And who created those ghettos? The immigrants of the 50's just wanted to fit in (just as the Eastern Europeans want to now). But there were too many "No Blacks/Irish" signs in the landlords' windows and too much discrimintation so they gradually set up their own enclaves. Same with the Asians. If you don't allow people to integrate, they marginalise. And then they compete... It is time that the British stop blaming everyone else (if it is not the politicians, then it is the immigrants...). The erosion of 'British identity' is entirely the British' own fault. If immigrants can hang on to their cultural identity in a foreign country, why can't the British hang on to theirs on their own home soil? The Sikhs and Muslims aren't neglecting their places of worship. The Afro-Caribbeans are still cooking their own food --even though it is harder to come by over here. Sorry, but the British have nobody to blame but themselves. The problem is that if you emphasise the monetary reward, people will forget about the others. If you do not allow the unemployed to vote, politics will start to serve the employed only. You get a stronger division into two classes of people: the employed and the unemployed. The employed class will protect its status from competition for jobs by the unemployed. You already see this happening with immigration: the locals don't like the competition.
Nobody is trying to stop people from integrating (excepting the BNP) - quite the opposite, we want immigrants to integrate, but when they are coming in such numbers that they are surrounded by their own countrymen and other non-indigenous people, they have little chance to integrate. More importantly, your argument is a distraction from the *real* argument that we were discussing earlier - that there wouldn't be such a pool of unfilled jobs if we had more long-term unemployed back into work. The rate of immigration is proof of the number of jobs available in this country - for those willing to work. If we had low unemployment - as we did in the 1950's - we'd be organising incoming flights from all corners of the world. But we don't - we have a HUGE tranche of the population bleeding us dry. Because there is a socio-political movement that says that 'ethic' is good and 'British' or anything 'nationalist' is bad. Nobody celebrated St Georges day this year... Why? Apathy has it's part, but also in part is the social engineering that has led us to believe that the Union Flag is a symbol of the far right and that celebrating English-ness is 'non-inclusive'. Sure, we are largely the architects of our own downfall, but if we can take steps to protect ethnic cultures, surely we can take steps to protect the indigenous culture. However, once again you are distracting us from the original argument. As much as you would like to make it a racial or cultural issue, the argument was about whether we get our long-term unemployed back into work, or whether we plug the gap by other means (i.e. immigration). Nobody is emphasising the monetary reward except you. I'm saying that the other rewards will only be appreciated once experienced - the monetary reward is the leverage we can use encourage people in that direction. People can't forget something they have never experienced. The bottom line is that there is plenty of help available to those looking for work, and there is plenty of work around. In order to get people to work, the reward for work needs to be greater than the reward for rotting at home. The immigrants we have talked about have travelled halfway around the world, often facing significant adversity, to get into this country. And when they get here, they tend to take up some of the lowest paid jobs and yet they are still grateful... why is this? Because, as difficult it has been for them, they are in a far better situation that they would be at home. It is truly worth their while... What about the scroungers at home? Why don't they work? Because it is not worth their while - there are no incentives. Taking a different (tougher) approach with the long-term unemployed would be both a carrot and a stick. The stick would remove their benefits, and the carrot will give them experience and fulfilment, both of which can drive them further on. Utter crap. The employed class will simply do their jobs. The employers will decide who gets hired - and they will hire the brightest, the keenest and the most worthy. This competition will be embraced; productivity will be improved and an the economy will benefit. The only way the employed will be protected is if we keep 5 million of their competitors artificially suppressed by hooking them on benefits. The benefit system was supposed to be a cushion to help the needy, but it is more commonly a crutch for those that are lazy. By reducing the size of the long-term unemployed, we will be able to significantly improve the lives of those on disability benefits and those who are unfortunate enough to be temporarily unemployed.
