Thanks for an interesting piece Henry. I don;t think Kevin Maguire's ideas are terribly exciting - Perhaps useful to focus minds, but not complete or sufficient in themselves. I have a sense in this piece of something we might be seeing more of - "What Ed Milliband should have done..." He had a good opportunity to move Labour a bit beyond it's comfort zone - there were hints of that with Lord Glasman and Blue Labour - But it looks like Labour's comfort zone is Ed Milliband's comfort zone. His intellectual self-confidence might impress some, but he doesn't seem able to think beyond what he's always thought. He's never had to unlearn his own prejudices, never properly challenged himself, and it shows.
"An e-mail seen by Breitbart London makes reference to former Rochdale council leader, Knowl View School, and the deceased, paedophile Member of Parliament for Rochdale Cyril Smith. The e-mail, which was circulated by a Labour Member of Parliament's researcher in November 2012, read:
"You will have noted that Rochdale is currently in the eye of a media storm regarding child abuse and cover ups.
"The story that has yet to break is the role of the council leader, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, in all of this. He was given files on the abuse at Knowl View school and Cyril Smith over 10 years ago but he did nothing because the Labour Party had done a deal with the Liberals to keep quiet on Cyril. This was in exchange for the Liberals keeping quiet on allegations that XXXXXXXXXXXXX had sex with two girls with special needs that were in his care."
The reality is Ford and Goodwin wrote the first and only book on the subject. That just puts them in the right place at the right time. It doesn't make them experts in anything and I imagine after the next election they will disown their own work and write a new tome that is far better informed.
How naïve you are.
They won't disown it at all... just write an updated edition incorporating the 2015 results
Kerching!
;-)
Oh its the archetypal Tory. Well if the impression I have of their analysis is true and that of the review linked previously is also true then it will be a total rewrite because frankly not a lot of it stands up to serious scrutiny. For example, Goodwin & Ford calculated that Thanet South was 142nd most likely seat to fall to UKIP, Now it's top four according to the work Ford has now done with the Fabians. Rochester was number two hundred and umpteen but now UKIP are leading a poll there by 9 points. Clearly there are some serious flaws in their thinking and if they try to perpetuate those flaws their book will not be credible and will bomb.
Will individual patients who don't read the news even be told this is happening or that they have the chance to opt out? More authoritarian crap from the authoritarian Tories.
Miss Cyclefree, cheers for that link. Must say I'm rather dubious.
My GP's practice sent us all letters telling us how to opt out earlier this year and I've done so. If the government really wanted to share health information anonymously it could do so. The fact that NHS numbers are also being shared shows that the claims that it will be anonymous are garbage.
Nothing is more private than what you discuss with your doctor. I really object to the idea that the government thinks that that private information should be theirs for them to use as they see fit.
While on the subject of ads that tell an important story I'm hoping Labour start producing some hard hitting stuff like this. It wont be difficult because the theme that this government doesn't care is already out there and negative campaigns can work......
Why not also airbrush all references to him as well? It seems to be a very Orwellian move by The BBC to almost deny the existence of a former presenter.
Yeah but he did sort of touch a woman's boob 20 years ago.
They will also have to burn the remaining copies of TOTP annuals from 1978 and 1977.
While on the subject of ads that tell an important story I'm hoping Labour start producing some hard hitting stuff like this. It wont be difficult because the theme that this government doesn't care is already out there and negative campaigns can work if done well......
I think I have found the council leader named by that Breitbart article, his name was mentioned by the newspapers before but he has been ousted, and I can say the name of the other Labour guy the Liberals withheld in exchange probably has a very short name (4-5 letter name, 6 letter surname), and his initials are probably not C and L.
While on the subject of ads that tell an important story I'm hoping Labour start producing some hard hitting stuff like this. It wont be difficult because the theme that this government doesn't care is already out there and negative campaigns can work if done well......
While on the subject of ads that tell an important story I'm hoping Labour start producing some hard hitting stuff like this. It wont be difficult because the theme that this government doesn't care is already out there and negative campaigns can work......
While on the subject of ads that tell an important story I'm hoping Labour start producing some hard hitting stuff like this. It wont be difficult because the theme that this government doesn't care is already out there and negative campaigns can work if done well......
While on the subject of ads that tell an important story I'm hoping Labour start producing some hard hitting stuff like this. It wont be difficult because the theme that this government doesn't care is already out there and negative campaigns can work if done well......
I don't think that would work, because of the very thing you mention: people ALREADY know the Tories are heartless bastards. So a negative attack ad from Labour wouldn't do anything to explain why people should vote Labour (as opposed to a smaller party), nor would it sway the minds of people who already have "priced in" the Tories' heartlessness but are voting for them for other reasons (and this is where counterintuitively Labour's move to austerity has been a fail, because some people are inevitably going to think "well if we're going to get heartless nasty polices next time no matter who wins the election, we may as well stick with the guys who atleast do it competently").
1. The most important thing to have is the consent of the people to whatever level/type of immigration you have.
2. Second, you invite in only those whom you believe will benefit the country and the people here. Whether it will benefit the immigrant is irrelevant.
3. Third, "benefit" does not just mean economic benefit but also whether they are willing/eager to assimilate and integrate fully into the host society and become British and do not have a culture which is incompatible with or actively hostile to Western values and culture. Some communities are worse, much worse, at this than others. In my view, immigration from such communities should be halted or very severely restricted. You need to be explicit about the requirement to integrate fully and policy should be explicitly designed to make this happen e.g. by insisting that immigrants learn English, for instance, and not providing council services in a range of languages.
4. Fourth, you need to provide the services/infrastructure needed to absorb the numbers you are taking in. You also need to ensure that the costs of immigration - and there are always costs - are borne fairly and not just by some groups.
5. Finally, you should not use immigration to cover up failings in other policies e.g. letting in people to do jobs because you cannot or are unwilling to train your own people to do those jobs.
To my mind, there has been a failing over 1 (particularly when the levels of immigration rose) and a very severe failing over point 3. Eastern European Jewish immigrants are a classic example of immigrants who have, despite inauspicious starts and significant hostility, integrated very well and who have consciously made a point of doing so. In more recent years we have, stupidly, taken the complete opposite view in relation to immigration from parts of the Indian sub-continent and this has aggravated the problems inherent in having immigration from groups with very very different (and in some cases hostile) cultural values and who are now the means by which some very violent and illiberal values are spread, to the detriment of us all, whether immigrant or not.
Trying to sell immigration on the basis of nice foods and music without addressing the more fundamental issues is silly and superficial. It's like Blair trying to sell the benefits of the euro on the grounds that it would save the 5 minutes it takes to change currency before going to Tuscany on holiday.
Henry G confirms my diagnosis of anomie.The solution is to return to the state of "being in common" as it is commonality that has been lost,common values,common interests, as society has been increasingly individually atomised.Try organising sewerage on an individual basis,each individual being responsible for their own sewage.This is being in common,understanding the problem can only be dealt with collectively.Those in Ukip are with Labour when Labour conference actively supports common ownership.Bringing back water,rail,gas,water,probation,child protection,into common ownership,would bring some Ukip voters back to Labour too. Labour has been most successful when it called the bedroom tax the bedroom tax.The BBC say "commonly known as " the bedroom tax.In other words,Labour were speaking the language of people in common. Labour has to meet the desire of people to act in common.
Well the conferences are over, we are nearing the end of this parliament and the most important thing that gave rise to UKIP and the collapse of the LD is this:
Starting in five minutes on BBC 2, a repeat of the program about Eric 'Winkle' Brown, entitled "Britain's Greatest Pilot". Winkle holds two world records, the largest number of different aircraft types flown (487), and the largest number of carrier landings (2,407). He also holds several firsts, including the first landing and take off of a jet from a carrier.
