Bolitics The New Condem Government

[dont_do_it_doug.]

I'll be voting for whoever i think gives the best shot at sorting out this immigration mess and not forcing multi-culturism onto the British public without so much as a say.

How about you spend a weekend in my house and then tell me immigration is a "mess", that the 'multiculturalism' (whatever the **** that actually means) that I live with every single day is "forced".

For what it's worth I'm white English, there's three of us here that are, so you won't feel too uncomfortable. At least not all the time.

A genuine offer that.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

What does 'forcing multiculturalism' really mean? It seems to suggest that there was a time before 'multiculturalism', as if the UK was once a monoculture. ****, it suggests that any society has a monoculture, and the only countries that border on that definition are totalitarian Islamic countries, and there is still a fair amount of (albeit oppressed) diversity within them. In fact, it suggests that 'multiculturalism' is a thing at all, when most people would just call it 'culture'.

 

And how, dare I ask, would those who believe this gibberish like to see it remedied? What forces of evil are imposing this state on us and how will you deal with them?

 

What would your ideal culture look like, eh?

[Awol]

 

 

That's a different point, though I 'fess I didn't make my point too clearly. Basically, work permits allow people to come then leave again. Fine. The issue with stopping all immigration is that if someone comes, settles, maybe marries, maybe has kids, has contributed to society and then wants to stay, contributing, paying taxes etc. and applies for citizenship - UKIP says "no. eff off no-one may stay at all". It's stupid beyond belief. And so counter-productive. Immigrants are much less likely to calim benefits and be a "burden" than non-immigrants, and they are much more likely to contribute. about 6% of immigrants as against 17% of non-immigrants claim benefits at some point. They are more productive than the likes of us. It's not surprising - they are coming here to work and make a better life for themselves and their families. That means they have to work.

 

UKIP are proposing a temporary freeze on the right of permanent settlement, not ending it.  They are also not suggesting an end to all immigration in the interim, merely controlling and limiting it to skilled workers on a work permit basis. Given the rampant levels of unemployment at the moment then restricting the inflow of unskilled labour seems like a very sensible move if one favours giving opportunities to the people of the UK as a priority of any UK government. I do, and I don’t think that is racist to say so. That others buy into the propoganda that UKIP simply want to close the borders is their own problem, they should try reaching out beoynd their comfort zone of 'Comment Is Free' and do some actual research.

 

 

Acting to do something might be very welcome. On the other hand, where we are is that there are something like 340,000 people who we know about but don't have a scooby where they are. And God knows how many more we don't know about. So what do we do? We're not capable of finding them and expelling them. They're not paying taxes, but a large proportion are likely to be working. Do we just say, as UKIP has, "throw them all out" with not a hope of ever doing so, or do we as you propose actually do something. And what would that something be? Surely considering bringing them into the mainstream of society is worth thinking about and reviewing? Why rule it out, like that, unless you're playing to prejudices and fears, or you have actually considered it in depth and can explain why you think that's not in any way a partial or full soultion. ANd if it isn't explain why not - gain credibility. But of course it's the former. They offer no solution, or idea. It's hollow rhetoric.

Not being able to identify and remove all illegal immigrants is very different to saying “oh well, it’s all a bit too difficult to try and do something about this, let’s just not bother”. If you want to do something about it then target employers, make it illegal to employ people with no right to be in the country and jail those you catch who don’t comply.  The ability to pay illegals sub-minimum wage will soon seem less of a
worthwhile incentive if the penalty for getting court doing it is the loss of personal liberty. Why bother? One less illegal in the UK is one more vacancy in the legal job market. In political stuff I come at everything from one perspective: what can improve things for the British people. Anyone who thinks that is "racist" is so naive to the how the rest of the world thinks they're barely worth talking to anyway, imho.

 

 

So the HRA is actually fine - you've no argument with it's content? it's just that you (or UKIP who we're talking about) don't like the idea/principle of there being a higher set of laws that the UK must abide by? International War Crimes laws - are they OK? or money laundering regs? I think UKIP (and some nobber tories) are again just using the HRA as a kind of anvil on which to bash their antipathy to anything "non-british" (whatever they perceive that to be).

Why don't the French or the Germans or the Danes or...have the same level of antipathy to the HRA? They are just as proud of their nationality and so on, and their sovereignty. The nations who tend to object to human rights tend to be the ones with serious flaws in their citizens liberties and rights.

 

This is a fundamental point that I think is widely misunderstood. The UK doesn’t need a Human Rights Act because our rights are enshrined in Common Law. The British people are sovereign in their own right and grant certain rights to Parliament to govern us, those rights can be withdrawn. The European system is based on the Napoleonic Code where the state grants rights to individuals and it is the state that is sovereign. For me it’s the people who don’t recognise that situation and happily accept the surrender of their birth right to foreign authorities that are nobbers (and worse frankly).  That doesn't affect the obligation to abide by the Geneva Conventions or any other supra-national laws, as long as they are raitified by the elected Parliament.  Ultimately none of those laws can override the will of Parliament, that is the crucial factor that is the cornerstone of a democratic society.

