferously expressed as you say 50 years ago by Enoch Powell in his infamous "Rivers of Blood" speech. There are inheritors of that thought process today. Another wave came in the 1970s from Uganda courtesy of Idi Amin expelling Asians, an unfunny irony is that many descendents of this cohort hold prominent positions in the Conservative Party and are amongst the most vocal in demanding the Drawbridge be raised. The final wave came in the 1990s after Mastricht which gave impetus to Brexit. Brexit of course controlled borders/immigration to such an extent that record numbers arrived afterwards but the focus has been on the 3% Economic Migrants or those fleeing Conflicts
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 10, 2024 7:05:37 GMT
This entirely.
It's been used for the past 50 years and (sadly) it appears to have just as much traction now, as it's ever done.
Aye Paul and further back to post WW11 possibly before Immediately after the absorption of Eastern Bloc Countries by USSR saw a huge influx from Poland, Ukraine and Baltic States even more after Hungarian Revolution many resettled in Manchester, Bradford and West London Then about the same time you had the Windrush and Irish Immigrants both treated equally badly but huge contributors to the rebuild of UK in NHS, Transport and Infrastructure The consequences of loss of Empire also meant a large inflow of immigrants from the former Colony's particularly India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. This resentment was then most vociferously expressed as you say 50 years ago by Enoch Powell in his infamous "Rivers of Blood" speech. There are inheritors of that thought process today. Another wave came in the 1970s from Uganda courtesy of Idi Amin expelling Asians, an unfunny irony is that many descendents of this cohort hold prominent positions in the Conservative Party and are amongst the most vocal in demanding the Drawbridge be raised. The final wave came in the 1990s after Mastricht which gave impetus to Brexit. Brexit of course controlled borders/immigration to such an extent that record numbers arrived afterwards but the focus has been on the 3% Economic Migrants or those fleeing Conflicts Yes, you are correct, concerns about immigration go back to keir Hardie. In fact it is an issue across the Globe, always has been. Brexit simply gave us the ability to control our borders without reference to the EU institutions. How well it is achieved is down to the government we elect and to a lesser extent agreements with our neighbours ( and in reality helping to solve the " problems " in other areas of the world thst causes people to want to come to these overcrowded islands.....just as though that could go on forever as a solution to an unjust world). Unfortunately unless the Starmer government or a near future government makes a better job of it then greater issues are in store for the UK. Being in the EU didn't magically solve the problem. As I say , it is down to our government......those who think that NOT controlling immigration is a solution are very mistaken. Largely speaking it seems to me that those who see being in the EU as part of the solution are the same people who don't actually acknowledge a problem. www.kilbirnie.uk.net/james_keir_hardie.htmAn interesting view from the Social Democrats End mass immigration We will reduce net migration to 50,000 per annum and promote a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion. We will withdraw from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty. sdp.org.uk/
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 10, 2024 7:14:56 GMT
I think it was the tactic of the last government to say 'look over there at those 30k people arriving on boats' and hope you don't notice the 1.2 million legal immigration visas they dished out last year.
Uk population is up by 10 million since 2000 and our victorian infrastructure and services have not kept up.
It doesn't help that we all live so long either.
It's the reason nothing works any more.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Jul 10, 2024 7:18:22 GMT
Hopefully swept away in the future the tory have and always will be a party of greed and the rich they have never done anything for the poorer in society only keep them down so they can have power and great they have also become one of the homes for the right and racists I'd rather piloting to have a social caring slant with us trying to help our friends and neighbours and a government that promotes equality and I don't think the tories or the right will ever have that in them they will always be a party of great and self entertainment
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 10, 2024 7:23:51 GMT
I think it was the tactic of the last government to say 'look over there at those 30k people arriving on boats' and hope you don't notice the 1.2 million legal immigration visas they dished out last year. Uk population is up by 10 million since 2000 and our victorian infrastructure and services have not kept up. It doesn't help that we all live so long either. It's the reason nothing works any more. 6th largest economy in the world. £2.3 trillion annual GDP. Dozens more billionaires than in 2000. Don't fall for the distractions. There's more than enough money in this country to fix most issues.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 10, 2024 7:27:09 GMT
I think it was the tactic of the last government to say 'look over there at those 30k people arriving on boats' and hope you don't notice the 1.2 million legal immigration visas they dished out last year. Uk population is up by 10 million since 2000 and our victorian infrastructure and services have not kept up. It doesn't help that we all live so long either. It's the reason nothing works any more. 100% agree Gods, it's not just the boat crossings, for me it has always been about total numbers on a small island and the effect that has on culture and infrastructure, particularly when some immigrants may not I tend to abide by the existing culture. And it is about trying to find ( International) solutions for the reasons why people are migrating. Of course some migration has always taken place, but we are in a rapidly changing world , the background of rapidly increasing global population growth needs to be taken into account. The growth since say 1900 is unsustainable ( I recognise that some people predict that it will now decline). The answer cannot be to accept large numbers , year on year, " forever"
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 10, 2024 7:28:29 GMT
I think it was the tactic of the last government to say 'look over there at those 30k people arriving on boats' and hope you don't notice the 1.2 million legal immigration visas they dished out last year. Uk population is up by 10 million since 2000 and our victorian infrastructure and services have not kept up. It doesn't help that we all live so long either. It's the reason nothing works any more. 6th largest economy in the world. £2.3 trillion annual GDP. Dozens more billionaires than in 2000. Don't fall for the distractions. There's more than enough money in this country to fix most issues. True. There are many inequalities that need addressing in the country and across the world. Immigration isn't just about money.Far from it. As aren't concerns for the environment.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jul 10, 2024 7:45:33 GMT