Starting in five minutes on BBC 2, a repeat of the program about Eric 'Winkle' Brown, entitled "Britain's Greatest Pilot". Winkle holds two world records, the largest number of different aircraft types flown (487), and the largest number of carrier landings (2,407). He also holds several firsts, including the first landing and take off of a jet from a carrier.
Starting in five minutes on BBC 2, a repeat of the program about Eric 'Winkle' Brown, entitled "Britain's Greatest Pilot". Winkle holds two world records, the largest number of different aircraft types flown (487), and the largest number of carrier landings (2,407). He also holds several firsts, including the first landing and take off of a jet from a carrier.
"An e-mail seen by Breitbart London makes reference to former Rochdale council leader, Knowl View School, and the deceased, paedophile Member of Parliament for Rochdale Cyril Smith. The e-mail, which was circulated by a Labour Member of Parliament's researcher in November 2012, read:
"You will have noted that Rochdale is currently in the eye of a media storm regarding child abuse and cover ups.
"The story that has yet to break is the role of the council leader, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, in all of this. He was given files on the abuse at Knowl View school and Cyril Smith over 10 years ago but he did nothing because the Labour Party had done a deal with the Liberals to keep quiet on Cyril. This was in exchange for the Liberals keeping quiet on allegations that XXXXXXXXXXXXX had sex with two girls with special needs that were in his care."
Too late to impact the Heywood by-election though. I wonder who XXXXXXXXXXXXX is ?
Given that Smith defected Labour to Liberal after being Labour Chair of the Education Comittee and there was a considerable amount of ill-feeling at the time, there had to be either no substance to the allegations or some cover-up deal.
1. The most important thing to have is the consent of the people to whatever level/type of immigration you have.
2. Second, you invite in only those whom you believe will benefit the country and the people here. Whether it will benefit the immigrant is irrelevant.
3. Third, "benefit" does not just mean economic benefit but also whether they are willing/eager to assimilate and integrate fully into the host society and become British and do not have a culture which is incompatible with or actively hostile to Western values and culture. Some communities are worse, much worse, at this than others. In my view, immigration from such communities should be halted or very severely restricted. You need to be explicit about the requirement to integrate fully and policy should be explicitly designed to make this happen e.g. by insisting that immigrants learn English, for instance, and not providing council services in a range of languages.
4. Fourth, you need to provide the services/infrastructure needed to absorb the numbers you are taking in. You also need to ensure that the costs of immigration - and there are always costs - are borne fairly and not just by some groups.
5. Finally, you should not use immigration to cover up failings in other policies e.g. letting in people to do jobs because you cannot or are unwilling to train your own people to do those jobs.
To my mind, there has been a failing over 1 (particularly when the levels of immigration rose) and a very severe failing over point 3. Eastern European Jewish immigrants are a classic example of immigrants who have, despite inauspicious starts and significant hostility, integrated very well and who have consciously made a point of doing so. In more recent years we have, stupidly, taken the complete opposite view in relation to immigration from parts of the Indian sub-continent and this has aggravated the problems inherent in having immigration from groups with very very different (and in some cases hostile) cultural values and who are now the means by which some very violent and illiberal values are spread, to the detriment of us all, whether immigrant or not.
Trying to sell immigration on the basis of nice foods and music without addressing the more fundamental issues is silly and superficial. It's like Blair trying to sell the benefits of the euro on the grounds that it would save the 5 minutes it takes to change currency before going to Tuscany on holiday.
Miss Cyclefree, cheers for that link. Must say I'm rather dubious.
My GP's practice sent us all letters telling us how to opt out earlier this year and I've done so. If the government really wanted to share health information anonymously it could do so. The fact that NHS numbers are also being shared shows that the claims that it will be anonymous are garbage.
Nothing is more private than what you discuss with your doctor. I really object to the idea that the government thinks that that private information should be theirs for them to use as they see fit.
Requiring opt out consent is potentially problematic in law. Such consent to share information needs to be opt in.
Starting in five minutes on BBC 2, a repeat of the program about Eric 'Winkle' Brown, entitled "Britain's Greatest Pilot". Winkle holds two world records, the largest number of different aircraft types flown (487), and the largest number of carrier landings (2,407). He also holds several firsts, including the first landing and take off of a jet from a carrier.
Highly recommended! They don't make 'em like that anymore. His tails of flying captured German jets particularly.
I was lucky enough to hear him give a lecture earlier this year. He'd been a hero of mine since my teens, and I never thought I would actually get to see the guy. He stood and talked for over two hours - not bad for a gent of 95!
But most memorable was not anything related to aircraft, but the long talk he gave about the liberation of Belsen, where he was sent to act as an interpreter. It obviously distresses him seventy years later ...
Trying to sell immigration on the basis of nice foods and music without addressing the more fundamental issues is silly and superficial. It's like Blair trying to sell the benefits of the euro on the grounds that it would save the 5 minutes it takes to change currency before going to Tuscany on holiday.
Lol. Google Sam and the Womp, and consider whether that and cat tikka massala really close down the immigration debate. Antifrank is such an intelligent poster must of the time that I seriously suspect identity theft here.
Starting in five minutes on BBC 2, a repeat of the program about Eric 'Winkle' Brown, entitled "Britain's Greatest Pilot". Winkle holds two world records, the largest number of different aircraft types flown (487), and the largest number of carrier landings (2,407). He also holds several firsts, including the first landing and take off of a jet from a carrier.
Highly recommended! They don't make 'em like that anymore. His tails of flying captured German jets particularly.
I was lucky enough to hear him give a lecture earlier this year. He'd been a hero of mine since my teens, and I never thought I would actually get to see the guy. He stood and talked for over two hours - not bad for a gent of 95!
But most memorable was not anything related to aircraft, but the long talk he gave about the liberation of Belsen, where he was sent to act as an interpreter. It obviously distresses him seventy years later ...
Had the great pleasure a few years ago ,when I flew a Tiger Moth,amazing experience,open cockpit,fuel tank above your head,and prop right in front of you,grass field take off/landing,flying jacket etc. Amazing.
@Cyclefree - I couldn't agree more. I'm rather insulted when such trite statements are made as if they're clinchers. How out of touch does one have to be to think these make a jot of difference to the lives of those who feel like foreigners and second class citizens in their own neighbourhoods.
Listening to *world music* and dining out at your local Somali restaurant isn't something this group tends to do. Still, the metropolitan latte-liberal can look down their noses and tut at their vulgar fellow residents.
Trying to sell immigration on the basis of nice foods and music without addressing the more fundamental issues is silly and superficial. It's like Blair trying to sell the benefits of the euro on the grounds that it would save the 5 minutes it takes to change currency before going to Tuscany on holiday.
I agree with you but in simple terms, it barely makes any difference where the people are from and what traditions they have if you limit the numbers
If people cant speak English they will learn, unless there enough people who speak their language here to make it an unnecessary requirement for a happy life
Watch Enoch Powell's interview with David Frost on youtube.. he explains the problem we have now perfectly, and this was nearly 50 years ago... it's simply a matter of numbers, nothing to do with the character of the immigrant which is by and large the same as the people already here
One of the most depressing things in the aftermath of this exchange is the way Affleck is now being lauded for having exposed my and Maher’s “racism,” “bigotry,” and “hatred of Muslims.” This is yet another sign that simply accusing someone of these sins, however illogically, is sufficient to establish them as facts in the minds of many viewers.