Sorry, but who is talking crap now? Under political pressure in the 1950s, the UK government legislated three times in less than a decade to make immigration for non-white people harder and harder. By 1972, legislation meant that a British passport holder born overseas could only settle in Britain if they, firstly, had a work permit and, secondly, could prove that a parent or grandparent had been born in the UK. In practice, this meant children born to white families in the remnants of Empire or the former colonies could enter Britain. Their black counterparts could not. Meanwhile, those who came over faced rampant discrimination. Most of the first newcomers to Britain in the 1950s and 1960s tended to settle in areas of low unemployment (UK unemployment rates overall were only 3%) . Therefore they inevitably gravitated towards major cities, to London in particular, but also to the Midlands and to areas further north, like Bradford. Contrary to 'popular' and racist mythology, many of the Caribbean workers who came to Britain in the 1950s and 1960s were highly skilled workers, but once here racism ensured that virtually all were forced into semi-skilled or unskilled work--often in those areas which had been partially deserted by the indigenous workforce in favour of the higher pay and better conditions in industries associated with new technology. Nearly all black workers remained in the manual working class with little hope of promotion or mobility. Moreover, when the economy did begin to slow down in the late 1960s, it was black workers who invariably lost their jobs first. In a period of only 12 weeks during 1956, for instance, unemployment rose from 23 to 400 in Smethwick, West Midlands; a town which would later become famous for the notoriously racist election campaign which the Tory candidate ran there in the early 1960s. Of those who remained in work, Commonwealth migrants usually did twice the amount of shift work as other workers and on average earned significantly lower wages. In 1968, some 82% of White British people supported the views of Conservative MP Enoch Powell who famously warned of "rivers of blood" if immigration was not halted. As recent as in 1980, a Tory MP Tony Marlow stated that racism amongst British people was a 'natural' instinct: Not much has changed. Evidence suggests that, regardless of legal status or ethnic origin, new immigrants typically live in poor quality housing in deprived inner city neighbourhoods. Many also face harassment and hostility and experience difficulties accessing appropriate support. Prehaps not surprisingly research also shows that many new immigrants benefit from living near people of the same ethnic background. Public policy, however, increasingly views such ‘ethnic clusters’ as problematic. However studies show that community tensions are caused much more by existing socio-economic deprivation in the area, than by the ethnic composition of the local population. Evidence also suggests that new immigrants make a positive contribution to the local and national economy, the cultural and social fabric of towns and neighbourhoods and, in some situations, the regeneration and revitalisation of declining neighbourhoods. I think you are confusing me with someone else here? It's a free country: nobody stopped you from hanging out the Union flag, or organising a St. George's day party in your local street. Nobody stops you from visiting the local Church. Just like nobody is stopping you from applying for the same job as that Polish guy just off the plane. You are right that it is just apathy. People want their national pride on a plate, just like everything else. Your indigenous culture doesn't need protecting. No special steps were taken in the 50's or 60's or even 80's or 90's to protect Asian or Afro-Caribbean culture. They managed. So can you. This is like saying that if you pay a kid $2,-- to read a book, hopefully he'll discover its fun and has other merits too. Possible. On the other hand there's all these kids out there that don't need to be bribed to read. Like there's people out there that don't need to have added financial incentive to value work. There's people out there prepared to work harder for less. That's the problem. That is different from just concentrating on the incentives, as you talked about before (or perhaps I just missed the stick part while skim-reading). I think we're arguing the same point from opposite directions. But I was talking about not allowing the unemployed to vote. As much as I like the idea of a meritocracy, it won't work. You cannot totally remove all political power from certain groups of people --that breeds terrorism. You agree that the best way to deal with the BNP is to engage them in the legitimate political process. It works the same for people.
Quick Fact For Today: 78% of the people entered in this poll want another party other than Labour whereas 10.5% will vote Labour.