Aye Paul and further back to post WW11 possibly before Immediately after the absorption of Eastern Bloc Countries by USSR saw a huge influx from Poland, Ukraine and Baltic States even more after Hungarian Revolution many resettled in Manchester, Bradford and West London Then about the same time you had the Windrush and Irish Immigrants both treated equally badly but huge contributors to the rebuild of UK in NHS, Transport and Infrastructure The consequences of loss of Empire also meant a large inflow of immigrants from the former Colony's particularly India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. This resentment was then most vociferously expressed as you say 50 years ago by Enoch Powell in his infamous "Rivers of Blood" speech. There are inheritors of that thought process today. Another wave came in the 1970s from Uganda courtesy of Idi Amin expelling Asians, an unfunny irony is that many descendents of this cohort hold prominent positions in the Conservative Party and are amongst the most vocal in demanding the Drawbridge be raised. The final wave came in the 1990s after Mastricht which gave impetus to Brexit. Brexit of course controlled borders/immigration to such an extent that record numbers arrived afterwards but the focus has been on the 3% Economic Migrants or those fleeing Conflicts Yes, you are correct, concerns about immigration go back to keir Hardie. In fact it is an issue across the Globe, always has been. Brexit simply gave us the ability to control our borders without reference to the EU institutions. How well it is achieved is down to the government we elect and to a lesser extent agreements with our neighbours ( and in reality helping to solve the " problems " in other areas of the world thst causes people to want to come to these overcrowded islands.....just as though that could go on forever as a solution to an unjust world). Unfortunately unless the Starmer government or a near future government makes a better job of it then greater issues are in store for the UK. Being in the EU didn't magically solve the problem. As I say , it is down to our government......those who think that NOT controlling immigration is a solution are very mistaken. Largely speaking it seems to me that those who see being in the EU as part of the solution are the same people who don't actually acknowledge a problem. www.kilbirnie.uk.net/james_keir_hardie.htmAn interesting view from the Social Democrats End mass immigration We will reduce net migration to 50,000 per annum and promote a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion. We will withdraw from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty. sdp.org.uk/You are just making the same mistake that started this conversation - conflating officially sanctioned immigration with illegal immigration. Legal immigration is the source of 90% of the immigration in the U.K. with freedom of movement in the EU we had an open border that operated both ways. Since Brexit legal immigration has increased significantly. Legal immigration is controlled. The Conservative government chose the let legal immigration increase because if they didn't the economy post Brexit would have tanked and certain sectors (like the NHS, care sector and the universities) would be in serious trouble. There is a debate to be had about legal immigration but that debate also needs to include a discussion on the consequences of reducing it. It will mean a hit on the economy, reduced levels of public service and some universities going out of business. If people are prepared to live with these consequences, fine. But to think reducing immigration is consequence free is just not facing up to reality. Illegal immigration is only about 10% of the problem and the issues are quite different. Some illegal imigrants have no right to be here and there is a legitimate case to return them to their own country. However under our international commitments some of those migrants have a right to be here and some people would argue to claim we are a civilised society we have a moral obligation to take them. If we withdraw from our international obligations we will become an international piriah and become more isolated on the world stage. We also diminish ourselves as a nation. The issue with illegal immigration is that is that the Tories failed to implement processes to deal with the problem. There was no coherent plan (other than the bonkers Rwanda plan that was never going to hapoen) and they lost control of the problem. Labour seem to recognise that the solution is to actually put things in place on the ground and deal with it. The Tories did not have an honest debate about immigration with the public. They conflated legal and illegal immigration to deflect from the fact that it was govenment policy to increase legal immigration after Brexit. Hopefully this government will be less deceitful and more competent about addressing the issue.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 10, 2024 8:18:18 GMT
Yes, you are correct, concerns about immigration go back to keir Hardie. In fact it is an issue across the Globe, always has been. Brexit simply gave us the ability to control our borders without reference to the EU institutions. How well it is achieved is down to the government we elect and to a lesser extent agreements with our neighbours ( and in reality helping to solve the " problems " in other areas of the world thst causes people to want to come to these overcrowded islands.....just as though that could go on forever as a solution to an unjust world). Unfortunately unless the Starmer government or a near future government makes a better job of it then greater issues are in store for the UK. Being in the EU didn't magically solve the problem. As I say , it is down to our government......those who think that NOT controlling immigration is a solution are very mistaken. Largely speaking it seems to me that those who see being in the EU as part of the solution are the same people who don't actually acknowledge a problem. www.kilbirnie.uk.net/james_keir_hardie.htmAn interesting view from the Social Democrats End mass immigration We will reduce net migration to 50,000 per annum and promote a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion. We will withdraw from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty. sdp.org.uk/You are just making the same mistake that started this conversation - conflating officially sanctioned immigration with illegal immigration. Legal immigration is the source of 90% of the immigration in the U.K. with freedom of movement in the EU we had an open border that operated both ways. Since Brexit legal immigration has increased significantly. Legal immigration is controlled. The Conservative government chose the let legal immigration increase because if they didn't the economy post Brexit would have tanked and certain sectors (like the NHS, care sector and the universities) would be in serious trouble. There is a debate to be had about legal immigration but that debate also needs to include a discussion on the consequences of reducing it. It will mean a hit on the economy, reduced levels of public service and some universities going out of business. If people are prepared to live with these consequences, fine. But to think reducing immigration is consequence free is just not facing up to reality. Illegal immigration is only about 10% of the problem and the issues are quite different. Some illegal imigrants have no right to be here and there is a legitimate case to return them to their own country. However under our international commitments some of those migrants have a right to be here and some people would argue to claim we are a civilised society we have a moral obligation to take them. If we withdraw from our international obligations we will become an international piriah and become more isolated on the world stage. We also diminish ourselves as a nation. The issue with illegal immigration is that is that the Tories failed to implement processes to deal with the problem. There was no coherent plan (other than the bonkers Rwanda plan that was never going to hapoen) and they lost control of the problem. Labour seem to recognise that the solution is to actually put things in place on the ground and deal with it. The Tories did not have an honest debate about immigration with the public. They conflated legal and illegal immigration to deflect from the fact that it was govenment policy to increase legal immigration after Brexit. Hopefully this government will be less deceitful and more competent about addressing the issue. I don't think I am CB . I've answered this in response to Gods. I've always ( for years) talked about total numbers , legal and illegal. My issue is, as I have simply stated , we cannot simply accommodate unlimited numbers for many reasons, cultural, capacity, infrastructure. The solutions to the " problem" lie elsewhere. Many developed countries are grappling with the same issue. A far as illegal entry is concerned I'm sure that there are many more ways to enter the UK than by boats. There used to be more emphasis on entry through the Tunnel.Are people coming via Ireland? Just as important....How many people enter "illegally" and don't ( and don't intend to) claim asylum, just live " illegally " as long as possible. And I have every sympathy for those who want to claim asylum, economic migrants or refugees. As far as the NHS " tanking " ....we do need a long term plan....but it isn't just about US....less developed countries need skilled workers more than we do. The issue remains, Brexit or no Brexit