2. Second, you invite in only those whom you believe will benefit the country and the people here. Whether it will benefit the immigrant is irrelevant.
That was the Mail's argument for keeping the Jews escaping from Germany in the thirties. We learn nothing
Trying to sell immigration on the basis of nice foods and music without addressing the more fundamental issues is silly and superficial. It's like Blair trying to sell the benefits of the euro on the grounds that it would save the 5 minutes it takes to change currency before going to Tuscany on holiday.
Lol. Google Sam and the Womp, and consider whether that and cat tikka massala really close down the immigration debate. Antifrank is such an intelligent poster must of the time that I seriously suspect identity theft here.
Things I have learned today:
1) culture, low as well as high, is of no interest to pbers 2) what we eat is of no interest to pbers 3) the Irish are much more easily assimilated than other minorities (ignoring 800 years of history and signs within living memory that read "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs") 4) mass immigration began in 1997 5) reggae and ska never happened
Trying to sell immigration on the basis of nice foods and music without addressing the more fundamental issues is silly and superficial. It's like Blair trying to sell the benefits of the euro on the grounds that it would save the 5 minutes it takes to change currency before going to Tuscany on holiday.
Lol. Google Sam and the Womp, and consider whether that and cat tikka massala really close down the immigration debate. Antifrank is such an intelligent poster must of the time that I seriously suspect identity theft here.
Things I have learned today:
1) culture, low as well as high, is of no interest to pbers 2) what we eat is of no interest to pbers 3) the Irish are much more easily assimilated than other minorities (ignoring 800 years of history and signs within living memory that read "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs") 4) mass immigration began in 1997 5) reggae and ska never happened
Every day's a school day.
1. Culture is of high interest to it. It's just the most important parts of it aren't music and food, but cultural values towards society and governance. 2. See 1. 3. Within living memory? Care to provide some evidence for that? 4. Only once before, in the post-war period, have we ever had immigration at post-1997 levels. 5. The most famous musician spreading reggae to the UK was never an immigrant here.
PS. Have you realised your logical mistake when you were appalled at me supposedly equating the Rotherham scandal with the slave trade?
Trying to sell immigration on the basis of nice foods and music without addressing the more fundamental issues is silly and superficial. It's like Blair trying to sell the benefits of the euro on the grounds that it would save the 5 minutes it takes to change currency before going to Tuscany on holiday.
Lol. Google Sam and the Womp, and consider whether that and cat tikka massala really close down the immigration debate. Antifrank is such an intelligent poster must of the time that I seriously suspect identity theft here.
Things I have learned today:
1) culture, low as well as high, is of no interest to pbers 2) what we eat is of no interest to pbers 3) the Irish are much more easily assimilated than other minorities (ignoring 800 years of history and signs within living memory that read "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs") 4) mass immigration began in 1997 5) reggae and ska never happened
Every day's a school day.
Any moment now I expect the 3 Billy Goats Gruff to appear.
1. The most important thing to have is the consent of the people to whatever level/type of immigration you have.
2. Second, you invite in only those whom you believe will benefit the country and the people here. Whether it will benefit the immigrant is irrelevant.
3. Third, "benefit" does not just mean economic benefit but also whether they are willing/eager to assimilate and integrate fully into the host society and become British and do not have a culture which is incompatible with or actively hostile to Western values and culture. Some communities are worse, much worse, at this than others. In my view, immigration from such communities should be halted or very severely restricted. You need to be explicit about the requirement to integrate fully and policy should be explicitly designed to make this happen e.g. by insisting that immigrants learn English, for instance, and not providing council services in a range of languages.
4. Fourth, you need to provide the services/infrastructure needed to absorb the numbers you are taking in. You also need to ensure that the costs of immigration - and there are always costs - are borne fairly and not just by some groups.
5. Finally, you should not use immigration to cover up failings in other policies e.g. letting in people to do jobs because you cannot or are unwilling to train your own people to do those jobs.
To my mind, there has been a failing over 1 (particularly when the levels of immigration rose) and a very severe failing over point 3. Eastern European Jewish immigrants are a classic example of immigrants who have, despite inauspicious starts and significant hostility, integrated very well and who have consciously made a point of doing so. In more recent years we have, stupidly, taken the complete opposite view in relation to immigration from parts of the Indian sub-continent and this has aggravated the problems inherent in having immigration from groups with very very different (and in some cases hostile) cultural values and who are now the means by which some very violent and illiberal values are spread, to the detriment of us all, whether immigrant or not.
Trying to sell immigration on the basis of nice foods and music without addressing the more fundamental issues is silly and superficial. It's like Blair trying to sell the benefits of the euro on the grounds that it would save the 5 minutes it takes to change currency before going to Tuscany on holiday.
Excellent post and I'd like to see some sort of intelligent counter-argument to your points (if indeed there is one).
Trying to sell immigration on the basis of nice foods and music without addressing the more fundamental issues is silly and superficial. It's like Blair trying to sell the benefits of the euro on the grounds that it would save the 5 minutes it takes to change currency before going to Tuscany on holiday.
Lol. Google Sam and the Womp, and consider whether that and cat tikka massala really close down the immigration debate. Antifrank is such an intelligent poster must of the time that I seriously suspect identity theft here.
Things I have learned today:
1) culture, low as well as high, is of no interest to pbers 2) what we eat is of no interest to pbers 3) the Irish are much more easily assimilated than other minorities (ignoring 800 years of history and signs within living memory that read "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs") 4) mass immigration began in 1997 5) reggae and ska never happened
Trying to sell immigration on the basis of nice foods and music without addressing the more fundamental issues is silly and superficial. It's like Blair trying to sell the benefits of the euro on the grounds that it would save the 5 minutes it takes to change currency before going to Tuscany on holiday.
Lol. Google Sam and the Womp, and consider whether that and cat tikka massala really close down the immigration debate. Antifrank is such an intelligent poster must of the time that I seriously suspect identity theft here.
Things I have learned today:
1) culture, low as well as high, is of no interest to pbers 2) what we eat is of no interest to pbers 3) the Irish are much more easily assimilated than other minorities (ignoring 800 years of history and signs within living memory that read "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs") 4) mass immigration began in 1997 5) reggae and ska never happened
Every day's a school day.
A whole army of straw men to clutch at.
How's about answering the points raised without being completely facile?
"That's nothing, watch the mayhem of this political ad:"
In a way it was everything Clegg's wasn't. It kept your attention it was amusing it told a coherent story and the filming was competent.
Coherent story? After 2 and a half minutes the guy finally says Herman Cain and only 3 times in the whole ad, while there is fighting in the background. And what is the political message of yellow flowers in a western?
I would agree with your assessment almost totally except for your assessment of where the government is failing and arguably it is failing in all 5 categories but particularly in the second category (which implies controlled immigration) given it has no control over the numbers of migrants entering the country.
Furthermore I would add two more categories to those 5 you have highlighted.
Firstly immigration policy must not discriminate against any group of immigrants to the benefit of another groups of immigrants
Secondly, immigration policy must recognise its role in ensuring the security of the country
Sadly I would argue that the government are failing on those two criteria as well
2. Second, you invite in only those whom you believe will benefit the country and the people here. Whether it will benefit the immigrant is irrelevant.
That was the Mail's argument for keeping the Jews escaping from Germany in the thirties. We learn nothing
So the conclusion you seem to have made is that we shouldn't invite only those that will be a benefit to the UK because the Mail sort of said something similar about Jews 80 years ago.
Honestly these pro-immigration arguments are utterly terrible. Please tell me someone has something better than this.