Sorry, still you. A black and white photograph from 50 years ago is not a demonstration of how 'The employed class will protect its status from competition for jobs by the unemployed. ' Besides, such signs would considered discrimination in this modern era; how many cases have we had where a B&B owner refuses house gay people or muslims... While we are far from perfect, it is a different world now. Still trying to play the race card? That legislation meant that any descendants of UK-originating parents could come to the UK - it doesn't mention colour at all. It means black children with (grand)parents born in the UK were accepted but white people from Europe and the US couldn't. And if you had a prioritise who would be accepted in this country, it is a sensible rule - it makes sense to prioritise people who will more likely share and affinity with this country and accept it's rules and customs. Yep, more so if they were female and/or homosexual... Hell, if you go back long enough, we used to persecute the catholics. Aren't you pleased that we have made steady progress since. However, what does this have to do issue of filling jobs that need to be done with either imported workers or the long term unemployed? All you are doing is demonstrating that mass-immigration in the past caused problems that took a generation to smooth over. It is also notable the number of British people with Asian, African or Carribean origins who are also concerned about the mass influx of immigrants. These people integrated but they don't see the same thing happening in this modern era. As 'recently' as 30 years ago? Sounds like my idea of getting the long-term unemployed back to work rather than importing these poor people is a sensible idea. By the way, when you mentioned appropriate support, did you mean the benefits helplines that cater for 170 languages? If all these immigrants are keen to integrate and are adding to the economy, why does every benefits office need to cover so many languages so routinely. Almost every worker needs a financial incentive to work - I know I do. Few of us have independent financial means; most of us need the money. Sure, some people work for other reasons... for the company, for exercise. But we are talking about people who are avoiding work, content to live on benefits ad infinitum. The rewards that we all get for working are available to them, yet they still do not work. Why? Partly because the biggest motivator is provided for them - money, and they either do not understand or do not appreciate the other rewards. The problem is that we NEED them to work, so if we can think of a way of enticing them to work that would be good. If we can't, we will need to force them to work somehow... I'm open to ideas. So far, I've thought of two: we can keep hitting them with sticks, or we can change the reward balance of benefits and work. That is, reduce the 'benefit' of benefit, and increase the benefits of work. Ever improving employment laws and the minimum wage are one step, but we need something on the other side. I'm not sure... It is hard to tell. You haven't actually said how you would get the long-term unemployed back to work at all. And your only comments on mass immigration have concentrated on implicitly implying that those who disagree with mass immigration and open borders are somehow racist like the generalised population in the 1950's. BTW: Mrs Duffy wasn't being bigoted - she had a fair point to make that is shared by many other non-bigoted people. However, she is of a certain age, and doesn't have the education and practice at public speaking that people like Gordon Brown have. Brown did display his own form of bigotry by bad-mouthing someone, simply for disagreeing with him and being less articulate in the process. That was actually just a throwaway suggestion on the spur of the moment, rather than the central plank of *my* manifesto, but the argument works the same way for prisoners. You could argue that if you want someone to break away from a life of crime that you give them the (limited) power to influence their environment through the political process. The counter argument is that they don't play a full part in society and will manipulate the political process (i.e. to vote for a party that is 'soft on crime'). It is noteworthy that many countries restrict voting rights for prisoners, but some are starting to change - in 2004, the courts ruled that this practice was 'unconstitutional' so Canada started allowing all prisoners to vote. In America, the laws restricting voting for prisoners are topically called the felony disenfranchisement laws. And typically, the EU has ruled that UKs stance on this is 'disproportionate', yet Labour have resisted actually doing anything about it - officially the issue is 'under revue'. Big deal - firstly, the long-term unemployed couldn't afford enough fertilizer to make a bomb, but even if they could, they'd probably only try to snort it or smoke it.
The 9% undecided might improve that position (unlikely perhaps), but more importantly, we are no representative of the national demographic. OK, 7 or 8 people out of 10 don't want a labour government, but on the other hand, a whopping 6 out of 10 didn't want Tony Blair back in '97 - and that was after the stale Tories had imploded. We take your point, but government is almost never supported by the majority of voters.