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 10, 2024 8:36:01 GMT
Yes, you are correct, concerns about immigration go back to keir Hardie. In fact it is an issue across the Globe, always has been. Brexit simply gave us the ability to control our borders without reference to the EU institutions. How well it is achieved is down to the government we elect and to a lesser extent agreements with our neighbours ( and in reality helping to solve the " problems " in other areas of the world thst causes people to want to come to these overcrowded islands.....just as though that could go on forever as a solution to an unjust world). Unfortunately unless the Starmer government or a near future government makes a better job of it then greater issues are in store for the UK. Being in the EU didn't magically solve the problem. As I say , it is down to our government......those who think that NOT controlling immigration is a solution are very mistaken. Largely speaking it seems to me that those who see being in the EU as part of the solution are the same people who don't actually acknowledge a problem. www.kilbirnie.uk.net/james_keir_hardie.htmAn interesting view from the Social Democrats End mass immigration We will reduce net migration to 50,000 per annum and promote a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion. We will withdraw from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty. sdp.org.uk/You are just making the same mistake that started this conversation - conflating officially sanctioned immigration with illegal immigration. Legal immigration is the source of 90% of the immigration in the U.K. with freedom of movement in the EU we had an open border that operated both ways. Since Brexit legal immigration has increased significantly. Legal immigration is controlled. The Conservative government chose the let legal immigration increase because if they didn't the economy post Brexit would have tanked and certain sectors (like the NHS, care sector and the universities) would be in serious trouble. There is a debate to be had about legal immigration but that debate also needs to include a discussion on the consequences of reducing it. It will mean a hit on the economy, reduced levels of public service and some universities going out of business. If people are prepared to live with these consequences, fine. But to think reducing immigration is consequence free is just not facing up to reality. Illegal immigration is only about 10% of the problem and the issues are quite different. Some illegal imigrants have no right to be here and there is a legitimate case to return them to their own country. However under our international commitments some of those migrants have a right to be here and some people would argue to claim we are a civilised society we have a moral obligation to take them. If we withdraw from our international obligations we will become an international piriah and become more isolated on the world stage. We also diminish ourselves as a nation. The issue with illegal immigration is that is that the Tories failed to implement processes to deal with the problem. There was no coherent plan (other than the bonkers Rwanda plan that was never going to hapoen) and they lost control of the problem. Labour seem to recognise that the solution is to actually put things in place on the ground and deal with it. The Tories did not have an honest debate about immigration with the public. They conflated legal and illegal immigration to deflect from the fact that it was govenment policy to increase legal immigration after Brexit. Hopefully this government will be less deceitful and more competent about addressing the issue. It's GDP per head that determines living standards not annual GDP though. If you invite a million people in each year of course your GDP will go up.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 10, 2024 9:44:12 GMT
You are just making the same mistake that started this conversation - conflating officially sanctioned immigration with illegal immigration. Legal immigration is the source of 90% of the immigration in the U.K. with freedom of movement in the EU we had an open border that operated both ways. Since Brexit legal immigration has increased significantly. Legal immigration is controlled. The Conservative government chose the let legal immigration increase because if they didn't the economy post Brexit would have tanked and certain sectors (like the NHS, care sector and the universities) would be in serious trouble. There is a debate to be had about legal immigration but that debate also needs to include a discussion on the consequences of reducing it. It will mean a hit on the economy, reduced levels of public service and some universities going out of business. If people are prepared to live with these consequences, fine. But to think reducing immigration is consequence free is just not facing up to reality. Illegal immigration is only about 10% of the problem and the issues are quite different. Some illegal imigrants have no right to be here and there is a legitimate case to return them to their own country. However under our international commitments some of those migrants have a right to be here and some people would argue to claim we are a civilised society we have a moral obligation to take them. If we withdraw from our international obligations we will become an international piriah and become more isolated on the world stage. We also diminish ourselves as a nation. The issue with illegal immigration is that is that the Tories failed to implement processes to deal with the problem. There was no coherent plan (other than the bonkers Rwanda plan that was never going to hapoen) and they lost control of the problem. Labour seem to recognise that the solution is to actually put things in place on the ground and deal with it. The Tories did not have an honest debate about immigration with the public. They conflated legal and illegal immigration to deflect from the fact that it was govenment policy to increase legal immigration after Brexit. Hopefully this government will be less deceitful and more competent about addressing the issue. It's GDP per head that determines living standards not annual GDP though. If you invite a million people in each year of course your GDP will go up. GDP per head doesn't 'determine' anything does it? It's simply the gross GDP divided by the population.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 10, 2024 10:03:17 GMT
Yes, you are correct, concerns about immigration go back to keir Hardie. In fact it is an issue across the Globe, always has been. Brexit simply gave us the ability to control our borders without reference to the EU institutions. How well it is achieved is down to the government we elect and to a lesser extent agreements with our neighbours ( and in reality helping to solve the " problems " in other areas of the world thst causes people to want to come to these overcrowded islands.....just as though that could go on forever as a solution to an unjust world). Unfortunately unless the Starmer government or a near future government makes a better job of it then greater issues are in store for the UK. Being in the EU didn't magically solve the problem. As I say , it is down to our government......those who think that NOT controlling immigration is a solution are very mistaken. Largely speaking it seems to me that those who see being in the EU as part of the solution are the same people who don't actually acknowledge a problem. www.kilbirnie.uk.net/james_keir_hardie.htmAn interesting view from the Social Democrats End mass immigration We will reduce net migration to 50,000 per annum and promote a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion. We will withdraw from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty. sdp.org.uk/You are just making the same mistake that started this conversation - conflating officially sanctioned immigration with illegal immigration. Legal immigration is the source of 90% of the immigration in the U.K. with freedom of movement in the EU we had an open border that operated both ways. Since Brexit legal immigration has increased significantly. Legal immigration is controlled. The Conservative government chose the let legal immigration increase because if they didn't the economy post Brexit would have tanked and certain sectors (like the NHS, care sector and the universities) would be in serious trouble. There is a debate to be had about legal immigration but that