Trying to sell immigration on the basis of nice foods and music without addressing the more fundamental issues is silly and superficial. It's like Blair trying to sell the benefits of the euro on the grounds that it would save the 5 minutes it takes to change currency before going to Tuscany on holiday.
Lol. Google Sam and the Womp, and consider whether that and cat tikka massala really close down the immigration debate. Antifrank is such an intelligent poster must of the time that I seriously suspect identity theft here.
Things I have learned today:
1) culture, low as well as high, is of no interest to pbers 2) what we eat is of no interest to pbers 3) the Irish are much more easily assimilated than other minorities (ignoring 800 years of history and signs within living memory that read "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs") 4) mass immigration began in 1997 5) reggae and ska never happened
Mr Antifrank (or the doppelganger who is now posting),
"Things I have learned today:
1) culture, low as well as high, is of no interest to pbers 2) what we eat is of no interest to pbers 3) the Irish are much more easily assimilated than other minorities (ignoring 800 years of history and signs within living memory that read "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs") 4) mass immigration began in 1997 5) reggae and ska never happened."
(1) Culture of all sorts is often discussed (2) Not sure but I'm not over-bothered. (3) I married an Irish girl, but those 800 years of history could be applied to the Welsh and Scots, and especially to the French. (4) Serious mass immigration, rather than sporadic pulses, did indeed start about ten years ago. (5) They definitely did, but I wasn't a fan. And that's the point - I'm happy to have as many different tastes in music as possible. I can take it or leave it.
But using the Bom Boms or something as justification is just a bit silly (and unlike you).
I think some immigration is beneficial, but that isn't really the problem. Creating straw men is worthy of Roger; of course we should let in threatened minorities. Jews, Ugandan Asians, Christian Iraqis, or whatever. As should other European nations.
Should we allow in unlimited economic migrants with no regard for infrastructure or usefulness is the question that should be addressed. If you believe the answer is Yes, that's fine, but don't pretend that you're answering another question.
"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett."
Another pro-indepedence party causing Labour problems, this time north of the border. We are rightly warned about misinterpreting crosstabs, but if these are even remotely indicative...
Scotland’s Justice Minister remains in post after SNP MSPs rallied round him to defeat opposition attempts to oust him in the wake of the furore over armed police.
A Labour motion urging Kenny MacAskill to resign was rejected by 62 votes to 54 in the Scottish Parliament after a fiery debate in which critics lined up to lambast his performance.
However, Nicola Sturgeon is expected to replace him when she conducts a reshuffle after taking over from Alex Salmond as First Minister next month.
Mr Antifrank (or the doppelganger who is now posting),
"Things I have learned today:
1) culture, low as well as high, is of no interest to pbers 2) what we eat is of no interest to pbers 3) the Irish are much more easily assimilated than other minorities (ignoring 800 years of history and signs within living memory that read "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs") 4) mass immigration began in 1997 5) reggae and ska never happened."
(1) Culture of all sorts is often discussed (2) Not sure but I'm not over-bothered. (3) I married an Irish girl, but those 800 years of history could be applied to the Welsh and Scots, and especially to the French. (4) Serious mass immigration, rather than sporadic pulses, did indeed start about ten years ago. (5) They definitely did, but I wasn't a fan. And that's the point - I'm happy to have as many different tastes in music as possible. I can take it or leave it.
But using the Bom Boms or something as justification is just a bit silly (and unlike you).
I think some immigration is beneficial, but that isn't really the problem. Creating straw men is worthy of Roger; of course we should let in threatened minorities. Jews, Ugandan Asians, Christian Iraqis, or whatever. As should other European nations.
Should we allow in unlimited economic migrants with no regard for infrastructure or usefulness is the question that should be addressed. If you believe the answer is Yes, that's fine, but don't pretend that you're answering another question.
The question originally posed was what benefit had mass immigration had. I identified a few benefits off the top of my head, without claiming that they outweighed the drawbacks (though I think the economic advantages do).
I have been assailed by a succession of xenophobes clamouring to argue that no, there are absolutely no advantages of mass immigration. Along the way we have had such gems of claims that the Chinese haven't been mass immigrants to Britain and that the Irish were easily assimilated. A parenthetical observation about the development of our culture has been twisted out of all recognition.
Look, I get that quite a few of you have strong hostility towards some or all immigrants. But failing to recognise that in some respects at least Britain has been changed for the better by having mass immigration serves only to make the rest of your arguments look ridiculous.
I suppose we could just jail people without trial or evidence.
I feel confident that the crimes in Rotherham will now be investigated fully, although less so about a potential cover-up being fully examined. Those investigating are the same people that are tarred with past lapses.
What I am alarmed about is that there are probably another dozen or so Rotherhams being kept on the quiet because they never had a Professor Jay. Why is there not a Yewtree on this?
Mr Antifrank (or the doppelganger who is now posting),
"Things I have learned today:
1) culture, low as well as high, is of no interest to pbers 2) what we eat is of no interest to pbers 3) the Irish are much more easily assimilated than other minorities (ignoring 800 years of history and signs within living memory that read "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs") 4) mass immigration began in 1997 5) reggae and ska never happened."
(1) Culture of all sorts is often discussed (2) Not sure but I'm not over-bothered. (3) I married an Irish girl, but those 800 years of history could be applied to the Welsh and Scots, and especially to the French. (4) Serious mass immigration, rather than sporadic pulses, did indeed start about ten years ago. (5) They definitely did, but I wasn't a fan. And that's the point - I'm happy to have as many different tastes in music as possible. I can take it or leave it.
But using the Bom Boms or something as justification is just a bit silly (and unlike you).
I think some immigration is beneficial, but that isn't really the problem. Creating straw men is worthy of Roger; of course we should let in threatened minorities. Jews, Ugandan Asians, Christian Iraqis, or whatever. As should other European nations.
Should we allow in unlimited economic migrants with no regard for infrastructure or usefulness is the question that should be addressed. If you believe the answer is Yes, that's fine, but don't pretend that you're answering another question.
The question originally posed was what benefit had mass immigration had. I identified a few benefits off the top of my head, without claiming that they outweighed the drawbacks (though I think the economic advantages do).
I have been assailed by a succession of xenophobes clamouring to argue that no, there are absolutely no advantages of mass immigration. Along the way we have had such gems of claims that the Chinese haven't been mass immigrants to Britain and that the Irish were easily assimilated. A parenthetical observation about the development of our culture has been twisted out of all recognition.
Look, I get that quite a few of you have strong hostility towards some or all immigrants. But failing to recognise that in some respects at least Britain has been changed for the better by having mass immigration serves only to make the rest of your arguments look ridiculous.
Sorry antifrank but the issue is settled, Labour encouraged mass immigration for political reasons, the cultural or economic excuses are simple throwing dust in our eyes. People from the Labour party have said so.
What I am alarmed about is that there are probably another dozen or so Rotherhams being kept on the quiet because they never had a Professor Jay.
I am starting to think the scale of these crimes is so massive it is beyond the existing system to deal with it, and that is the real reason some want to sweep it under the carpet.
A reasonable answer and I now believe you are the original Antifrank.
But "I have been assailed by a succession of xenophobes" is victimhood writ large.
I don't really like subjective insults and xenophobe is an excellent one. I might well get on with a Martian but dislike a particular Irish person but I'd be a xenophobe to some people. Oh well, you can't win them all.
What I am alarmed about is that there are probably another dozen or so Rotherhams being kept on the quiet because they never had a Professor Jay.