Wow, wait a minute. Let's recap. You argued that the White UK population 'just wants immigrants to integrate', while the immigrants prefer to segregate in ghettos. I explained why that is not true. Keep up now. 'Those foreigners ain't like us, they just want to stick together and our national identity is being eroded.' You are the one who started that debate, mate. And still are, apparently. You know full well what the rule was designed to do in practice. Arguing hypothetical black grandparents born in the UK is dissembling. It was the locals that caused the problem. The immigrants just came to do a job, build a life and fit in. They were not allowed to. As I said before: if you don't allow people to integrate, they marginalise, and then they compete. The 'integrated' Asian and African people you talk about are those who through dint of hard work, several generations and lots of anti-discrimination laws later (as you said, we've made steady progress) are now well established in mainstream society. Not so long ago they were at the other end of that 'concern'. Not it is someone else's turn. Same drama, different players. 170? Really? I count seven: Chinese, Lithuanian, Latvian, Polish, Spanish, Portugese, Urdu. Most of them cater to current legal immigrants. In mainland Europe local services speak English too, for all those expatriate Brits that come to live in their own little segregated ex-pat enclaves there but can't seem to get their head around the local language. Or the local food. Or the local people. Must be a cultural identity thing. The Mediterranean is full of them. Er, no. You argued that there is nothing to stop immigrants from integrating. I explained why I think there is. I never mentioned 'mass immigration' or how open I think the borders should be. You argue that the long-term unemployed should be made to do the jobs that are currently being taken by immigrants. No disagreement here. You argue that part of the solution is to stop immigration. I disagree. I'm not saying you shouldn't stop it --it's your country, after all. I am just saying that it won't solve the problem. All that happens is that your economy tanks. It is again looking at others for the cause of your problems instead of looking at yourself. But on to possible solutions. I mentioned in another thread that success and achievement is not determined just by ambition and hard work --you have to be lucky as well. This is a class-ist, racist, mysogynist society. Time to get real and acknowledge that rather than to blame the victims. Those that want to get ahead should be enabled. So compulsory community service on which receipt of benefits depend is a good idea, but it should provide pathways towards training and employment, not become a dumping ground for the disadvantaged ripe for exploitation. I'd bring back trade/craft apprenticeships. I'd de-emphasise University as the only academic pathway (probably can some courses altogether, or at least take them off study loan subsidy) and develop technical schools that teach a skill or craft. I'd suggest compulsory national service (not just military, but offering a choice from, say forestry/agriculture to health/social/community services to scientific research or public building/engineering projects) with integrated training and CV references that could dovetail with or logically progress to the young person's chosen career. This national service would be equal for all and compulsory for all regardless of class, parental income, gender, ethnicity --even for immigrant children if they and their parents are resident in the UK at that time. It is part of their educational programme, see? Basically, children would go to school already starting to think about what working will be like when they leave school. You'd find that a healthy national/community service track record, complete with references, would become an expected standard in job applications, and therefore become a natural part of one's career planning. I'd make national/community service sort of like a badge of honour: it would get you discounts and perks like student status does now: shop discounts, 2 for 1 deals on meals, films, theatre and music on weekends, cheaper subscriptions at the gym; free access to University libraries; you'd have a heavily discounted Microsoft Office National/Community Service Edition. There would be no such thing as long-term unemployed because people would grow up never having experienced actual unemployment: getting money without working for it. All jobs would get filled, either by paid employed or national/community service workers. The UK wouldn't attract immigrants, legal or illegal, because the economy wouldn't need them; they simply would not find the work. However in the beginning that will cost money, because all those systems will have to be set up. And we just blew our wad in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I worked for the civil service for a short time. Really boring weeding exercise for incapacity benifit and it was a joke some of the people on it. Since files where listed by surname then nino you got runs of families where for or more where on benifits for the same thing. The majority where on for alcohol, drugs, "fear of crowds". Every IB55 was a carbon copy. One thing that came from Labour was reduce unemployment by pushing people onto benifits. 50%+ shouldn't be getting benifits I want to focus on how they reduced the waiting list. My mother has arthritis. This is one waiting list they where targeting to reduce waiting lists. All they simply done was push her round from consultant to consultant getting scans, xrays and not actually solving the problem. Thats how they "lowered waiting lists". I also don't believe throwing money at the NHS solved anything. Its part of the culture, pay enough and it goes away. Look at agency workers just because when theres a bit of sun people pull sickies. Not to mention that agency workers can't do the job of a full nurse due to red tape. If the job shared they could systematically reduce working hours for nurses and save money on rip off agency nurses, who lets face it, thats all they're in it for, the cash. Thats a very specific case. Oh thats something else I want brought back, the sisters on the wards. TBH after labour I don't trust anything that politicians say (coming from northern ireland doesn't help either) more spin than twisters. One policy that would be good is anyone who is on benifits and is drug addict or alcoholic should be taken off, and the money spent on rehab. Solves two problems of burden their addictions on the NHS,returns someone to be able to work and reduces money spent on benifits. No one will like it since they loose their free lunch. Why not send the criminals to the front line? If anything