debate also needs to include a discussion on the consequences of reducing it. It will mean a hit on the economy, reduced levels of public service and some universities going out of business. If people are prepared to live with these consequences, fine. But to think reducing immigration is consequence free is just not facing up to reality. Illegal immigration is only about 10% of the problem and the issues are quite different. Some illegal imigrants have no right to be here and there is a legitimate case to return them to their own country. However under our international commitments some of those migrants have a right to be here and some people would argue to claim we are a civilised society we have a moral obligation to take them. If we withdraw from our international obligations we will become an international piriah and become more isolated on the world stage. We also diminish ourselves as a nation. The issue with illegal immigration is that is that the Tories failed to implement processes to deal with the problem. There was no coherent plan (other than the bonkers Rwanda plan that was never going to hapoen) and they lost control of the problem. Labour seem to recognise that the solution is to actually put things in place on the ground and deal with it. The Tories did not have an honest debate about immigration with the public. They conflated legal and illegal immigration to deflect from the fact that it was govenment policy to increase legal immigration after Brexit. Hopefully this government will be less deceitful and more competent about addressing the issue. Spot on.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 10, 2024 11:05:48 GMT
Aye Paul and further back to post WW11 possibly before Immediately after the absorption of Eastern Bloc Countries by USSR saw a huge influx from Poland, Ukraine and Baltic States even more after Hungarian Revolution many resettled in Manchester, Bradford and West London Then about the same time you had the Windrush and Irish Immigrants both treated equally badly but huge contributors to the rebuild of UK in NHS, Transport and Infrastructure The consequences of loss of Empire also meant a large inflow of immigrants from the former Colony's particularly India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. This resentment was then most vociferously expressed as you say 50 years ago by Enoch Powell in his infamous "Rivers of Blood" speech. There are inheritors of that thought process today. Another wave came in the 1970s from Uganda courtesy of Idi Amin expelling Asians, an unfunny irony is that many descendents of this cohort hold prominent positions in the Conservative Party and are amongst the most vocal in demanding the Drawbridge be raised. The final wave came in the 1990s after Mastricht which gave impetus to Brexit. Brexit of course controlled borders/immigration to such an extent that record numbers arrived afterwards but the focus has been on the 3% Economic Migrants or those fleeing Conflicts Yes, you are correct, concerns about immigration go back to keir Hardie. In fact it is an issue across the Globe, always has been. Brexit simply gave us the ability to control our borders without reference to the EU institutions. How well it is achieved is down to the government we elect and to a lesser extent agreements with our neighbours ( and in reality helping to solve the " problems " in other areas of the world thst causes people to want to come to these overcrowded islands.....just as though that could go on forever as a solution to an unjust world). Unfortunately unless the Starmer government or a near future government makes a better job of it then greater issues are in store for the UK. Being in the EU didn't magically solve the problem. As I say , it is down to our government......those who think that NOT controlling immigration is a solution are very mistaken. Largely speaking it seems to me that those who see being in the EU as part of the solution are the same people who don't actually acknowledge a problem. www.kilbirnie.uk.net/james_keir_hardie.htmAn interesting view from the Social Democrats End mass immigration We will reduce net migration to 50,000 per annum and promote a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion. We will withdraw from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty. sdp.org.uk/Latent and Overt Racism is present in all Political Party's the original Keir was hardly unique nor was Churchill but it didn't detract them from having other good qualities Looking at UK only it has been succesive Government Policies that have led us to where we are and those responsibilities can't now be shirked. The Windrush Generation are the most obvious. They were invited out of necessity treated like shit and 70 years later through a change in Government and circumstances "a Hostile Environment" was created to repatriate as many as possible and their decendents. Let's be honest the main objections are based on Colour and lack of integration but this overlooks the second variation of the problem, Colonisation and I'm not going down the Slavery route. When Brits Colonised other Countries they looked and spoke very different to the Native people. Did Brits integrate, did they fuck they even changed the language and established a caste system with British values, Language and God help us Religion at the top. Any Brit that "went native" was shunned. These legacies are part of what some see as a problem and a pull factor today The third historical factor is the influence and decisions Britain made as it extricated from occupation and usually involved partition. India/Pakistan is certainly one and Modi is using the former Colonisers tactics its a powder keg that could spill on the streets of UK. Palestine is another where the creation of a new State upset the balance of an entire region. NI is another and I know you favour unification, here the failed tactic of Partition was first tried and it doesn't work. The argument was to remain loyal to the people Britain "Planted" hundreds or years before and they too brought their culture. An inbuilt numerical superiority was established to create a two tier Apartheid Society but long term it doesn't work and armed conflict is inevitable. Satellite communication has changed the whole spectrum where images or conflict and lifestyles are beamed across the World in seconds. If you live in a relatively impoverished or conflict area you want some of that pie. As did those that rushed to find Gold in South Africa or Australia or the Pioneers that went to America and later the Refugees fleeing from Wars in Europe. It's all part of the same cycle and UK has a stake and a responsibility to COLLECTIVELY resolve by decisions far better than before. The situation will get worse as the environment turns hostile and yes overpopulation The problem is obvious, inequality. Individual Countries simply acting to protect their own interests doesn't work. The vast Majority of people don't want to leave their own Country some do for opportunity others due to conflict, drought or famine. Children are dying of malnutrition in Gaza currently yet more are being bombed in their schools in Kyiv yet many more but less reported are dying of starvation and war in Sudan. You could say its natural selection and survival of the fittest but those that do survive become the next generation of migrants if conditions don't change. Quite a few from Sudan come to become Doctors in our NHS and I completely agree with you they should be in Sudan where they are most needed. For the first time on record in UK a Government has left Office with people poorer. People are rightly concerned and look for solutions and this opens a gap for Populist Narcissistic Snake Oil Salesmen to peddle Populist simple solutions in US, UK and Europe and we know historically where that leads
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jul 10, 2024 11:12:30 GMT