I am starting to think the scale of these crimes is so massive it is beyond the existing system to deal with it, and that is the real reason some want to sweep it under the carpet.
The reasons are pure politics with a sprinkle of personal and family reasons. Lets say hypothetically of course that a young female party member that is your friend had slept with a married local councilor in the mayors office in the local town hall just 4 days before the local elections, you found about it and then what would you do?
''I identified a few benefits off the top of my head, without claiming that they outweighed the drawbacks (though I think the economic advantages do). ''
Antifrank seems to be arguing that a one of the many thousands of girls who have been gang raped and treated little better than slaves in parts of England should take consolation in the fact there's a cracking new turkish place opened just down the road.
Mr Antifrank (or the doppelganger who is now posting),
"Things I have learned today:
1) culture, low as well as high, is of no interest to pbers 2) what we eat is of no interest to pbers 3) the Irish are much more easily assimilated than other minorities (ignoring 800 years of history and signs within living memory that read "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs") 4) mass immigration began in 1997 5) reggae and ska never happened."
(1) Culture of all sorts is often discussed (2) Not sure but I'm not over-bothered. (3) I married an Irish girl, but those 800 years of history could be applied to the Welsh and Scots, and especially to the French. (4) Serious mass immigration, rather than sporadic pulses, did indeed start about ten years ago. (5) They definitely did, but I wasn't a fan. And that's the point - I'm happy to have as many different tastes in music as possible. I can take it or leave it.
But using the Bom Boms or something as justification is just a bit silly (and unlike you).
I think some immigration is beneficial, but that isn't really the problem. Creating straw men is worthy of Roger; of course we should let in threatened minorities. Jews, Ugandan Asians, Christian Iraqis, or whatever. As should other European nations.
Should we allow in unlimited economic migrants with no regard for infrastructure or usefulness is the question that should be addressed. If you believe the answer is Yes, that's fine, but don't pretend that you're answering another question.
Along the way we have had such gems of claims that the Chinese haven't been mass immigrants to Britain and that the Irish were easily assimilated.
I think I see a slight couple of flaws in your argument here.
It's the fact that the Chinese haven't been mass immigrants to Britain and that the Irish are easily assimilated.
What I am alarmed about is that there are probably another dozen or so Rotherhams being kept on the quiet because they never had a Professor Jay.
I am starting to think the scale of these crimes is so massive it is beyond the existing system to deal with it, and that is the real reason some want to sweep it under the carpet.
The reasons are pure politics with a sprinkle of personal and family reasons.
People would have to be evil to sweep such abuse under the carpet for such reasons. I mean there's no-one in parliament calling for an investigation into this stuff on a national level. After what happened with the newspapers and the Saville stuff, I find it unbelievable that a handful of backbench MPs haven't taken up a campaign. The mainstream media is equally silent. I can only think that a back channel message has gone out to keep this on the quiet, probably claiming the need to stop the plebs from rioting.
I can't help but agree - the monster is already too mind-bending to comprehend. More of the same is - well, I can't begin to get my head around it - nevermind more.
What I am alarmed about is that there are probably another dozen or so Rotherhams being kept on the quiet because they never had a Professor Jay.
I am starting to think the scale of these crimes is so massive it is beyond the existing system to deal with it, and that is the real reason some want to sweep it under the carpet.
Mr Antifrank (or the doppelganger who is now posting),
"Things I have learned today:
1) culture, low as well as high, is of no interest to pbers 2) what we eat is of no interest to pbers 3) the Irish are much more easily assimilated than other minorities (ignoring 800 years of history and signs within living memory that read "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs") 4) mass immigration began in 1997 5) reggae and ska never happened."
(1) Culture of all sorts is often discussed (2) Not sure but I'm not over-bothered. (3) I married an Irish girl, but those 800 years of history could be applied to the Welsh and Scots, and especially to the French. (4) Serious mass immigration, rather than sporadic pulses, did indeed start about ten years ago. (5) They definitely did, but I wasn't a fan. And that's the point - I'm happy to have as many different tastes in music as possible. I can take it or leave it.
But using the Bom Boms or something as justification is just a bit silly (and unlike you).
I think some immigration is beneficial, but that isn't really the problem. Creating straw men is worthy of Roger; of course we should let in threatened minorities. Jews, Ugandan Asians, Christian Iraqis, or whatever. As should other European nations.
Should we allow in unlimited economic migrants with no regard for infrastructure or usefulness is the question that should be addressed. If you believe the answer is Yes, that's fine, but don't pretend that you're answering another question.
Along the way we have had such gems of claims that the Chinese haven't been mass immigrants to Britain and that the Irish were easily assimilated.
I think I see a slight couple of flaws in your argument here.
It's the fact that the Chinese haven't been mass immigrants to Britain and that the Irish are easily assimilated.
Apart from that though spot on.
There are at least 400,000 Chinese Britons, and the Irish were unpopular immigrants until at least the 1960s.
Mr Antifrank (or the doppelganger who is now posting),
"Things I have learned today:
But using the Bom Boms or something as justification is just a bit silly (and unlike you).
I think some immigration is beneficial, but that isn't really the problem. Creating straw men is worthy of Roger; of course we should let in threatened minorities. Jews, Ugandan Asians, Christian Iraqis, or whatever. As should other European nations.
Should we allow in unlimited economic migrants with no regard for infrastructure or usefulness is the question that should be addressed. If you believe the answer is Yes, that's fine, but don't pretend that you're answering another question.
The question originally posed was what benefit had mass immigration had. I identified a few benefits off the top of my head, without claiming that they outweighed the drawbacks (though I think the economic advantages do).
I have been assailed by a succession of xenophobes clamouring to argue that no, there are absolutely no advantages of mass immigration. Along the way we have had such gems of claims that the Chinese haven't been mass immigrants to Britain and that the Irish were easily assimilated. A parenthetical observation about the development of our culture has been twisted out of all recognition.
Look, I get that quite a few of you have strong hostility towards some or all immigrants. But failing to recognise that in some respects at least Britain has been changed for the better by having mass immigration serves only to make the rest of your arguments look ridiculous.
Sorry antifrank but the issue is settled, Labour encouraged mass immigration for political reasons, the cultural or economic excuses are simple throwing dust in our eyes. People from the Labour party have said so.
As the indigenous population gets older [ pensioners don't pay tax but need ever higher health and other benefits ] and the number of taxpayers fall relative to the overall population, who exactly will pay the taxes to maintain, let alone, existing services ?
We have an example of what happens to a country with falling birthrate and population and economic decline: It is called JAPAN.
The USA has always shown dynamism economically barring recession which every other country also faces. They have always absorbed immigrants. Even today, there is a net addition of immigrants in the USA.
Of course, those countries with a large reservoir of low paid workers do not need immigration. Even countries like Malaysia needs immigration. Someone has to do the dirty work.
I agree with you but in simple terms, it barely makes any difference where the people are from and what traditions they have if you limit the numbers
If people cant speak English they will learn, unless there enough people who speak their language here to make it an unnecessary requirement for a happy life
Watch Enoch Powell's interview with David Frost on youtube.. he explains the problem we have now perfectly, and this was nearly 50 years ago... it's simply a matter of numbers, nothing to do with the character of the immigrant which is by and large the same as the people already here
It pains me to commend, at least in part, a post featuring such an uncritically glowing reference to Enoch Powell (I don't think he single-handedly set back race relations by a decade - I don't think any individual could - but collectively, people of his ilk certainly did).
But the underlying logic to "it's the numbers, not the social character" makes a lot of sense, and is in many ways more attractive than the idea of (pre)judging people based on their cultural/ethnic/national background. Particularly since people tend to underestimate the internal heterogeneity of immigrant communities.