the discipline is needed, plus a few months on tour would act as a deterrent and make them value life. I agree community service is a great idea. After all, people are shitting in their own homes effectively. they might as well clean it up. Personally I want to avoid immigration. It is needed (skilled workers for example) but also because people today have been brought up to believe they're not good enough to wipe their own arse. Until thats addressed the country will have to get "manual" workers to be janitors etc. seriously, who here wants to be a janitor or a toilet cleaner? You think its beneath you. Show me one NHS cleaner who isn't "foreign". Personally I would also love to see bigger tax breaks/incentives to adopt green technology. I would love to invest in a wind turbine just to help reduce electricity bills. Its something that can pay for itself and everyone benifits from. (Certainly good for folding with ) Anyone see the debates last night? DUP feel they can blackmail who ever gets in, found that laughable. Usual crap from sinn fein even tho they won't take their seats. SDLP took on sinn fein fairly well I thought but they're aligned with Labour so I won't be voting for them. Alliance was considered too small to take part yet they're aligned/representing Lib Dem over here (nice work BBC) and UUP are aligned with conservative (formaly know as conservatives and unionists). Apart from UUP they arn't basing votes on who their "sister" parties are at all. Its only mentioned on political broadcasts with half a sentence before moving on to something else in the same breath. Everything is aimed like its our own elections, what they'll do for NI regardless of the fact that they're under the thumb of westminster!!
This I don't agree with. Criminals lack the self discipline that fighting demands. They would probably only end up risking the lives of the regular troops who chose to join the armed forces. War isn't a game and shouldn't be treated as such. Our troops survive because they train hard and take their job seriously.
The cool thing about debating on these forums is that, unlike a verbal conversation, is that there is a fairly transparent log. I said nothing about the 'White UK population', though I have expressed sentiments along the lines that integration = good. I also never said 'immigrants prefer to live in ghettos'; in post 303 that 'Creating enclaves of foreigners in inner-city ghettos is not cultural diversity'. The ghettos are no created by the immigrants nor the government nor the indigenous population - it is a natural product of the process. You didn't explain why 'that is not true' - in post 305, it was you who said that 'And who created those ghettos? The immigrants of the 50's...gradually set up their own enclaves'. Your words not mine... I did say in post 303 'but what has been happening over the last 13 years is a complete erosion of identity.', which is a reference to the government's stance on these issues, and it is a position I'm happy with. New Labour has deliberated misstated the levels of immigration into this country, because they have been engaging in a bit of social engineering. No, in post 305 you started with the race card, raising the spectre of 1950's immigration issues, carefully changing the debate from a discussion about modern mass immigration\long-term unemployed into the usual 'we are a country of racists' line. Its a common ploy in left-wing circles - make the debate about race, to neutralise any debate about immigration. I'm damn sure that in the 1950's the authorities would use the rules to hand with their biases very much in mind - I'm sure that they will have favoured white people more over black. However, the rules themselves are reasonable... but like sections 43 and 44 of the Terrorism Act they can be abused an all sorts of ways. However, in your mind, there are no grey areas - the rule was carefully crafted to discriminated against black people by the evil British Empire. No, in 1950 there would have been no need to beat about the bush - back in those days they could been explicit and just excluded anyone not of 'British Ethnicity' or similar. Personally, I think the rules will have been crafted with the intention of recruiting 'our sort of people', including blacks who like cricket, revered the Queen and knew their station. It sounds equally anachronistic now, but without the overly cynical edge that your suggestion has. Yes really... certain areas only have to deal with a small number of languages and will provide their own service, but a lot of authorities are overwhelmed by the sheer number of languages that they need to deal with that they have subcontracted a service called Language Line. It most certainly is a cultural thing - something we should be embarrassed about. ...but I don't see how it should be a green light for segragation elsewhere. Two wrongs do not make a right. Actually, in post 306 I explained at least one reason why they might not, and in post 303, I hinted at their being reasons why integration was difficult. Surely you should have done - that is where the debate was. Not about historical attitudes to race and the Empire, and not about difficulties of integration. Well, I'll admit I don't have all the answers. I would reckon that it will take a full governmental term to even begin the change, and probably 10 - 15 years to be completely successful, which is presumptuous in itself. But as I said previously, we have had 13 unsuccessful years of uncontrolled immigration and its effects are being better understood. Yes, fruit farmers can now get their crops reliably harvested each year, but we are now acknowledging the costs of this immigration as well. Something needs to change and change soon. Give me a break. Our society is no more class-ist, racist or misogynistic than any other one. Periodically people are held back for the wrong reasons, but in the vast majority of cases, people have an opportunity to make their mark in the world. Now we are cooking on gas! Why wait until now for all this... this should have been your opening post... Les than you think. Some easy wins will lessen the burden on the state, which will allow us expand further... You might find it ironic, given our current predicament, but money isn't the most significant problem. When 10 -15% of the voting public are set to be turfed out of the 'comfort' zone, it could mean political suicide for the administration that rings in the changes. Given the amount of time it will take, and the impact it will have, it will need a pact between the major parties to see this through. Given that this voting block will be essential for a Labour re-election in 2014/5, I don't see it happening - though that isn't a reason not to try. You just couldn't resist, could you?
