The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[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.

[Beskar]

Furunculus, you didn't comment at how the basics such as immigrants being unable to vote (as British Citizenship doesn't grow on trees) somehow translates into Labour votes in the Torygraph.

[Furunculus]

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.

the ghetto might be uni-cultural, but its existence stems from multi-culturalism.

the point is to operate an immigration policy at a level so minimal that natural dispersal and assimilation occurs, i.e. by the time the second bangladeshi arrives on the street the first one is already a happy and accepted brit within his community. if ten arrive at once and start demanding a mosque the locals are going to get spooked; their community is being changed from the happy comfort zone of familiarity, and it their happiness and welfare that i look to first.

Furunculus, you didn't comment at how the basics such as immigrants being unable to vote (as British Citizenship doesn't grow on trees) somehow translates into Labour votes in the Torygraph.

no, no i didn't.

but at the time this was happening, there were no strict controls regarding citizenship and immigrants, and we were facing a policy of repeated mass amnesties for illegal immigrants whilst stricter policies were put in place.

against that backdrop the anodyne mention of immigrants voting labour from the article i linked; "Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour." was both pertinent and accurate.

[Beskar]

against that backdrop the anodyne mention of immigrants voting labour from the article i linked; "Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour." was both pertinent and accurate.

Have they attempted to account for why this is the case? Is it because immigrants are generally poorer backgrounds than the typical Eton silver-spooned tory who would want to institute more ploicies which shifts more burden from the rich (who can pay) to the poor (who can't pay) ?

[Furunculus]

Have they attempted to account for why this is the case? Is it because immigrants are generally poorer backgrounds than the typical Eton silver-spooned tory who would want to institute more ploicies which shifts more burden from the rich (who can pay) to the poor (who can't pay) ?

i don't care why immigrants might choose to vote labour, what is disgusting is that labour chose deliberately to engage in social engineering (for whatever) reason. labour are the servants of the people, not mad scientists in charge of a fun laboratory.

That's just not how the world works. Immigration is (or should be) linked to economic opportunity and the availability of jobs. Your "1 Bangladeshi at a time" is devoid of a relation to real reasons for why immigration happens and is instead driven by a personal intolerance.

You would be happier with the French system of "we are all equal as the same" than the British "we are all equal as individuals". You should emigrate to France. LOL

no, immigration should be permitted for the good of the nation, and thus the inhabitents of that nation, asylum accepted.

i don't understand the second part.........?

[al Roumi]

the ghetto might be uni-cultural, but its existence stems from multi-culturalism.

the point is to operate an immigration policy at a level so minimal that natural dispersal and assimilation occurs, i.e. by the time the second bangladeshi arrives on the street the first one is already a happy and accepted brit within his community. if ten arrive at once and start demanding a mosque the locals are going to get spooked; their community is being changed from the happy comfort zone of familiarity, and it their happiness and welfare that i look to first.

That's just not how the world works. Immigration is (or should be) linked to economic opportunity and the availability of jobs. Your "1 Bangladeshi at a time" is devoid of a relation to real reasons for why immigration happens and is instead driven by a personal intolerance.

You would be happier with the French system of "we are all equal as the same" than the British "we are all equal as individuals". You should emigrate to France. LOL