I seem to recall Channel 4 dividing immigrants up and declaring that Americans made a net positive impact on our economy, and Somalis a net negative. But that really only tells us that the kind of yank who comes to the City to work in financial services, occupies a different economic niche to a refugee with limited education, limited access to learning English (entitlement to language courses is more restrictive than many assume, and arguably, than it ought to be for the purposes of cohesion/integration), and who may not even have the right to work (if their asylum claim is still pending). I don't think it tells us anything about how likely any individual American or Somali is to be empathetic, or confident, or creative, or impulsive, or anything else that might make them a "better" or "worse" member or society.
I have, seriously, listened to this bom bom stuff on YouTube. The Bay City Rollers were a great deal more talented. All the great non indigenous popular music to have reached us since WW2 - and it is great - the blues, rock, reggae, ska - is directly attributable to the Atlantic slave trade but not in the main to immigration into this country. And sorry, but cheap curry houses suck.
Mr Antifrank (or the doppelganger who is now posting)
The question originally posed was what benefit had mass immigration had. I identified a few benefits off the top of my head, without claiming that they outweighed the drawbacks (though I think the economic advantages do).
I have been assailed by a succession of xenophobes clamouring to argue that no, there are absolutely no advantages of mass immigration. Along the way we have had such gems of claims that the Chinese haven't been mass immigrants to Britain and that the Irish were easily assimilated. A parenthetical observation about the development of our culture has been twisted out of all recognition.
Look, I get that quite a few of you have strong hostility towards some or all immigrants. But failing to recognise that in some respects at least Britain has been changed for the better by having mass immigration serves only to make the rest of your arguments look ridiculous.
Another problem with your rather facile reply as far as I can see is that 1,2 & 5 are not dependent on any immigration at all. We have imported foreign foods, music and culture throughout history without any dependence on mass immigration.
Not only that but in this age of global travel and global communications and technology and not least the internet, the internet utterly negates any benefit of mass immigration in those areas for the simple reason you can go and find the knowledge you need to drive discovery in such matters and then go and discover it for yourself. You don't need immigrants to bring it to your door. So 1, 2 & 5 are a nonsense
Mr Antifrank (or the doppelganger who is now posting),
"Things I have learned today:
But using the Bom Boms or something as justification is just a bit silly (and unlike you).
The question originally posed was what benefit had mass immigration had. I identified a few benefits off the top of my head, without claiming that they outweighed the drawbacks (though I think the economic advantages do).
I have been assailed by a succession of xenophobes clamouring to argue that no, there are absolutely no advantages of mass immigration. Along the way we have had such gems of claims that the Chinese haven't been mass immigrants to Britain and that the Irish were easily assimilated. A parenthetical observation about the development of our culture has been twisted out of all recognition.
Look, I get that quite a few of you have strong hostility towards some or all immigrants. But failing to recognise that in some respects at least Britain has been changed for the better by having mass immigration serves only to make the rest of your arguments look ridiculous.
Sorry antifrank but the issue is settled, Labour encouraged mass immigration for political reasons, the cultural or economic excuses are simple throwing dust in our eyes. People from the Labour party have said so.
As the indigenous population gets older [ pensioners don't pay tax but need ever higher health and other benefits ] and the number of taxpayers fall relative to the overall population, who exactly will pay the taxes to maintain, let alone, existing services.
We have an example of what happens to a country with falling birthrate and population and economic decline: It is called JAPAN.
The USA has always shown dynamism economically barring recession which every other country also faces. They have always absorbed immigrants. Even today, there is a net addition of immigrants in the USA.
Of course, those countries with a large reservoir of low paid workers do not need immigration. Even countries like Malaysia needs immigration. Someone has to do the dirty work.
But the local indigenous population isn't falling, and the pension system's only problems is that governments and companies have taken the money from the pension pots. Dust in our eyes. You say Japan, I give you Sweden, you say USA, I give you Australia.
There isn't a single economic argument in favor of immigration, it's just politics because immigrants tend to vote for left wing parties.
I can't help but agree - the monster is already too mind-bending to comprehend. More of the same is - well, I can't begin to get my head around it - nevermind more.
The point is that whether the authorities are covering it up or not, the local communities know exactly what is going on.
The effect may not be quite enough for UKIP to topple Labour somewhere like Heywood where the by election comes after the sad death of a much loved and beyond reproach "old" Labour MP (in the nicest sense of the word).
However, if this form of criminality is as widespread as is claimed in some quarters it won't just have happened in solid Labour seats, it will have happened in more marginal ones, and even where it didn't, labour voters in the marginals will have friends and relations where it did apparently happen. The result may be that in various marginals that Labour need to win in 2015, and would be expected to win; they inexplicably won't.
Also over the next few years you will see increasing numbers of UKIP councillors in the areas concerned, eroding Labours base, so in the long term (unless UKIP are stupid) Labour may have a serious challenge in their rotten boroughs.
Another thing that is in the back of my mind is. How well can pollsters communicate with Ds and Es. If the Ds and Es suddenly decide Labour is rotten to the core and change allegance, will the pollsters pick this up?
It will be a splendid irony if UKIP pile up "tory" votes in safe tory seats and pile up Labour votes in marginal seats.
I'm also a little bit sick of people using "East European Jews" as a kind of pinnacle of successful integration, then using it to bash other immigrants who don't reach the standard. Firstly, it's ridiculous to compare one group whose integration process is, for the most part, long-completed with other groups whose journey is still ongoing. Secondly, it ignores (or more likely, time forgets) the very serious bumps there were along the way.
As tim never tired of pointing out, the first wave of modern terrorist attacks on British soil was led by radical militant Jews. (Associated with an ideology of anarchism or communism, rather than an ideology with a spiritual component - but the particular association between some sections of the Jewish community and radical ideology was no cultural coincidence, it was intimately linked with the effect of the Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment, through the Western diaspora.)
At a less extreme level, those elements who maintained religious orthopraxy were considered, to varying degrees among the British public, alien, discomforting, inwards-looking and backwards. They didn't fit neatly into the schema for Britain held by Christian traditionalists, nor by secular progressives.
Areas of East London that had once echoed to the Francophone sound of the Huguenots, spent many years under Yiddish domination. Jewish cultural societies, Yiddish-language arts and lending libraries, a people who would only shop at "their own" (i.e. kosher) retailers - all gave rise to the impression of a semi-sealed country that had formed within a city.
In truth, there was a permeability of people, culture and ideas that made today's level of integration inevitable. But subtle diffusion is seldom obvious, and even less likely to grab headlines. To some extent the whole thing is a numbers game. What in pockets, and isolated neighbourhoods, may be considered perfectly tolerable. benign and even quaint - just another pattern in the grand human patchwork - can seem exclusive, forbidding, even threatening, if it extends to several boroughs. Perhaps those impressions may be a matter of perception without substance, but it strikes me as at least arguable, that a larger, stronger, more self-sustaining and self-contained community will be less permeable to outside influences and integration may proceed at a more lethargic pace.
''I identified a few benefits off the top of my head, without claiming that they outweighed the drawbacks (though I think the economic advantages do). ''
Antifrank seems to be arguing that a one of the many thousands of girls who have been gang raped and treated little better than slaves in parts of England should take consolation in the fact there's a cracking new turkish place opened just down the road.
Comments
I don;t think Kevin Maguire's ideas are terribly exciting - Perhaps useful to focus minds, but not complete or sufficient in themselves.
I have a sense in this piece of something we might be seeing more of - "What Ed Milliband should have done..."