 

And it's not just us apparently mental types who believe this. This

from Tony Benn lays out the issue plainly. For those with the ability to think beyond moronic party political tribalism and actually look at the bigger picture then the extent, seriousness and threat of these problems should be obvious.
 

 

I thought it was so clear, Jon. London, Birmingham, Bradford, Leicester and so on are clearly now "multi-cultural" there are large swathes of non anglo-saxon people living there and elsewhere. So should schools, libraries, hospitals and the rest be permitted to teach kids about the cultures of various people, should they be allowed to provide books and leaflets helping people understand the nature of the societies they live in, teach about british values, polish traditions, or Bangladeshi, or Hindu or Chinese or US, or French? Because that's what the UKIPs are against. Education and help and understanding the nature of society as it is. They're all about trying to somehow re-wind to the 1950s and before. It's head in the sand idiocy. It's negative, again. Tradingon fear and rejection of anything that isn't white british (English). Not quite racist, but just fear of change and fear and dislike of the unfamiliar. That's how it comes across to me. It doesn't mean people who like UKIP are allracists, or all scared of foreigners, but I'd much prefer positive suggestions or policies rather than ban this, end that, stop the other.

I think this boils down to differing a definition of multiculturalism. For me it is the encouragement by the state of parallel cultures to exist seperately in the same space, cultures that in some cases I’d happily say are utterly inferior to our own. That’s not about race but about social norms. It’s easy to say “oh but we have single mums, chavs, football hooligans etc” but that is a cop out. Our culture stands for certain values, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.  That’s great as long as everyone buys into it. Unfortunately we have other cultures which have
been actively encouraged to maintain their beliefs into 2^nd/3^rd/4^th generation immigrants that run counter to those UK cultural values, and in so doing encourage separation and segrageation. That leads to antipathy and ultimately to violent radicalisation.

 

There is no undoing the unprecedented racial diversity that has come about in the UK over the last 20 years through mass immigration and no reason at all to want to do so. The problem (and I’m in no doubt personally that it is a massive issue) is getting incomers to buy into our way of thinking, not to do so is simply storing up conflict for the future (even more conflict that is, because like it or not we have British citizens trying to commit mass murder on their fellow countrymen on an industrial scale, every year. Mostly in the name of their culture..).  Multiculturalism actually encourages segregation and as such is taking society in precisely the wrong direction. 

 

It’s not about race, it’s about core values.  Anything done to encourage integration is good, vital in fact. Policies that encourage the opposite are dangerous and frankly retarded. Like multiculturalism.

 

Edited April 1, 2013 by Awol

[snowychap]

One less illegal in the UK is one more vacancy in the legal job market.

Whilst illegal workers may be substitutes for some low-skilled legal workers, I'd rather doubt the above was the case.

[bickster]

Awol, on 01 Apr 2013 - 19:02, said:

It’s not about race, it’s about core values. Anything done to encourage integration is good, vital in fact. Policies that encourage the opposite are dangerous and frankly retarded. Like multiculturalism.

It's a policy now?

[chrisp65]

I'll be voting for whoever i think gives the best shot at sorting out this immigration mess and not forcing multi-culturism onto the British public without so much as a say.

Any examples of this forced multiculturalism?

What exactly do you perceive to be multiculturalism anyway?

Is a Chinese take away part of this compelled multiculturalism? Or maybe we should ban Chicken Tikka Masala? Perhaps we should outlaw the Donner kebab for fear of being swamped by Germans?

What exactly are you scared of?

 

Perhaps he means to stop these 'Anglo Saxons' buying up houses as second homes in Scotland, Wales and Cornwall. Perhaps that's it. We need to stop rich folk from London law firms jacking up house prices in Cornwall. We need to stop London bankers buying pubs in Carmarthenshire as hobbies and hiring staff that can't speak Welsh.

 

Perhaps he means to stop Brits buying second homes in France or Portugal?

 

Perhaps he means to stop me working out of Malta, I speak virtually none of the local language except a few basic swear words, I'm not Catholic, I've never shot at the wildlife and my car isn't battered. Am I forcing multiculturalism on the good people of Qormi?

 

Somebody thinking they can decide what culture is ok and what culture is 'dangerous' or not ours or not to be allowed is an idiot. At what point did KFC become part of our culture? Should we ban people setting up KFC franchises? If not KFC how about the thousand immitators? What if I suspect one of the immitators is also proper foreign? Allah's Chicken Bucket. Should it be banned?

[colhint]

i don't really know what promoting multiculturalism is. I know we are one of the most diverse nations in the Western world. I know I couldn't really care who my next door neighbor is, as long as he's law abiding. I don't really have the answer whether its good or not. I know the French and Germans are against it, but that doesn't mean its bad. Perhaps we are more tolerant in a pluralistic society. One thing that does bother me is the fact we have plenty of hatred to enough groups already resident. You only have to look at our comments about other teams, Liverpool, ManU. We refer to Chelsea as Chavski , Any supporters are plastic. We don't even like our neighbours, Look at the comments about BCFC , WBA OR Coventry. Yet we never have a go at Walsall, is that because their not perceived as a threat to take away our position as top dogs in the midlands. We hate all bankers (did we hate Ruth Kelly when she was a politician, or just when she joined the board of HSBC) we hate the Tories  Lib dems and Labour. In fact I'm pretty sure we could fit almost every person in England into a group we hate.

