The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[al Roumi]

OK, balls out and damn the consequences:

Personaly, i would have supported (and do now) a policy of immigration, diversity and a multicultural society. I believe that those who are complaining about this issue are primarily doing so because they dislike immigration and diversity.

I live in an area with a great mix of people and backgrounds: Afro carribean, middle eastern, portugese/brazilian and white British. I love it, there's so much to sample and learn in diverse culture, food and ways of seeing things. I work in an establishment with a huge diversity of people from all sorts of backgrounds and sexuality and frankly its great, I've never found anywhere so interesting and invigorating to work in.

That said, what I don't like is that this, if actually "stealth social engineering", wasn't overt and public. Clearly, not everyone is as overjoyed by diversity as I am but that is further cause for all to have had a say/vote on it. It should simply have been a part of Labour's manifesto.

Otherwise its just the Telegraph dipping-in to the daily-mail's line of paranoid scare-mongering: LABOUR WILL SNEAK UP BEHIND YOU AND MAKE YOUR FAMILY BLACK ONE BY ONE. THE END IS NIGH.

[Myrddraal]

LABOUR WILL SNEAK UP BEHIND YOU AND MAKE YOUR FAMILY BLACK ONE BY ONE. THE END IS NIGH.

[Furunculus]

Personaly, i would have supported (and do now) a policy of immigration, diversity and a multicultural society. I believe that those who are complaining about this issue are primarily doing so because they dislike immigration and diversity.

That said, what I don't like is that this, if actually "stealth social engineering", wasn't overt and public. Clearly, not everyone is as overjoyed by diversity as I am but that is further cause for all to have had a say/vote on it. It should simply have been a part of Labour's manifesto.

it is quite possible to hold diversity and multi-culturalism as distinct and separate things, and support one but not the other.

valid point.

They aren't smart enough to do the right thing and enmass to liberal democrats.

they have to stand on a coherent platform first, and that's before you even get to assessing the worth of that platform.

[al Roumi]

it is quite possible to hold diversity and multi-culturalism as distinct and separate things, and support one but not the other.

Indeed. However those who might support multiculturalism and not diversity could (at best) be tipified as a tolerant but with an "each to their own" mentality.

I'm less clear on how one could support diversity without multiculturalism. In any case this is not the sense which you are refering too, and certainly not that which best describes your average incensed telegraph/daily mail reader.

[Furunculus]

Indeed. However those who might support multiculturalism and not diversity could (at best) be tipified as a tolerant but with an "each to their own" mentality.

I'm less clear on how one could support diversity without multiculturalism. In any case this is not the sense which you are refering too, and certainly not that which best describes your average incensed telegraph/daily mail reader.

it's quite simple:

Q - do i mind if they wear funny clothes, look a little bit more tanned than the average brit, eat funny food, or don't attend CofE?
A - no, i don't care in the slightest.

Q - do i care if they attempt to justify/advocate; honour killings, jihad or sharia law within the borders of MY country?
A - yes, i do care and would prefer they crawled back to whatever squalid dump they came from.

If you come here with the intention of being British then i welcome you, whatever your colour.
If you come here to work (as many of my friends have) and you intend to accept the laws and mores of the land, then i welcome you too.

But most importantly, i demand that any immigration policy is slow enough that immigrants can be assimilated rather than piling up in giant ethnic ghettoes.
This is, first and foremost, our land and if lots of Brits are uncomfortable being surrounded by those giant ethnic ghettoes, then i am unhappy because, first and foremost, they are my people.

"But what about our own home-grown nut-cases?" you might ask, the answer to that is easy; "they are my problem, but why on earth would i import more who aren't?"

You see the important point here; I care more about my family than i do about yours, and I expect the head of my family to hold as his paramount concern the welfare and happiness of my family!

[al Roumi]

it's quite simple:

Q - do i care if they attempt to justify/advocate; honour killings, jihad or sharia law within the borders of MY country?
A - yes, i do care and would prefer they crawled back to whatever squalid dump they came from.

Indeed, it's one thing to come looking for a better life for yourself & your family but there is (for me) a minimum of tolerance to local customs and laws which behoves an immigrant. Ironically, people who support Islam4UK and other groups which want to impose a different order on the UK are usually second generation immigrants, i.e. British.

But most importantly, i demand that any immigration policy is slow enough that immigrants can be assimilated rather than piling up in giant ethnic ghettoes.
This is, first and foremost, our land and if lots of Brits are uncomfortable being surrounded by those giant ethnic ghettoes, then i am unhappy because, first and foremost, they are my people.

Immigration policy isn't what determines how immigrants adapt to a new home and how well or not they integrate. There are much broader social and identity issues, its certainly not at all just down to the newcomers themselves. People are scared of what they don't understand and aren't used to.

[Furunculus]

Indeed, it's one thing to come looking for a better life for yourself & your family but there is (for me) a minimum of tolerance to local customs and laws which behoves an immigrant. Ironically, people who support Islam4UK and other groups which want to impose a different order on the UK are usually second generation immigrants, i.e. British.

Immigration policy isn't what determines how immigrants adapt to a new home and how well or not they integrate. There are much broader social and identity issues, its certainly not at all just down to the newcomers themselves. People are scared of what they don't understand and aren't used to.

maybe that's because we have supported and encouraged those multi-cultural ghettoes?

ditto.