You are just making the same mistake that started this conversation - conflating officially sanctioned immigration with illegal immigration. Legal immigration is the source of 90% of the immigration in the U.K. with freedom of movement in the EU we had an open border that operated both ways. Since Brexit legal immigration has increased significantly. Legal immigration is controlled. The Conservative government chose the let legal immigration increase because if they didn't the economy post Brexit would have tanked and certain sectors (like the NHS, care sector and the universities) would be in serious trouble. There is a debate to be had about legal immigration but that debate also needs to include a discussion on the consequences of reducing it. It will mean a hit on the economy, reduced levels of public service and some universities going out of business. If people are prepared to live with these consequences, fine. But to think reducing immigration is consequence free is just not facing up to reality. Illegal immigration is only about 10% of the problem and the issues are quite different. Some illegal imigrants have no right to be here and there is a legitimate case to return them to their own country. However under our international commitments some of those migrants have a right to be here and some people would argue to claim we are a civilised society we have a moral obligation to take them. If we withdraw from our international obligations we will become an international piriah and become more isolated on the world stage. We also diminish ourselves as a nation. The issue with illegal immigration is that is that the Tories failed to implement processes to deal with the problem. There was no coherent plan (other than the bonkers Rwanda plan that was never going to hapoen) and they lost control of the problem. Labour seem to recognise that the solution is to actually put things in place on the ground and deal with it. The Tories did not have an honest debate about immigration with the public. They conflated legal and illegal immigration to deflect from the fact that it was govenment policy to increase legal immigration after Brexit. Hopefully this government will be less deceitful and more competent about addressing the issue. It's GDP per head that determines living standards not annual GDP though. If you invite a million people in each year of course your GDP will go up. That calculation is way too simplistic. If existing businesses cannot get the labour they need they go bust reducing GDP and GDP per head of population. Equally if new busineses cannot get the labour they need they don't start up and contribute to the economy and thereby increase GDP and GDP per head - this is new money that wasn't there before they got off the ground. Tory immigration policy was focused on bringing high skilled immigrants to address this very issue - we don't have the skills here so the high businesses we need can't even get off the ground. The fact is if government were to stop immigration your personal wealth will reduce in line with the economy, you will have to look after granny because the care system has collapsed and costs have gone through the roof, your kids will be less likely to go to university and have reduced job prospects because the number of university places has dramatically reduced and you will die earlier because the NHS has had to rein in the services they can provide. None of the anti immigration parties explain this - they just make out everything will be fine. It won't. There may be ways of mitigating these problems but a credible government has to be honest about the consequences and have a plan to deal with them or just clean and say OK we will reduce immigration but we will tank the economy, fuck up public services and reduce your quality of life. Or people can just put their fingers in their ears sing La La La and hope it all goes away.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 10, 2024 11:17:04 GMT
It's GDP per head that determines living standards not annual GDP though. If you invite a million people in each year of course your GDP will go up. GDP per head doesn't 'determine' anything does it? It's simply the gross GDP divided by the population. Yes it's exactly that. The GDP measure which affects people's lives. It's a measure of productivity and should increase simply with progress.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 10, 2024 11:23:21 GMT
Yes, you are correct, concerns about immigration go back to keir Hardie. In fact it is an issue across the Globe, always has been. Brexit simply gave us the ability to control our borders without reference to the EU institutions. How well it is achieved is down to the government we elect and to a lesser extent agreements with our neighbours ( and in reality helping to solve the " problems " in other areas of the world thst causes people to want to come to these overcrowded islands.....just as though that could go on forever as a solution to an unjust world). Unfortunately unless the Starmer government or a near future government makes a better job of it then greater issues are in store for the UK. Being in the EU didn't magically solve the problem. As I say , it is down to our government......those who think that NOT controlling immigration is a solution are very mistaken. Largely speaking it seems to me that those who see being in the EU as part of the solution are the same people who don't actually acknowledge a problem. www.kilbirnie.uk.net/james_keir_hardie.htmAn interesting view from the Social Democrats End mass immigration We will reduce net migration to 50,000 per annum and promote a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion. We will withdraw from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty. sdp.org.uk/Latent and Overt Racism is present in all Political Party's the original Keir was hardly unique nor was Churchill but it didn't detract them from having other good qualities Looking at UK only it has been succesive Government Policies that have led us to where we are and those responsibilities can't now be shirked. The Windrush Generation are the most obvious. They were invited out of necessity treated like shit and 70 years later through a change in Government and circumstances "a Hostile Environment" was created to repatriate as many as possible and their decendents. Let's be honest the main objections are based on Colour and lack of integration but this overlooks the second variation of the problem, Colonisation and I'm not going down the Slavery route. When Brits Colonised other Countries they looked and spoke very different to the Native people. Did Brits integrate, did they fuck they even changed the language and established a caste system with British values, Language and God help us Religion at the top. Any Brit that "went native" was shunned. These legacies are part of what some see as a problem and a pull factor today The third historical factor is the influence and decisions Britain made as it extricated from occupation and usually involved partition. India/Pakistan is certainly one and Modi is using the former Colonisers tactics its a powder keg that could spill on the streets of UK. Palestine is another where the creation of a new State upset the balance of an entire region. NI is another and I know you favour unification, here the failed tactic of Partition was first tried and it doesn't work. The argument was to remain loyal to the people Britain "Planted" hundreds or years before and they too brought their culture. An inbuilt numerical superiority was established to create a two tier Apartheid Society but long term it doesn't work and armed conflict is inevitable. Satellite communication has changed the whole spectrum where images or conflict and lifestyles are beamed across the World in seconds. If you live in a relatively impoverished or conflict area you want some of that pie. As did those that rushed to find Gold in South Africa or Australia or the Pioneers that went to America and later the Refugees fleeing from Wars in Europe. It's all part of the same cycle and UK has a stake and a responsibility to COLLECTIVELY resolve by decisions far better than before. The situation will get worse as the environment turns hostile and yes overpopulation The problem is obvious, inequality. Individual Countries simply acting to protect their own interests doesn't work. The vast Majority of people don't want to leave their own Country some do for opportunity others due to conflict, drought or famine. Children are dying of malnutrition in Gaza currently yet more are being bombed in their schools in Kyiv yet many more but less reported are dying of starvation and war in Sudan. You could say its natural selection and survival of the fittest but those that do survive become the next generation of migrants if conditions don't change. Quite a few from Sudan come to become Doctors in our NHS and I completely agree with you they should be in Sudan where they are most needed. For the first time on record in UK a Government has left Office with people poorer. People are rightly concerned and look for solutions and this opens a gap for Populist Narcissistic Snake Oil Salesmen to peddle Populist simple solutions in US, UK and Europe and we know historically where that leads Have not got time to read all your posts but my main objections, as I keep saying, are numbers and culture clash not colour. I think the left have consistently been misguided on here in thinking they can speak for Brexiteers, encouraged by the echo chamber of a few regular posters. I don't think anyone has got or is offering simplistic solutions to a national, EU and global issue