He had a good opportunity to move Labour a bit beyond it's comfort zone - there were hints of that with Lord Glasman and Blue Labour - But it looks like Labour's comfort zone is Ed Milliband's comfort zone. His intellectual self-confidence might impress some, but he doesn't seem able to think beyond what he's always thought. He's never had to unlearn his own prejudices, never properly challenged himself, and it shows.
The timing of that story is interesting given the location is Greater Manchester....
Nothing is more private than what you discuss with your doctor. I really object to the idea that the government thinks that that private information should be theirs for them to use as they see fit.
"Other whole council elections in 2015: Aylesbury, Boston, E Cambridge, Gravesham, Medway [Rochester], Swale, Norfolk, Shepway, Thanet <- Ukip hotspots"
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/519895590441091072
http://www.ukip.org/mike_hookem_mep_announces_a_range_of_measures_to_aid_armed_forces_veterans
And Kosovo.
A state he cut out of another sovereign state at the barrel of a gun.
Float the idea on the arrse website, and see how they respond. It can get quite lively over there, if you really wind them up.
http://labourlist.org/2014/10/tessa-jowell-on-potential-mayoral-bid-im-preparing-my-plan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+LabourListLatestPosts+(LabourList)
http://www.espn.co.uk/blogs/motorsport/story/178623.html
1. The most important thing to have is the consent of the people to whatever level/type of immigration you have.
2. Second, you invite in only those whom you believe will benefit the country and the people here. Whether it will benefit the immigrant is irrelevant.
3. Third, "benefit" does not just mean economic benefit but also whether they are willing/eager to assimilate and integrate fully into the host society and become British and do not have a culture which is incompatible with or actively hostile to Western values and culture. Some communities are worse, much worse, at this than others. In my view, immigration from such communities should be halted or very severely restricted. You need to be explicit about the requirement to integrate fully and policy should be explicitly designed to make this happen e.g. by insisting that immigrants learn English, for instance, and not providing council services in a range of languages.
4. Fourth, you need to provide the services/infrastructure needed to absorb the numbers you are taking in. You also need to ensure that the costs of immigration - and there are always costs - are borne fairly and not just by some groups.
5. Finally, you should not use immigration to cover up failings in other policies e.g. letting in people to do jobs because you cannot or are unwilling to train your own people to do those jobs.
To my mind, there has been a failing over 1 (particularly when the levels of immigration rose) and a very severe failing over point 3. Eastern European Jewish immigrants are a classic example of immigrants who have, despite inauspicious starts and significant hostility, integrated very well and who have consciously made a point of doing so. In more recent years we have, stupidly, taken the complete opposite view in relation to immigration from parts of the Indian sub-continent and this has aggravated the problems inherent in having immigration from groups with very very different (and in some cases hostile) cultural values and who are now the means by which some very violent and illiberal values are spread, to the detriment of us all, whether immigrant or not.
Trying to sell immigration on the basis of nice foods and music without addressing the more fundamental issues is silly and superficial. It's like Blair trying to sell the benefits of the euro on the grounds that it would save the 5 minutes it takes to change currency before going to Tuscany on holiday.
Labour has been most successful when it called the bedroom tax the bedroom tax.The BBC say "commonly known as " the bedroom tax.In other words,Labour were speaking the language of people in common.
Labour has to meet the desire of people to act in common.
Starting in five minutes on BBC 2, a repeat of the program about Eric 'Winkle' Brown, entitled "Britain's Greatest Pilot". Winkle holds two world records, the largest number of different aircraft types flown (487), and the largest number of carrier landings (2,407). He also holds several firsts, including the first landing and take off of a jet from a carrier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Brown_(pilot)
Well worth a watch. He is an inspiration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdGKEVlofko&list=UUnqbeEkP65a1zC2EwmKl6Yg
But most memorable was not anything related to aircraft, but the long talk he gave about the liberation of Belsen, where he was sent to act as an interpreter. It obviously distresses him seventy years later ...
I hate to stir things up again but what is actually happening about Rotherham?
Or are we not allowed to know?
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself
Amazing.
Listening to *world music* and dining out at your local Somali restaurant isn't something this group tends to do. Still, the metropolitan latte-liberal can look down their noses and tut at their vulgar fellow residents.
If people cant speak English they will learn, unless there enough people who speak their language here to make it an unnecessary requirement for a happy life
Watch Enoch Powell's interview with David Frost on youtube.. he explains the problem we have now perfectly, and this was nearly 50 years ago... it's simply a matter of numbers, nothing to do with the character of the immigrant which is by and large the same as the people already here
One of the most depressing things in the aftermath of this exchange is the way Affleck is now being lauded for having exposed my and Maher’s “racism,” “bigotry,” and “hatred of Muslims.” This is yet another sign that simply accusing someone of these sins, however illogically, is sufficient to establish them as facts in the minds of many viewers.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself
2. Second, you invite in only those whom you believe will benefit the country and the people here. Whether it will benefit the immigrant is irrelevant.
That was the Mail's argument for keeping the Jews escaping from Germany in the thirties. We learn nothing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSlC7BxmSqY
1) culture, low as well as high, is of no interest to pbers
2) what we eat is of no interest to pbers
3) the Irish are much more easily assimilated than other minorities (ignoring 800 years of history and signs within living memory that read "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs")
4) mass immigration began in 1997
5) reggae and ska never happened
Every day's a school day.
2. See 1.
3. Within living memory? Care to provide some evidence for that?
4. Only once before, in the post-war period, have we ever had immigration at post-1997 levels.
5. The most famous musician spreading reggae to the UK was never an immigrant here.
PS. Have you realised your logical mistake when you were appalled at me supposedly equating the Rotherham scandal with the slave trade?
"That's nothing, watch the mayhem of this political ad:"
In a way it was everything Clegg's wasn't. It kept your attention it was amusing it told a coherent story and the filming was competent.
No 3. is from America pre-WW2 not Britain.
No.4 is true, look at the numbers yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom_since_Irish_independence#cite_note-45
No.5 If you like reggae and ska, no problem, just don't try to impose it on people who don't like it.
How's about answering the points raised without being completely facile?
History tells us we let neither in. They earned the right in battle.
After 2 and a half minutes the guy finally says Herman Cain and only 3 times in the whole ad, while there is fighting in the background.
And what is the political message of yellow flowers in a western?
Furthermore I would add two more categories to those 5 you have highlighted.
Firstly immigration policy must not discriminate against any group of immigrants to the benefit of another groups of immigrants
Secondly, immigration policy must recognise its role in ensuring the security of the country
Sadly I would argue that the government are failing on those two criteria as well
Honestly these pro-immigration arguments are utterly terrible. Please tell me someone has something better than this.
"They earned the right in battle"
Helps if your country is ready to be subjugated for the promise of riches, or is full of serfs.
I blame watching too many episodes of the High Chaparral as a child.
"Things I have learned today:
1) culture, low as well as high, is of no interest to pbers
2) what we eat is of no interest to pbers
3) the Irish are much more easily assimilated than other minorities (ignoring 800 years of history and signs within living memory that read "No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs")
4) mass immigration began in 1997
5) reggae and ska never happened."
(1) Culture of all sorts is often discussed
(2) Not sure but I'm not over-bothered.
(3) I married an Irish girl, but those 800 years of history could be applied to the Welsh and Scots, and especially to the French.
(4) Serious mass immigration, rather than sporadic pulses, did indeed start about ten years ago.
(5) They definitely did, but I wasn't a fan. And that's the point - I'm happy to have as many different tastes in music as possible. I can take it or leave it.