 

I just don't think we are as tolerant as people as we'd like to think we are

[colhint]

Oh and we certainly  don't like anyone who's religeous

[bickster]

i don't really know what promoting multiculturalism is.

Oh and we certainly  don't like anyone who's religeous

I just don't think we are as tolerant as people as we'd like to think we are

...or who can't spell correctly ;-)

I think you mistake hatred of religion with hatred of the religious on VT

[Awol]

Awol, on 01 Apr 2013 - 19:02, said:

It’s not about race, it’s about core values. Anything done to encourage integration is good, vital in fact. Policies that encourage the opposite are dangerous and frankly retarded. Like multiculturalism.

It's a policy now?

It's been policy since Harold Wilson's time.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Can we see some evidence of this 'policy'?

Edited April 2, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[Eames]

The "Bedroom Tax"

 

Its not a **** tax you sack of clueless morons - Its a reduction in benefit.  

[Awol]

Can we see some evidence of this 'policy'?

Here's a starter for 10. Do you dispute that multiculturalism has been pursued by the state as a policy objective? It's not just here either, Merkel commented (last year as I recall) that it had failed in Germany and I'm pretty sure the French have said the same.

United Kingdom

Modest multicultural policies^[57] were adopted by local administrations from the 1970s and 1980s onwards, initially during the Labour government of Harold Wilson.^[58] In 1997 the New Labour government committed to a multiculturalist approach at a national level, but after 2001 there was something of a backlash, led by centre-left commentators such as David Goodhart and Trevor Phillips. The government then embraced a policy of community cohesion instead. In 2011 Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader David Cameron said in a speech that "state multiculturalism has failed".^[59]London is one of the most multicultural cities in the world.

[Awol]

The "Bedroom Tax"

 

Its not a **** tax you sack of clueless morons - Its a reduction in benefit.  

It's also a disgrace, imo.  Yes the benefits bill has to come down but grow some balls and do the things that will make real savings while not hurting the poorest. They could take the winter fuel allowance, free TV licence and free bus passes away from wealthy pensioners who frankly don't need it, for starters.

[colhint]

Can we see some evidence of this 'policy'?

Here's a starter for 10. Do you dispute that multiculturalism has been pursued by the state as a policy objective? It's not just here either, Merkel commented (last year as I recall) that it had failed in Germany and I'm pretty sure the French have said the same.

> 

United Kingdom

Modest multicultural policies^[57] were adopted by local administrations from the 1970s and 1980s onwards, initially during the Labour government of Harold Wilson.^[58] In 1997 the New Labour government committed to a multiculturalist approach at a national level, but after 2001 there was something of a backlash, led by centre-left commentators such as David Goodhart and Trevor Phillips. The government then embraced a policy of community cohesion instead. In 2011 Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader David Cameron said in a speech that "state multiculturalism has failed".^[59]London is one of the most multicultural cities in the world.

 

 

Merkel said it in 2010 

Sarkozy said it in 2011

[colhint]

The "Bedroom Tax"

 

Its not a **** tax you sack of clueless morons - Its a reduction in benefit.  

 

A bit of research might help you with that 

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

 Do you dispute that multiculturalism has been pursued by the state as a policy objective?

 

We live in an increasingly shrinking world and while I think everyone should follow a common, secular law, I don't believe in forcing people together (in the name of national identity, or any other ghastly form of nationalism) any more than keeping them divided - and I don't believe the latter (multiculturalism) is anywhere near as actively pursued as some would have you believe.

 

A lot of the criticism seems to stem from the belief that without a common identity radicalism flourishes in certain communities. I think that is too simple an argument. Sod it, I'd argue believe that the lack of social mobility has a greater part to play in causing young people to get radicalised, and that has been the case from the start of last century be it young people flocking to the Nazis, the communists, or the Taliban.

 

Give everyone a fairer crack at life and it wont matter what community they come from, when they have a mortgage to pay and a nice car to look after, chances are they won't be so drawn to the nutters who prey on such disenchantment.

[ender4]

The "Bedroom Tax"

 

Its not a **** tax you sack of clueless morons - Its a reduction in benefit.  

It's also a disgrace, imo.  Yes the benefits bill has to come down but grow some balls and do the things that will make real savings while not hurting the poorest. They could take the winter fuel allowance, free TV licence and free bus passes away from wealthy pensioners who frankly don't need it, for starters.

 

 

i don't know if its true or not, but i have read that a lot of the savings would disappear as it would be difficult to administer if means-testing those 3 items. 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

I once failed a health and safety test. I know... So I took another one a couple of weeks later.

You people speak as if integration is a bad thing? Crazy.

[Eames]

The "Bedroom Tax"

 

Its not a **** tax you sack of clueless morons - Its a reduction in benefit.  

 

A bit of research might help you with that 

 Not sure what your point is?