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2024 11:31:07 GMT
GDP per head doesn't 'determine' anything does it? It's simply the gross GDP divided by the population. Yes it's exactly that. The GDP measure which affects people's lives. It's a measure of productivity and should increase simply with progress. Better measures of people’s lives would be: - average household debt - number of people living below the “living wage” - average disposable income - average asset value - average life expectancy
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 10, 2024 11:36:57 GMT
Yes it's exactly that. The GDP measure which affects people's lives. It's a measure of productivity and should increase simply with progress. Better measures of people’s lives would be: - average household debt - number of people living below the “living wage” - average disposable income - average asset value - average life expectancy Asking people how content they are? The World Happiness Report seems a sensible way to assess how government policies and interventions are working. The UK doesn't fare particularly well in this regard when compared to other northern European countries. Clearly, it's still a great place to be born, raised and to live, compared to many other countries in the world. Benchmarking against those countries at the top of the list and understanding why they work that bit better seems a sensible thing to do. And copying their policies wherever possible.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jul 10, 2024 12:00:10 GMT
Latent and Overt Racism is present in all Political Party's the original Keir was hardly unique nor was Churchill but it didn't detract them from having other good qualities Looking at UK only it has been succesive Government Policies that have led us to where we are and those responsibilities can't now be shirked. The Windrush Generation are the most obvious. They were invited out of necessity treated like shit and 70 years later through a change in Government and circumstances "a Hostile Environment" was created to repatriate as many as possible and their decendents. Let's be honest the main objections are based on Colour and lack of integration but this overlooks the second variation of the problem, Colonisation and I'm not going down the Slavery route. When Brits Colonised other Countries they looked and spoke very different to the Native people. Did Brits integrate, did they fuck they even changed the language and established a caste system with British values, Language and God help us Religion at the top. Any Brit that "went native" was shunned. These legacies are part of what some see as a problem and a pull factor today The third historical factor is the influence and decisions Britain made as it extricated from occupation and usually involved partition. India/Pakistan is certainly one and Modi is using the former Colonisers tactics its a powder keg that could spill on the streets of UK. Palestine is another where the creation of a new State upset the balance of an entire region. NI is another and I know you favour unification, here the failed tactic of Partition was first tried and it doesn't work. The argument was to remain loyal to the people Britain "Planted" hundreds or years before and they too brought their culture. An inbuilt numerical superiority was established to create a two tier Apartheid Society but long term it doesn't work and armed conflict is inevitable. Satellite communication has changed the whole spectrum where images or conflict and lifestyles are beamed across the World in seconds. If you live in a relatively impoverished or conflict area you want some of that pie. As did those that rushed to find Gold in South Africa or Australia or the Pioneers that went to America and later the Refugees fleeing from Wars in Europe. It's all part of the same cycle and UK has a stake and a responsibility to COLLECTIVELY resolve by decisions far better than before. The situation will get worse as the environment turns hostile and yes overpopulation The problem is obvious, inequality. Individual Countries simply acting to protect their own interests doesn't work. The vast Majority of people don't want to leave their own Country some do for opportunity others due to conflict, drought or famine. Children are dying of malnutrition in Gaza currently yet more are being bombed in their schools in Kyiv yet many more but less reported are dying of starvation and war in Sudan. You could say its natural selection and survival of the fittest but those that do survive become the next generation of migrants if conditions don't change. Quite a few from Sudan come to become Doctors in our NHS and I completely agree with you they should be in Sudan where they are most needed. For the first time on record in UK a Government has left Office with people poorer. People are rightly concerned and look for solutions and this opens a gap for Populist Narcissistic Snake Oil Salesmen to peddle Populist simple solutions in US, UK and Europe and we know historically where that leads Have not got time to read all your posts but my main objections, as I keep saying, are numbers and culture clash not colour. I think the left have consistently been misguided on here in thinking they can speak for Brexiteers, encouraged by the echo chamber of a few regular posters Do you think the numbers should be reduced, set at zero or reversed through a policy of deportation? What did you think the consequences will be for the economy and should this be accepted or something done to mitigate the effects and if so what? There are culture clashes in every culture and they predate mass immigration. This country has a long history of often violent clashes between catholics and protestants, royalists and parliamentarians, right wing and left wing, English v every other nation in the UK, working class v ruling class. Thing is over time we've learned to get along. It doesn't mean there aren't tensions but cultural differences don't have to turn nasty. If anything these differences make for a more interesting society. I'm white and from a working class catholic background. My cultural background and is very different to my asian, muslim, middle class friends but I don't experience this as a clash of cultures. In fact I experience a far greater clash of culture with some people from the same background as me, in part because I've been fortunate to have and take the opportunity to integrate with people from other cultures. Fact is at the end of the day we all get to choose our friends and our enemies. Basing those choices on culture is very limiting.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 10, 2024 12:01:56 GMT
GDP per head doesn't 'determine' anything does it? It's simply the gross GDP divided by the population. Yes it's exactly that. The GDP measure which affects people's lives. It's a measure of productivity and should increase simply with progress. It increases with inflation and can continue to increase even as inequality gets worse. I'm not an economist but it's always seemed a very crude measure and not necessarily reflective of prosperity as it affects the average punter.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 10, 2024 12:10:28 GMT