But using the Bom Boms or something as justification is just a bit silly (and unlike you).
I think some immigration is beneficial, but that isn't really the problem. Creating straw men is worthy of Roger; of course we should let in threatened minorities. Jews, Ugandan Asians, Christian Iraqis, or whatever. As should other European nations.
Should we allow in unlimited economic migrants with no regard for infrastructure or usefulness is the question that should be addressed. If you believe the answer is Yes, that's fine, but don't pretend that you're answering another question.
Perhaps Harold wanted to rub the Saxons' noses in diversity?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett."
There has been a court case (possibly several)
There has been an enquiry by Rochdale Council (Prof. Jay?)
There is an inspection into Rotherham Council
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/inspection-launched-into-serious-governance-failings-of-rotherham-council
There is an inspection into South Yorkshire Police
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-29027733
I suppose we could just jail people without trial or evidence.
http://numbercruncheruk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/scottish-westminstervoting-intention.html
Say what they we will, we are now the only party holding firm to decent, liberal values while anger and blame are on the rise.
So says the leader of the party of Oaten, Oakeshott, Tongue, Hancock, Rennard, Huhne, Smith, Michael Brown etc etc etc
"I suppose we could just jail people without trial or evidence."
We seem to have a very touchy thread tonight. I don't remember suggesting that.
It's nice to know that "inspections" are taking place. When did they start and by whom (and that question is not suggesting we shoot people at random)
I have been assailed by a succession of xenophobes clamouring to argue that no, there are absolutely no advantages of mass immigration. Along the way we have had such gems of claims that the Chinese haven't been mass immigrants to Britain and that the Irish were easily assimilated. A parenthetical observation about the development of our culture has been twisted out of all recognition.
Look, I get that quite a few of you have strong hostility towards some or all immigrants. But failing to recognise that in some respects at least Britain has been changed for the better by having mass immigration serves only to make the rest of your arguments look ridiculous.
What I am alarmed about is that there are probably another dozen or so Rotherhams being kept on the quiet because they never had a Professor Jay. Why is there not a Yewtree on this?
People from the Labour party have said so.
I am starting to think the scale of these crimes is so massive it is beyond the existing system to deal with it, and that is the real reason some want to sweep it under the carpet.
A reasonable answer and I now believe you are the original Antifrank.
But "I have been assailed by a succession of xenophobes" is victimhood writ large.
I don't really like subjective insults and xenophobe is an excellent one. I might well get on with a Martian but dislike a particular Irish person but I'd be a xenophobe to some people. Oh well, you can't win them all.
Lets say hypothetically of course that a young female party member that is your friend had slept with a married local councilor in the mayors office in the local town hall just 4 days before the local elections, you found about it and then what would you do?
Antifrank seems to be arguing that a one of the many thousands of girls who have been gang raped and treated little better than slaves in parts of England should take consolation in the fact there's a cracking new turkish place opened just down the road.
Quite extraordinary.
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.115707446
It's the fact that the Chinese haven't been mass immigrants to Britain and that the Irish are easily assimilated.
Apart from that though spot on.
We have an example of what happens to a country with falling birthrate and population and economic decline: It is called JAPAN.
The USA has always shown dynamism economically barring recession which every other country also faces. They have always absorbed immigrants. Even today, there is a net addition of immigrants in the USA.
Of course, those countries with a large reservoir of low paid workers do not need immigration. Even countries like Malaysia needs immigration. Someone has to do the dirty work.
But the underlying logic to "it's the numbers, not the social character" makes a lot of sense, and is in many ways more attractive than the idea of (pre)judging people based on their cultural/ethnic/national background. Particularly since people tend to underestimate the internal heterogeneity of immigrant communities.
I seem to recall Channel 4 dividing immigrants up and declaring that Americans made a net positive impact on our economy, and Somalis a net negative. But that really only tells us that the kind of yank who comes to the City to work in financial services, occupies a different economic niche to a refugee with limited education, limited access to learning English (entitlement to language courses is more restrictive than many assume, and arguably, than it ought to be for the purposes of cohesion/integration), and who may not even have the right to work (if their asylum claim is still pending). I don't think it tells us anything about how likely any individual American or Somali is to be empathetic, or confident, or creative, or impulsive, or anything else that might make them a "better" or "worse" member or society.
I have, seriously, listened to this bom bom stuff on YouTube. The Bay City Rollers were a great deal more talented. All the great non indigenous popular music to have reached us since WW2 - and it is great - the blues, rock, reggae, ska - is directly attributable to the Atlantic slave trade but not in the main to immigration into this country. And sorry, but cheap curry houses suck.
Not only that but in this age of global travel and global communications and technology and not least the internet, the internet utterly negates any benefit of mass immigration in those areas for the simple reason you can go and find the knowledge you need to drive discovery in such matters and then go and discover it for yourself. You don't need immigrants to bring it to your door. So 1, 2 & 5 are a nonsense
Dust in our eyes.
You say Japan, I give you Sweden, you say USA, I give you Australia.
There isn't a single economic argument in favor of immigration, it's just politics because immigrants tend to vote for left wing parties.
The effect may not be quite enough for UKIP to topple Labour somewhere like Heywood where the by election comes after the sad death of a much loved and beyond reproach "old" Labour MP (in the nicest sense of the word).
However, if this form of criminality is as widespread as is claimed in some quarters it won't just have happened in solid Labour seats, it will have happened in more marginal ones, and even where it didn't, labour voters in the marginals will have friends and relations where it did apparently happen. The result may be that in various marginals that Labour need to win in 2015, and would be expected to win; they inexplicably won't.
Also over the next few years you will see increasing numbers of UKIP councillors in the areas concerned, eroding Labours base, so in the long term (unless UKIP are stupid) Labour may have a serious challenge in their rotten boroughs.
Another thing that is in the back of my mind is. How well can pollsters communicate with Ds and Es. If the Ds and Es suddenly decide Labour is rotten to the core and change allegance, will the pollsters pick this up?
It will be a splendid irony if UKIP pile up "tory" votes in safe tory seats and pile up Labour votes in marginal seats.
As tim never tired of pointing out, the first wave of modern terrorist attacks on British soil was led by radical militant Jews. (Associated with an ideology of anarchism or communism, rather than an ideology with a spiritual component - but the particular association between some sections of the Jewish community and radical ideology was no cultural coincidence, it was intimately linked with the effect of the Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment, through the Western diaspora.)
At a less extreme level, those elements who maintained religious orthopraxy were considered, to varying degrees among the British public, alien, discomforting, inwards-looking and backwards. They didn't fit neatly into the schema for Britain held by Christian traditionalists, nor by secular progressives.
Areas of East London that had once echoed to the Francophone sound of the Huguenots, spent many years under Yiddish domination. Jewish cultural societies, Yiddish-language arts and lending libraries, a people who would only shop at "their own" (i.e. kosher) retailers - all gave rise to the impression of a semi-sealed country that had formed within a city.
In truth, there was a permeability of people, culture and ideas that made today's level of integration inevitable. But subtle diffusion is seldom obvious, and even less likely to grab headlines. To some extent the whole thing is a numbers game. What in pockets, and isolated neighbourhoods, may be considered perfectly tolerable. benign and even quaint - just another pattern in the grand human patchwork - can seem exclusive, forbidding, even threatening, if it extends to several boroughs. Perhaps those impressions may be a matter of perception without substance, but it strikes me as at least arguable, that a larger, stronger, more self-sustaining and self-contained community will be less permeable to outside influences and integration may proceed at a more lethargic pace.