[al Roumi]

maybe that's because we have supported and encouraged those multi-cultural ghettoes?

Uh? I think you mean uni-cultural ghettos.

Ghetto-isation is a bigger issue than simply with reference to ethnic or other groups. It's a much bigger problem in terms of segregation of wealth and class. In seeking to avoid it, you are also fighting against a simple urge that people have to be near people like them; be it their family or people of the same culture, same religion or same social class.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Me, I'm not impressed.


Just about all Western countries have seen a massive increase in immigration in the past decade or so. Many under rightwing governments. All but one, not under New Labour.

I see no reason to qualify it as 'social engineering'. Save, of course, to fit the Torygraph/ Daily Mail practise of fueling constant outrage. To reinforce their tiresomely repeated notion that Labour is about leftist, Orwellian, big government, intrusive, nanny-state politics - and all that in perfect secrecy too.

Not only would all policy be 'social engineering' by this standard: housing, education, employment. I bet there are reports about the effects of policy choices in these fileds as well). But one wonders what the Torygraph makes of the simultaneous rise in immigration under George Bush. Social engineering too?

What is written in that report are pretty much the standard considerations of immigration policy, as they were espoused a decade ago. You can read the same everywhere else. What is behind the report are commonplace social taboos, 'reasoning towards' the manifold benefits of immigration, trying to fins a justification for mass immigration, etc.

It was written in the atmosphere of a decade ago, when any opposition to mass immigration was deemed 'racist', and mainstream thought - whether academia, the media or politics - didn't dare touch with a ten foot pole what a lot of people were already thinking.
It was the time when statistics agencies thought it should be their task to massage the numbers to downplay immigration and demographic developments. When it was next to impossible to get any numbers concerning crime, education, healthcare and immigration - and even if some did trickle down, any criticism based on them was matter-of-factly dismissed as first, false, secondly, hard-right scaremongering, and thirdly, as not conducive to a climate that would help integrate communities.

My verdict is: no social engineering, just standard policy, and nothing particular about Labour either. (Not that I even remotely approve of the report, mind)


...having said all that - anybody seen a copy yet of that report that I just bluffed five paragraphs about? My Google-fu fails me...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK, balls out and damn the consequences:

Personaly, i would have supported (and do now) a policy of immigration, diversity and a multicultural society. I believe that those who are complaining about this issue are primarily doing so because they dislike immigration and diversity.

I live in an area with a great mix of people and backgrounds: Afro carribean, middle eastern, portugese/brazilian and white British. I love it, there's so much to sample and learn in diverse culture, food and ways of seeing things. I work in an establishment with a huge diversity of people from all sorts of backgrounds and sexuality and frankly its great, I've never found anywhere so interesting and invigorating to work in.

That said, what I don't like is that this, if actually "stealth social engineering", wasn't overt and public. Clearly, not everyone is as overjoyed by diversity as I am but that is further cause for all to have had a say/vote on it. It should simply have been a part of Labour's manifesto.

Otherwise its just the Telegraph dipping-in to the daily-mail's line of paranoid scare-mongering: LABOUR WILL SNEAK UP BEHIND YOU AND MAKE YOUR FAMILY BLACK ONE BY ONE. THE END IS NIGH.

The article is really about the deception, and the loss of the working-class vote. The issue is the cynicism, after all immigrants are much more likely to vote Labour.

As far as immigration is concerned: Sorry, no room at the Inn.

[al Roumi]

The article is really about the deception, and the loss of the working-class vote. The issue is the cynicism, after all immigrants are much more likely to vote Labour.

So the purpose of Labour's immigration policy is to "import" votes?? I thought it was meant to be idealistic backstabbing...

I love/hate how the mail/graph attempt to put everything in the light of interests of the "common man" whereas actually they are aimed at the interests of the lower middle class/petty bourgeoisie. Its a big con.

As far as immigration is concerned: Sorry, no room at the Inn.

Well that's a function of economic demand for workforce, at the moment, there is indeed very little surplus demand.

[InsaneApache]

LABOUR WILL SNEAK UP BEHIND YOU AND MAKE YOUR FAMILY BLACK ONE BY ONE. THE END IS NIGH.

Well the sneaky buggers got one in on my family. *

As for immigration, no one asked us. Not one of the parties. You'd think that it would be nice in a liberal democracy that the electorate would be consulted before such changes to society. That this was done with the most cynical of reasons; i.e. most of the immigrants would vote Labour, (or so they assume), is gerrymandering. Folks have gone to prison for that.

Now I wonder who abolished the Treason Act and why?

*Now 'mom' being an American had to jump through hoops and hurdles and still couldn't get leave to remain indefinitley. Pater, despite being a former Royal Marine, policeman and a serving LGO for 35 years couldn't get entry to the 'Land of the Free' because he couldn't show enough commitment to his country of origin. (the UK)

[Myrddraal]

The Treason Act? I hope you're joking.

[InsaneApache]

The Treason Act? I hope you're joking.

Nope.

[al Roumi]

The Treason Act? I hope you're joking.

Nope.

Well I'd like to see if that one would stick! That said, it might be the first proper debate on the issue.