Have not got time to read all your posts but my main objections, as I keep saying, are numbers and culture clash not colour. I think the left have consistently been misguided on here in thinking they can speak for Brexiteers, encouraged by the echo chamber of a few regular posters Do you think the numbers should be reduced, set at zero or reversed through a policy of deportation? What did you think the consequences will be for the economy and should this be accepted or something done to mitigate the effects and if so what? There are culture clashes in every culture and they predate mass immigration. This country has a long history of often violent clashes between catholics and protestants, royalists and parliamentarians, right wing and left wing, English v every other nation in the UK, working class v ruling class. Thing is over time we've learned to get along. It doesn't mean there aren't tensions but cultural differences don't have to turn nasty. If anything these differences make for a more interesting society. I'm white and from a working class catholic background. My cultural background and is very different to my asian, muslim, middle class friends but I don't experience this as a clash of cultures. In fact I experience a far greater clash of culture with some people from the same background as me, in part because I've been fortunate to have and take the opportunity to integrate with people from other cultures. Fact is at the end of the day we all get to choose our friends and our enemies. Basing those choices on culture is very limiting. I would aim to reduce immigration as much as possible. On the other end of the scale I would not encourage or give the impression that we can continually year in year out take as many people as want to come. It isn't the long term nor short term answer. We are only a small island and it seems many people want to come here. It isn't all about what is best for US. Other countries need qualified doctors etc. We are in a different scenario from the past. Population growth in recent years has been exponential. And similarly the cultural situation is different from the past , particularly in respect of Islam which will try to challenge the existing culture and laws....that's not just a UK thing , it is a global thing. I don't know if you saw the link I posted from the sentinel recently about St John's Church , Hanley where some Muslims made a distinction between themselves and the English.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Jul 10, 2024 12:13:45 GMT
Have not got time to read all your posts but my main objections, as I keep saying, are numbers and culture clash not colour. I think the left have consistently been misguided on here in thinking they can speak for Brexiteers, encouraged by the echo chamber of a few regular posters Do you think the numbers should be reduced, set at zero or reversed through a policy of deportation? What did you think the consequences will be for the economy and should this be accepted or something done to mitigate the effects and if so what? There are culture clashes in every culture and they predate mass immigration. This country has a long history of often violent clashes between catholics and protestants, royalists and parliamentarians, right wing and left wing, English v every other nation in the UK, working class v ruling class. Thing is over time we've learned to get along. It doesn't mean there aren't tensions but cultural differences don't have to turn nasty. If anything these differences make for a more interesting society. I'm white and from a working class catholic background. My cultural background and is very different to my asian, muslim, middle class friends but I don't experience this as a clash of cultures. In fact I experience a far greater clash of culture with some people from the same background as me, in part because I've been fortunate to have and take the opportunity to integrate with people from other cultures. Fact is at the end of the day we all get to choose our friends and our enemies. Basing those choices on culture is very limiting. I must admit I do struggle with what it is about 'our' culture (I too am white working class) that people think is threatened. I don't feel threatened. If we have a robust culture (whatever it is) then we'll be fine - fact that someone else wants to pray 7 times a day or doesn't eat bacon is up to them. If we think uour culture is so fragile that it will come under threat then we need to ask wby it is so fragile rather than reject the strength of other cultures. People of ALL cultures should abide by our laws - but that's quite a different thing.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 10, 2024 12:28:42 GMT
Do you think the numbers should be reduced, set at zero or reversed through a policy of deportation? What did you think the consequences will be for the economy and should this be accepted or something done to mitigate the effects and if so what? There are culture clashes in every culture and they predate mass immigration. This country has a long history of often violent clashes between catholics and protestants, royalists and parliamentarians, right wing and left wing, English v every other nation in the UK, working class v ruling class. Thing is over time we've learned to get along. It doesn't mean there aren't tensions but cultural differences don't have to turn nasty. If anything these differences make for a more interesting society. I'm white and from a working class catholic background. My cultural background and is very different to my asian, muslim, middle class friends but I don't experience this as a clash of cultures. In fact I experience a far greater clash of culture with some people from the same background as me, in part because I've been fortunate to have and take the opportunity to integrate with people from other cultures. Fact is at the end of the day we all get to choose our friends and our enemies. Basing those choices on culture is very limiting. I must admit I do struggle with what it is about 'our' culture (I too am white working class) that people think is threatened. I don't feel threatened. If we have a robust culture (whatever it is) then we'll be fine - fact that someone else wants to pray 7 times a day or doesn't eat bacon is up to them. If we think uour culture is so fragile that it will come under threat then we need to ask wby it is so fragile rather than reject the strength of other cultures. People of ALL cultures should abide by our laws - but that's quite a different thing. Two examples in Stoke-on-Trent Seymour. I suppose it is a matter of judgement whether you think it matters. In light of Gaza , Muslims in this country are only going to be more radicalised. Stoke imam jailed for supporting Islamic State group Sentencing, Judge Rebecca Poulet QC said he had preached hatred and division. His encouragement of terrorism and support for Isis was calculated and intentional at a time of terrible terrorist incidents, she said. Hussain was Pakistani born and had no intention of integrating in his new country, rather he would prefer Islam to take over. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/28/british-imam-kamran-hussain-who-preached-support-for-isis-jailed-for-xxx-yearsMuslim leaders hit back in Hanley church 'damaged graves' row Two quotes from the link below. "The Darul Falah centre has stressed that affected graves were already damaged and the work was carried out by English contractors. In a social media post, St John's Church stated: "We need to address and clarify some serious allegations regarding the recent clean-up efforts at St John's Church. There have been claims that individuals of the Muslim faith deliberately damaged graves and headstones, but this is completely untrue". "The individuals who physically lifted and moved these headstones were English contractors, not Muslims" Why the distinction between Muslims and English? www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/muslim-leaders-hit-back-hanley-9373026?utm_source=stokeontrent_live_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=main_daily_newsletter&utm_content=&utm_term=&ruid=68103bc4-b304-44a2-b3b5-f1c99a1df293
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 10, 2024 12:40:06 GMT