They would obviously need to go through training and would rely on team skills and discipline to survive but your right war isn't a game. A few reserves learnt that the hard way. They only signed up for the extra cash, few hours training every Sunday, march around on some parades get a uniform. Going to war in Iraq stretched force so far they ended up getting called. Look what happened when the government here done segregation. We're still picking up the pieces from it and sorting out the mess. It started off with nationalist against unionist but ended up being twisted into protestant vs catholic. Sticking together is one thing, but then it sets up extremes with no middle ground. Britain is turning into the melting pot that the USA was when settlers started arriving, in honesty, we haven't learnt anything from history.
Well, it's the day of the elections, and I hope we are all going to be voting today. I will be in a few hours, and I really hope we don't end up with a hung parliament! It will be interesting to see how our Labour candidate does here in sunny Doncaster, traditionally a Labour stronghold. I personally hope Rosie Winterton MP gets beat and by a strong margin too, but only time will tell. What I found interesting in this election locally was the fact that we never had any foot canvassers knocking at our doors, unlike previous elections. I have enjoyed participating in this debate, and have read some interesting opinions, looking forward to the next one. All I can say is cheers, and here's to our new government tomorrow, whoever it may end up being.
I'll be voting Liberal Democrat today in my South Dorset constituency. Interesting comparison between our Conservative and Lib Dem candidates here - the Lib Dem candidate was a secondary school teacher, and the Conservative candidate has a massive estate nearby with a triple barrelled name. Just a bit too old tory for me.
It's either Lib Dems or Cons for me. My main concern is that we are ****ed financially and we need the very best business brains to bring us out ... I'm thinking now is the time for Cons and then when we're on better ground then I'll seriously consider Lib Dems.
I just voted Conservative and unionist in the end. Feel a bit dirty as I don't actually like the candidate nor do I feel they'll do a good job representing us but it was tactical voting. Anything to remove Labour who SDLP are sided with =( and I like them atm and Alliance is too small so no point voting lib dem either. All other two main parties are neutralish. Chances are sinn fein will get in but what use are they if they don't actually take their seats and Ill never vote DUP due to paisley being a bigoted hypocrite and Robinson would sell anyone out to keep power and the party are as corrupt as they come. They are just idiots (polite way of saying it) who haven't a clue and only want the money or to feel important.
It's a fallacy to think that because one party did a bad job, another is preferable and would do better, though. The problems we perceive might simply be a symptom of how the country works generally, or a natural facet of human societies generally. (I'm not saying that's the case, simply noting that logically, correlation doesn't mean causality.)
If Peter Mandleson is still involved in government after this election, Im leading a party to take him out. He sums up everything I hate about labour.
@cjmUK, that would equally apply to people who are voting Conservatives this time around though, right? I'm still mystified at their campaign motto of 'Vote for Change' - and the fact that people don't see the irony. I guess this country has a short memory. Yo-yoing between the same two parties forever isn't change, it's the above described insanity. It's a stalemate. Party X is elected. Things go wrong because that's what happens to countries. 8-12 years pass, party Y goes "Look! Party X did it wrong!" and get elected. Things go wrong. Party X goes "Look! Party Y did it wrong!" and get elected. Rinse, repeat.