Yes, you are correct, concerns about immigration go back to keir Hardie. In fact it is an issue across the Globe, always has been. Brexit simply gave us the ability to control our borders without reference to the EU institutions. How well it is achieved is down to the government we elect and to a lesser extent agreements with our neighbours ( and in reality helping to solve the " problems " in other areas of the world thst causes people to want to come to these overcrowded islands.....just as though that could go on forever as a solution to an unjust world). Unfortunately unless the Starmer government or a near future government makes a better job of it then greater issues are in store for the UK. Being in the EU didn't magically solve the problem. As I say , it is down to our government......those who think that NOT controlling immigration is a solution are very mistaken. Largely speaking it seems to me that those who see being in the EU as part of the solution are the same people who don't actually acknowledge a problem. www.kilbirnie.uk.net/james_keir_hardie.htmAn interesting view from the Social Democrats End mass immigration We will reduce net migration to 50,000 per annum and promote a generation long ‘mass immigration pause’ in the interests of integration and social cohesion. We will withdraw from the 1951 UN refugee convention, the ECHR and all other international instruments which deny UK border sovereignty. sdp.org.uk/Latent and Overt Racism is present in all Political Party's the original Keir was hardly unique nor was Churchill but it didn't detract them from having other good qualities Looking at UK only it has been succesive Government Policies that have led us to where we are and those responsibilities can't now be shirked. The Windrush Generation are the most obvious. They were invited out of necessity treated like shit and 70 years later through a change in Government and circumstances "a Hostile Environment" was created to repatriate as many as possible and their decendents. Let's be honest the main objections are based on Colour and lack of integration but this overlooks the second variation of the problem, Colonisation and I'm not going down the Slavery route. When Brits Colonised other Countries they looked and spoke very different to the Native people. Did Brits integrate, did they fuck they even changed the language and established a caste system with British values, Language and God help us Religion at the top. Any Brit that "went native" was shunned. These legacies are part of what some see as a problem and a pull factor today The third historical factor is the influence and decisions Britain made as it extricated from occupation and usually involved partition. India/Pakistan is certainly one and Modi is using the former Colonisers tactics its a powder keg that could spill on the streets of UK. Palestine is another where the creation of a new State upset the balance of an entire region. NI is another and I know you favour unification, here the failed tactic of Partition was first tried and it doesn't work. The argument was to remain loyal to the people Britain "Planted" hundreds or years before and they too brought their culture. An inbuilt numerical superiority was established to create a two tier Apartheid Society but long term it doesn't work and armed conflict is inevitable. Satellite communication has changed the whole spectrum where images or conflict and lifestyles are beamed across the World in seconds. If you live in a relatively impoverished or conflict area you want some of that pie. As did those that rushed to find Gold in South Africa or Australia or the Pioneers that went to America and later the Refugees fleeing from Wars in Europe. It's all part of the same cycle and UK has a stake and a responsibility to COLLECTIVELY resolve by decisions far better than before. The situation will get worse as the environment turns hostile and yes overpopulation The problem is obvious, inequality. Individual Countries simply acting to protect their own interests doesn't work. The vast Majority of people don't want to leave their own Country some do for opportunity others due to conflict, drought or famine. Children are dying of malnutrition in Gaza currently yet more are being bombed in their schools in Kyiv yet many more but less reported are dying of starvation and war in Sudan. You could say its natural selection and survival of the fittest but those that do survive become the next generation of migrants if conditions don't change. Quite a few from Sudan come to become Doctors in our NHS and I completely agree with you they should be in Sudan where they are most needed. For the first time on record in UK a Government has left Office with people poorer. People are rightly concerned and look for solutions and this opens a gap for Populist Narcissistic Snake Oil Salesmen to peddle Populist simple solutions in US, UK and Europe and we know historically where that leads I'll be surprised if I read a better post than this on here this week. Excellent stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jul 10, 2024 12:40:48 GMT
Yes it's exactly that. The GDP measure which affects people's lives. It's a measure of productivity and should increase simply with progress. It increases with inflation and can continue to increase even as inequality gets worse. I'm not an economist but it's always seemed a very crude measure and not necessarily reflective of prosperity as it affects the average punter. True, but if you are to call out a GDP measure in the context of population growth then I think 'per head' is a better measure than total GDP. Since if you have say 10 million more people, as we do now compared to the year 2000, then total GDP will inevitably be far higher.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Jul 10, 2024 12:53:16 GMT
Do you think the numbers should be reduced, set at zero or reversed through a policy of deportation? What did you think the consequences will be for the economy and should this be accepted or something done to mitigate the effects and if so what? There are culture clashes in every culture and they predate mass immigration. This country has a long history of often violent clashes between catholics and protestants, royalists and parliamentarians, right wing and left wing, English v every other nation in the UK, working class v ruling class. Thing is over time we've learned to get along. It doesn't mean there aren't tensions but cultural differences don't have to turn nasty. If anything these differences make for a more interesting society. I'm white and from a working class catholic background. My cultural background and is very different to my asian, muslim, middle class friends but I don't experience this as a clash of cultures. In fact I experience a far greater clash of culture with some people from the same background as me, in part because I've been fortunate to have and take the opportunity to integrate with people from other cultures. Fact is at the end of the day we all get to choose our friends and our enemies. Basing those choices on culture is very limiting. I must admit I do struggle with what it is about 'our' culture (I too am white working class) that people think is threatened. I don't feel threatened. If we have a robust culture (whatever it is) then we'll be fine - fact that someone else wants to pray 7 times a day or doesn't eat bacon is up to them. If we think uour culture is so fragile that it will come under threat then we need to ask wby it is so fragile rather than reject the strength of other cultures. People of ALL cultures should abide by our laws - but that's quite a different thing. Just my opinion but I think part of the problem with our ever weakening culture is being constantly told by various outlets that Britain is a terrible place, built solely off the back of colonialism. And that the "natives" here are all privileged beneficiaries off the rest of the worlds suffering. The bizarre reactions here in the UK to the George Floyd incident 3000 miles away highlighted some of this to me. Seems to be engendering a belief that we aren't worthy and we have penance to pay. Seems to be having an impact.. Just my opinion mind.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 10, 2024 13:06:25 GMT
I must admit I do struggle with what it is about 'our' culture (I too am white working class) that people think is threatened. I don't feel threatened. If we have a robust culture (whatever it is) then we'll be fine - fact that someone else wants to pray 7 times a day or doesn't eat bacon is up to them. If we think uour culture is so fragile that it will come under threat then we need to ask wby it is so fragile rather than reject the strength of other cultures. People of ALL cultures should abide by our laws - but that's quite a different thing. Just my opinion but I think part of the problem with our ever weakening culture Before even moving on to the rest of your post Mickey, there's so much to unpack, in just the opening sentence you've written there ... What do you mean by 'our' in this context? I assume you mean British, correct me if I'm wrong. How then do you personally define 'British' culture? Are you suggesting that because British culture is now different to how it was in the (say) 50's, then it has become 'weakened' and therefore it's a 'problem'. How has it become weakened and what is the problem that arises as a result of it?
|
|